That’s a very good question, and here is where you and I approach this whole process very differently. I’m coming at it big picture and with intent...your approach seems to emphasize the bureaucratic detail and the hypothetical. Both have their place, and I’m only pointing this out to say the following:
I cannot answer your hypothetical, but what I can do is state with certitude that the Founders were only worried about split loyalties, and they were dealig with a nation that at the time was barely more than an idea - and therefore, Ted Cruz, coming along some 240 years later, with a very established nationis in no way, shape or form the target of their restriction, even though they were vague enough to cause some bureaucratic consternation.
Your hypothetical, valid as it may be, is not the issue here and it would be wrong to conflate the Cruz problem simply because doing so does not answer every conceivable case going forward.
I think you and I agree on a rational approach to this issue. I’m not hung up on bureacratic details. My hypothetical was just that - a hypothetical. It was intended to prove a point.
Lakeshark is right. This issue can’t and won’t be resolved at FR. Both sides need to accept that those on the other side have come to their conclusions after careful thought. We’ve got to unify behind Cruz’s current efforts without discounting the concerns of FRiends with whom we may disagree.