[Behind the Blue Wall]

You’re missing that in 2019 neither Canada nor the U.S. requires any exclusive allegiance. It’s a good question as to why they continue to include the language of exclusivity in the Oath, but practically that’s not the impact. My wife doesn’t have to do anything one way or the other, and yet she and my son both have a theretical allegiance to a foreign sovereign. Do you want to make it a question of fact, like in each case we’ll have to find out exactly what the naturalized dual citizen parent did or did not do, and those actions will determine (retroactively?) the natural born citizenship status of the child? That seems even less workable than having a foreign government’s action being determinative.

[so_real]

You’re missing that in 2019 neither Canada nor the U.S. requires any exclusive allegiance.

Not missed; discarded as irrelevant.

Congress is Constitutionally authorized to make uniform laws of naturalization. An excellent rationale as to why the naturalization oath contains a renunciation is the simple rationale: that after the oath is taken, even if only for a minute, the oath-taker possesses a pure allegiance to the United States. This is literally what the oath produces as all foreign entanglements are fully renounced: a pure allegiance. It is so simple; it does what it says it does.

Whether the oath-taker preserves that allegiance from that minute forward, or not, is a right and responsibility of the newly naturalized citizen as best suits all personal considerations. But no one can argue that the new citizen didn't possess a pure allegiance for at least a brief period of time.

Neither our government nor the government of the nation of origin can force the new citizen to preserve or not-to-preserve that allegiance. If our government cannot force it, and our government cannot verify it (not having access to all foreign government records regarding their citizens), then requiring it is all bark and no bite.

It is discarded as irrelevant.

In this nation we are innocent until proved guilty. Likewise, the allegiance is pure until an accuser successfully proves otherwise. This is not complex thinking at all. The liberal media *make* it complex in an effort to eliminate our borders and destroy our sovereignty. But if you stick to common sense, it all lays out entirely reasonably. This is why the black-robed tyrants silenced Obama's accusers for a trumped up lack of standing. They feared Obama would be proved other than a natural born citizen. And the fear was justified, so they silenced the accusers proactively.

You say your wife and your son have a theoretical allegiance to a foreign government. That's up to you. Likewise they have a theoretical pure allegiance to the United States. Again, that's up to you. The U.S. government will err on the side of "innocence" and give the benefit of the doubt that the allegiance is pure (as it was when the naturalization oath was taken) until such time as it is proved otherwise. Don't exercise the rights and responsibilities of foreign citizenship, or bribe/blackmail black-robed tyrants into silencing your accusers, and it cannot be proved. Simple.

Assuming you did not exercise the rights and responsibilities of foreign citizenship up until the time of your son's birth, he can be nothing but a natural born citizen. What he chooses to do with that, when he reaches his age of majority, is up to him. If he chooses to exercise the rights of a dual citizen, then a dual citizen he makes of himself. Be certain he understands that lesson in civics as he matures. Constitutionally, dual citizens are not eligible for POTUS.