Replies

Have full sympathy for the basic premise that dual citizenship points to the possibility of divided loyalties in an executive.

Strictly speaking, however, dual citizenship can’t be cited as an absolute bar to the office of POTUS.

The way I see it is this: Any country that wants to (say, as part of an effort to repopulate with potentially child-bearing young people) can pass a naturalization law that deems you a full citizen of that country solely because a GRANDPARENT of yours was born there or was a citizen there. A U.S. citizen who also finds himself in possession of citizenship in a foreign country with such a liberal naturalization law as the one just described could easily meet the strict NBC definition set forth in Minor v. Happersett (born in the United States to two U.S. Citizen parents).

Would you disqualify such a one from running for or serving as POTUS? I wouldn’t. One way to think of it is: How far would we want to go with that kind of strictness?

The way I see it, a country that uses the Minor v. Happersett definition as a local screen to ward off potential divided loyalty in the national government’s chief executive has put a full generation’s buffer between the individual in question and any potentially strong source of pluckable “Old Country” heartstrings. That would seem to be sufficient, considering how young people tend to go about their lives in any given country (and particularly in the U.S.).

Think about it. Grandparents don’t typically have any independent mojo when it comes to the minds and hearts of their grandchildren when it comes to where the same can be led in terms of national loyalty. If the intervening generation felt sufficiently strongly about their current homeland to actually make the plunge and secure U.S. citizenship prior to the birth of the grandchild in question, the issue will almost certainly have been settled before it ever even comes up. The child will surely, meaning, without any serious question, end up being a U.S. patriot, if he has any potential at all to hold or display such feelings (as most people do).

"Have full sympathy for the basic premise that dual citizenship points to the possibility of divided loyalties in an executive. Strictly speaking, however, dual citizenship can’t be cited as an absolute bar to the office of POTUS. The way I see it is this: Any country that wants to (say, as part of an effort to repopulate with potentially child-bearing young people) can pass a naturalization law that deems you a full citizen of that country solely because a GRANDPARENT of yours was born there or was a citizen there. A U.S. citizen who also finds himself in possession of citizenship in a foreign country with such a liberal naturalization law as the one just described could easily meet the strict NBC definition set forth in Minor v. Happersett (born in the United States to two U.S. Citizen parents). Would you disqualify such a one from running for or serving as POTUS? I wouldn’t. One way to think of it is: How far would we want to go with that kind of strictness?"

You are way over thinking it. To be eligible for the office of the Presidency you must be born on the soil of the United States to two citizen parents. We have a lot of people that meet that requirement so there is no need to go any further. Laws of other countries cannot change a persons parents or where they were born. It's set in stone at birth. A citizen either meets this requirement or they don't.