It does not work, because the allegiance is divided. The author misconstrued the principle due to an erroneous reading of Blackstone’s Commentaries. Sir Edward Coke in Calvin’s Case 1608 correctly observed any person who was subject-made was naturalized, whereas a subject-born was a subject by birth with two English parents in the jurisdiction of England. However, due to the unique English policy of claiming as a subject any person born in England as a subject of the sovereign of England, commentators adopted the habit of referring to any person born in England, regardless of alien parentage, to be a natural born Englishman, despite the fact their status as English subjects was authorized by a Naturalization Act enacted by Parliament and not by natural law. I makes no difference which of the many sometimes misleading terminologies are used, including natural born subject or naturalized citizen versus natural born citizen, the meaning and substance of the law is what determines whether a child born abroad is figuratively a naturalized subject or citizen by unnatural statutory law or actually a natural born citizen by natural law.
Some people have attempted to argue the phrase, natural born citizen, as it was used in the Constitution could have meant a person born with alien parentage, because English/British law recognized a person born in the jurisdiction with alien parents was an English/British subject. This argument fails for many reasons. Among those failed arguments, we know the original draft only required the President to be a U.S. citizen for the required period of residency. If the authors had intended for the child of one or two alien parents to be sufficient to qualify to become President no further changes would have been needed. But a change was made, and the change was proposed by the future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, John Jay, when he argued the President must be a natural born citizen to keep a foreigner from becoming the Commander-in-Chief of the American Army. The word, foreigner, at that time indicated a person having any personal relationship with a foreign allegiance. Ted Cruz was born with a personal allegiance to two foreign governments, Canada and Cuba. Marco Rubio was born with an allegiance to Cuba, due to his parents being citizens of Cuba at the time he was born in the United States.
I don’t disagree with you but there is a lot of US case law that does-Justice Swayne in the previous post for example. I think the SCOTUS would declare Marco Rubio a NBC without a lot of deliberation.
Thank you for the clear precise explanation.
Divided loyalty was what the founders wanted to avoid....
Unfortunately we can explain till eternity, but to many who have been confused and with blinders on nothing can shine through.