“The language and meaning of the Constitutional provision as to “natural born citizen” permit dual citizenship.”
No, it does not and cannot possibly do so, because statutory law of immigration and naturalization is the exact opposite in meaning to natural law, and natural law is the fundamental basis for the definition of natural born citizenship.
“Since there is no international convention on citizenship, comity among nations tends to favor acceptance of multiple citizenship.”
Those are more false statements. There are and have been numerous “international conventions on citizenship.” Example: The European Convention on Nationality (E.T.S. No. 166).
Wikipedia -— Multiple Citizenship
History[edit]
Up until the late 19th century, nations often decided who they claimed as their citizens or subjects, and did not recognize any other nationalities they held. Many states did not recognize the right of their citizens to renounce their citizenship without permission, with the feudal theory of perpetual allegiance to the sovereign still common. This meant that people could hold multiple citizenships, with none of their nations recognizing any other of their citizenships. This state of affairs sometimes led to international incidents, notably the War of 1812, triggered by British impressment of American seamen who were alleged to be British subjects into naval service.[2]
In the aftermath of the 1867 Fenian Rising, Irish-Americans who had gone to Ireland to participate in the uprising and were caught were charged with treason, as the British authorities considered them to be British subjects. This outraged many Irish-Americans, to which the British responded by pointing out that, just like British law, American law also recognized perpetual allegiance.[2] As a result, Congress passed the Expatriation Act of 1868, which granted Americans the right to freely renounce their U.S. citizenship. Britain followed suit with a similar law, and years later, signed a treaty agreeing to treat British subjects who had become U.S. citizens as no longer holding British nationality. During this time, diplomatic incidents had also arisen between the United States and several other European countries over their tendency to conscript naturalized American citizens visiting their former homelands. In response, the US government negotiated agreements with various European states known as the Bancroft Treaties, under which the signatories pledged to treat the voluntary naturalization of a former citizen or national with another sovereign nation as a renunciation of their citizenship.[2]
As a result, the theory of perpetual allegiance largely fell out of favor with governments during the late 19th century. With the consensus of the time being that dual citizenship would only lead to diplomatic problems, more governments began prohibiting it, and revoking the nationality of citizens holding another nationality. By the mid-20th century, dual nationality was largely prohibited worldwide, although there were exceptions. For example, a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings permitted Americans born with citizenship in another country to keep it without losing their U.S. citizenship.[2][3]
At the 1930 League of Nations Codification Conference, an attempt was made to codify nationality rules into a universal worldwide treaty, the 1930 Hague Convention, whose chief aims would be to completely abolish both statelessness and dual citizenship. It proposed laws that would have reduced both, but in the end was ratified by only twenty nations.[2]
However, the consensus against dual nationality began to erode due to changes in social mores and attitudes. By the late 20th century it was becoming gradually accepted again.[2] Many states were lifting restrictions on dual citizenship. For example, the British Nationality Act 1948 removed restrictions on dual citizenship in the United Kingdom, the 1967 Afroyim v. Rusk ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited the U.S. government from involuntarily stripping citizenship from Americans over dual citizenship, and the Canadian Citizenship Act, 1976, removed restrictions on dual citizenship in Canada. The number of states allowing multiple citizenship further increased after a treaty in Europe requiring signatories to limit dual citizenship lapsed in the 1990s, and countries with high emigration rates began permitting it to maintain links with their respective diasporas.[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship]
“Well before the Constitution was written, it was recognized that citizenship at birth could be based on the citizenship of the parents instead of simply the location of birth.”
The jus sanguinis doctrine of citizenship originated in prehistoric eras. Jus soli doctrine is more recent, and it is a variant of the jus sanguinis doctrine intended to accommodate expansions of the society. neither doctrine is anything new, since they were in use into prehistoric eras.
“Diplomacy and commerce often had need for lengthy foreign postings, which inevitably meant that spouses would come along and that there would be births abroad. It was not thought that a child could fairly and properly be denied the citizenship of its parents simply because the child was born abroad.”
That’s nonsense, because it was common practice to deny citizenship to aliens and the children of aliens in many societies. The children of alien parents resident in the United States did not qualify for U.S. citizenship at birth until the late part of the 19th Century. although they were born in the United States with an alien father and mother, they had to apply for naturalization to become U.S. citizens.
“And, if you think it through, you may come to believe as I do, that this point is also connected to the rationale against anchor baby citizenship. The mere happenstance of birth on US soil should not be permitted to confer citizenship when the parents are here illegally. The citizenship of such children ought to be based on their parent’s citizenship, not on having hopped the border.”
It was until two SCOTUS decisions falsely changed the laws using false documents and false analysis to do so.
Although there are various treaties and agreements as to citizenship, unlike those in regard to the conduct of war, the principles as to dual and multiple citizenship are not so settled as to be considered generally binding. That is what I meant as to the absence of an international convention on the subject.