Replies

THIS is the consequence of ANY form of dual citizenship. THIS is why and how Natural Born Citizenship stands as it does, it prevents not ONLY problematic issues with loyalty, but ALSO problems with aggressive nations USING that citizenship to control anyone with that dual citizenship.

I'd like to give a little more attention to this paragraph, for you and other readers because it exemplifies the confused and twisted thinking that comes from wrong ideas about "dual citizenship".

Let's get this fact straight first of all: the United States does not grant anyone dual nationality of a foreign nation. The foreign nation does. And in doing so, they can use any criteria they want to, from the strict to the whimsical. And there is nothing that the United States can or should do about it.

Except, to understand that whatever these foreign nations do, We the People rule here. We enact our own laws. We decide who our citizens are, and we protect them to the best of our ability. We can enact a law that enjoins our courts from recognizing any claims brought within our jurisdiction based on a claim of foreign citizenship. Maybe we already have. That's our sovereign right. We could also enact legislation that declares that we do not and will not recognize any such competing claims on the loyalty of our citizens.

But we need to be clear. No such law would prevent the arrest, trial detention or imprisonment of a US citizen in Iran if Iran deems that person to be one of theirs. Iran controls its own laws and its own actions within its polity. That must be clear to you. If Iran declared you to be a Citizen, no intensity of scorn, no enactment of legislation, no jawboning by the President, and no cries of pain from your relatives will protect you from Iran if you choose to physically go there. Conversely, if you remain within the realm of protection that the US can afford to its citizens, you should have no worries.

You err in thinking that the status of "natural born citizen" will protect you from this sort of predation by an aggressive foreign state.

If Britain were still our enemy, then Donald Trump would be vulnerable to precisely this sort of predation as as result of the British nationality he inherited from his dual-citizen mother.

This would be true despite the fact that under every interpretation of of the meaning of natural born citizen that I am aware of, Donald Trump qualifies. But, none of that has one whit of significance to Great Britain, which, by law, extends its nationality to the offspring of their subjects.

In short, the entire idea of placing dual citizenship at the heart of how we determine who is and who is not a natural born citizenship add nothing of value to the discussion, and adds much confusion and erroneous thinking. We need an approach to this subject that leads to clarity, not confusion and illogic.

On the subject of loyalty, the Framers were concerned about the loyalty of the child. They were not concerned about specious claims to loyalty ginned up by one foreign power or another. Their concern was with the child, and mere dual citizenship was not and could not ever be determinative of the child's loyalty. In many, or even most of the cases the child might not even be aware of the claims upon his loyalty made by a foreign power. I doubt Donald Trump loses sleep over the fact that British law makes him a subject of the crown, nor do I suspect that he harbors a secret loyalty to the homeland of his mother. Nor should you.