[unspun]

Perhaps, you could provide a link to the law that states that a person gives up his status as a natural born citizen if he for any point in his life is considered a dual citizen.

That is an example of court usurpation of what should be legislation. It is for the court to decide. See my immediate prior post, about why it is absurd to apply this in the instance of the question of whether or not one is a "natural born Citizen."

The language "natural born Citizen" was at its essence used to refer to someone without any other allegiance or jurisdicion.

See the John Jay letter here, which spells this out, in the common understanding maintained at the time, as per Vatel and Tucker.

Afroyim v. Rusk and its subsequent judicial activist decisions (and legislatively derelict abdications of responsibility) do not touch "natural born Citizen," even if they are allowed to continue to wrongly pollute court decisions.

[trumandogz]

See the John Jay letter here, which spells this out, in the common understanding maintained at the time, as per Vatel and Tucker.

Read Perkins v. Elg which states that a person born to one naturalized citizen and one non citizen is a "natural born citizen" of the United States.