The logical inference in this Supreme Court case as taken with the others Supreme Court cases, the phrase usages and explanations make who is a natural born citizen and who is not a natural born citizen.
indicates it is very hard to lose one’s citizenship by birth in the USA.
Kawakita v. US indicates that he is only a citizen with split allegiances, and was explicitly a 14th Amendment citizen.
Kawakita renewed his United States passport, once more taking the oath of allegiance to the United States.
No natural born citizen should be asked to take an oath of allegiance since it is naturally known that he is, and not required to receive a US passport. I did not have to pledge an oath to the United States to get my passport.
So it seems the answer is yes.
No, the answer is no.
“No natural born citizen should be asked to take an oath of allegiance since it is naturally known that he is, and not required to receive a US passport. I did not have to pledge an oath to the United States to get my passport.”
Did you apply in 1939?
Currently, no citizen takes an oath of allegiance to get their US passport. There isn’t a passport of “natural born citizens” and another for “questionable loyalty citizenship by birth’.
“The logical inference in this Supreme Court case as taken with the others Supreme Court cases, the phrase usages and explanations make who is a natural born citizen and who is not a natural born citizen.”
Well, another logical inference is that the traitor wasn’t running for President. In other cases, native born and natural born are used interchangeably, and that seems to be the current consensus of legal authority.
A quick search reveals that at least in 1903, all passport applicants took an oath of allegiance:
You are welcome.