Were naturalized citizens previously required to renounce their existing citizenships? Keep in mind, some countries will simply not let you renounce their citizenship.
Did you have to pledge Allegiance to the United States? Like I said, there is a huge difference between now and then. We really don’t even follow the Constitution anymore. Read it and then look around at the way our society is. Look at the size of government, look at the laws.
Truthfully, the Supreme Court has made lots of wrong decisions with regard to the Constitution. I think the most glaring is the fact that the recent Heller case was a 5-4 decision, it is extremely disturbing that it was not unanimous. There is nothing ambiguous about the intent or the way it is worded yet 4 Justices brushed that aside.
Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.
Under United States law, an alien was required to make a declaration of his intention to become a citizen, and renounce all allegiance to his former government two years before he could make a final application.
Sen. Trumbull further restates the the goal of the language: It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens Note that Trumbull does not say temporarily within our jurisdiction, but completely within our jurisdiction. He of course is talking about the laws of naturalization and consent to expatriation by the immigrant in order for him to come completely within the jurisdiction of the United States and its laws, i.e., he cannot be a subject of another nation. Without this full and complete jurisdiction, any foreign government can intervene on behalf of their own citizens while they visit or reside within the United States - just as the United States is known to do on behalf of U.S. citizens within other countries. On July 18, 1868 Sen. Howard explained expatriation to mean the emigration of the foreigner from his native land to some other land non animo revertendi; that is, with the intention of changing his domicile and making his permanent home in the country to which he emigrates. Sen. Howard explained that expatriation could only be complete through law alone, and not through any act of the immigrant acting on his own outside of the law. John Bingham said in April of 1872 that no one could be considered a citizen of the United States until they first surrender their allegiance to the country of their origin:
By all your legislation from the organization of your Government to this hour the legislative construction of the American people is that a citizen or subject of any foreign power, however long he may be domiciled in this country, does not become a citizen of the United States or surrender his allegiance to the foreign government of his birth unless he does in accordance with our local law declare his intention to sever that foreign allegiance, or in accordance therewith take an oath of allegiance to our Constitution and our government, and renounce allegiance to every foreign government. That is the traditional policy of your country. Bingham also mentioned the right of expatriation is one of the fundamental principles of American Government, and in another speech, said, expatriation is what distinguishes American law with that of the English common law, leaving the two entirely incompatible with each other.
Like I said what the law is now and what it is supposed to be based on the Constitution is very different.