The State Department Has “Always” Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality.

Lansing intro2

Those who argue that the United States has no obligation to recognize and respect dual nationality – as to American citizens – have been unequivocally proved wrong by official correspondence between former Secretary of State Robert Lansing (who served from 1905-1920) and former Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. 

The opinion of the State department was published in The American Journal of International Law, Volume 9.  We shall begin with the factual background to this official inquiry:

“MY DEAR SENATOR LODGE:  I have received your letter of June 5, 1915, in reply to my letter of June 2, concerning the detention in Italy for military service of Ugo Da Prato, who was born in Boston, August 25, 1895, and went to Italy in 1912 to study architecture, and whose father, Antonio Da Prato, a native of Italy, obtained naturalization, as a citizen of this country in the District Court of the United States at Boston, March 19, 1892; that is, before the son’s birth…

As Ugo Da Prato was born in this country after his father had obtained naturalization as a citizen of the United States, it does not appear that he can be considered an Italian subject under Italian law, and I have no doubt he will be released.”

Please take notice of two crucial facts.  First, the State Department was particularly concerned that the father had naturalized before the son was born.  Second, the State Department also took official notice of the nationality laws of Italy as a determining factor.  Such recognition is necessary for many reasons, the least of which is the avoidance of diplomatic conflicts.

The correspondence between Lansing and Lodge provides a textbook example perfectly tailored to educate our nation on this issue.

In that correspondence (which I encourage you to read in full), Lansing refers to Article 11 of the Italian Civil Code.  Article 11 stated that Italian subjects who naturalize in a foreign nation forfeit Italian citizenship.

Lansing’s correspondence also considers Article 12 which demanded that all former Italian citizens – who forfeited citizenship under Article 11 – were still required to serve in the Italian military.

As to Article 12, Lansing informed Lodge it would not be applicable to the son, since the son had been born after the father had naturalized in America.  Therefore, according to Italian law, the son had never been an Italian citizen, so Italy could not claim him.

Lansing stressed that the son had been born after the father naturalized as a US citizen.  Had the son been born before the father was naturalized, Italian law would have required the son to serve in the military.  But since the son was born to a US Citizen in the US, Lansing assured Lodge of the son’s eventual release from custody.

Lansing’s confidence that the son would be released from custody is based upon his undeniable status as a natural born citizen of the US, whereas persons born to alien fathers in the US are susceptible to such custody by foreign nations.  In my opinion, which I believe to be the same as the framers, no person deemed by the US State Department to owe direct allegiance to another nation should ever be eligible to the office of President.

As Secretary Lansing’s letter clearly indicates, had the son been born before his father naturalized, Italy could require him to serve in the military (and bear arms against the US).   And there would have been nothing the US could do about it.  This is a perfect example of why the US Commander In Chief should never have possessed dual allegiance.  Such a state of affairs is completely unnatural to allegiance and to the oath of office.

Chester Arthur’s father was naturalized fourteen years after Chester was born.  Therefore, Arthur would have been officially recognized as a British subject by the State Department had they known of this fact.

Obama’s father never became, or even applied for, US citizenship.  Furthermore, Obama has admitted that his birth status was “governed by” the laws of the United Kingdom.  Therefore, both Obama and Arthur, at the time of their births, according to the State Department, owed dual allegiance to the US and to the British monarch.


Both Obama and Arthur owed allegiance to the British monarchy at the time of their births.  Recognition and respect for that allegiance has always been the official policy of the US State Department.  But Senator Lodge was not aware of that policy.  He was in a misguided state of disbelief that any person could have dual nationality.  Here is what Lodge wrote to Secretary Lansing:

“I note what you say in regard to the Italian law which obviously does not apply to young Da Prato, but, speaking generally I can not assent for a moment to the proposition that such a thing as dual citizenship is possible.  As you well know, we constituted ourselves as champions against the doctrine of indefeasible allegiance and have succeeded in compelling the acceptance of our view by all the nations with the exception, I think, of Russia and Turkey.  The abandonment of indefeasible allegiance is in itself the establishment of the principle that there can be no such thing as dual citizenship, either in whole or in part, and to attempt to retain the right over a boy, born in this country of parents not naturalized– which is not the case with Da Prato– for military service in the country of origin of the parents is absurd on its face and is something to which we should never assent for a moment…

Italy *  *  *  has no possible claim on the children of Italian parents, not naturalized, born in this country, especially if they have exercised all the rights of citizenship as they are entitled to do under the 14th amendment to the Constitution.  Such a child has never been an Italian subject for one minute.  Italy has no more claim on him than she has on one of my children or one of yours…”

Secretary Lansing then clearly and cogently explained that Senator Lodge’s thoughts were legally misguided:

“As this general subject has been the cause of considerable comment I venture to discuss the matter at some length.

Dual nationality is not a theory or doctrine promulgated by the Department, but is the unavoidable result of the conflicting laws of different countries… The status of a person who is born a citizen of one country under the jus soli and a citizen of another country under the jus sanguinis is commonly termed dual nationality.  Whether or not this term is considered apt, the fact remains that many persons are born citizens or subjects of two countries under their respective laws…

…Also, a person born in the United States of Italian parents is born a citizen of the United States under the law of this country, and a subject of Italy under the law of Italy.  The fact of dual nationality has been recognized by the Department for many years.  Secretary of State Fish in a report to the President dated August 25, 1875, said:

‘…Such children are born to a double character.  The citizenship of the father is that of the child so far as the laws of the country of which the father is a citizen are concerned and within the jurisdiction of that country; but the child, from the circumstances of his birth, may acquire rights and owes another fealty besides that which attaches to the father.  (Moore’s International Law Digest, Volume III, page 520.)’

…I desire further to call your attention to the following statement in the report of the citizenship board which was appointed during the administration of President Roosevelt… which report was forwarded to the Speaker of the House of Representatives by Secretary of State Elihu Root, with a letter of approval and commendation dated December 18 1906:

‘Inasmuch as our Government declares that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States, and also recognizes, as well as adopts, on its own part, the rule that children of citizens resident abroad are citizens of the country to which the parents owe allegiance there arises as will be seen a conflict of citizenship spoken of usually as dual allegiance.  House Document No. 326, 59th Congress, 2d session, page 74.’ “

Lansing slams the point home – which is agreed upon by the three former Secretaries of State – that the true problem is dual allegiance (aka “dual fealty”).

For such a condition to exist as to the Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces is total blasphemy to the oath of office required of the President.  Such a condition is certainly not natural to the concept of allegiance.

But most important in quashing the favored argument of Obama ineligibility denialists is the statement by Secretary Root which confirms that – not only does the US recognize dual nationality – we have “adopted” it as the law of our own country.

Furthermore, Lansing felt it necessary to stress again the crucial importance of whether the child was born after naturalization of the father:

“For the reasons mentioned above, it is obviously important for the Department in dealing with the case of a person who was born in this country and had a father of Italian birth, to ascertain whether his father had previously acquired naturalization as a citizen of the United States.  This is especially important when it is a case, such as that which you have presented, of a person who has not yet reached his majority.”

Because the United States has adopted the position that we shall abide by foreign nationality laws as to persons born with dual allegiance, such a person may be apprehended in a foreign country and forced to bear arms against the US.  And there is nothing the US can do, from a diplomatic stand point, to force that person’s release.

Furthermore, no such person should ever desire to be President, especially if that person is a Constitutional scholar.  It should be obvious to such a person that they would be submitting the nation to a Constitutional crisis.  A true statesman would spare the nation such a debacle and perhaps be happy to serve his country as a Senator.

In conclusion, I shall reiterate that the US State Department has “always” recognized dual allegiance and has “adopted” it under law.  Anyone who argues otherwise is either ignorant or lying.


by Leo Donofrio, Esq.  (…with a big hat tip to my research team on this one.)

Pidgeon & Donofrio GP

25 Responses to “The State Department Has “Always” Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality.”

  1. borderraven Says:
    On the 10th of February, 1855, Congress passed an act,1 entitled ”An act to secure the right of citizenship to children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits thereof,’ the second section of which provides, ‘that any woman, who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” (Repealed in 1922)

    Congressional Globe
    page 378
    Public XXII

  2. borderraven Says:

    I forgot to add the 1855 act benefited Marie Elg’s mother, so at birth Marie was NBC.

  3. Of course we all know that Perkins v. Elg also deals with this very subject.
    There is so much historical evidence that points to Obama’s ineligibility that it can only be hidden by a complicit media, and a disinterested citizenry.
    There is nothing that the Obama apologists can say to refute this analysis, although we know that they stop at nothing, and the hypnotized never lie.

  4. borderraven Says:


    There is plenty of discussion on dual-citizenship in Elg in the Fourth point.

  5. BillCutting Says:

    I am sure you have seen this article from 1915

    Problems of Dual Nationality in Time of War; Expert Replies to Colonel Roosevelt’s Criticism of State Department Letter Which Was Characterized, as “Dangerously Close to Treason to the U.S.”

    By Richard W. Flournoy, Jr. ();
    September 12, 1915,

    ed. The link doesnt work for me. I dont recall the article. Please relink as it looks good from title. Thanks. -Leo

  6. Leo, if you hit it any harder, that ball would go into orbit.

    Brilliant work!

  7. Tony Stark Says:

    Maybe the reason why Obama refuses to release his school records is that he flunked the class on the Constitution but managed to graduate anyway.

  8. Of course we all know that the dicta of Perkins v. Elg also deals with this very subject.
    There is so much historical evidence that points to Obama’s ineligibility that it can only be hidden by a complicit media, and a disinterested citizenry.
    There is nothing that the Obama apologists can say to refute this analysis, although we know that they stop at nothing, and the hypnotized never lie.

  9. BTW, I happy you re-opened your blog.
    Just giving everyone a chance to review what others have discovered as well.
    Born with Dual Citizenship means NOT NBC. That has been established here.
    Being born on British Soil of a British father, and late registered (not accepted by the state) creates an entirely new concept of fraud. The question then becomes how did Obama get on the ballot in states that have laws to prevent it? Who is responsible to enforce said laws, and now that the people of the United States have suffered, whom can this be brought to for grievances? It seems that we the people no longer have rights under the Constitution, as SCOTUS doesn’t give the people standing. Many parties can claim harm by Obama’s policies, including the illegal ones (not enforcing or selectively enforcing laws) and preventing oil exploration and energy independence, or the Chrysler dealers for that matter. It seems as though SCOTUS is saying that it will no longer review what is Constitutional, and therefore has no point for continued existence!
    What a terrible price the DNC inflicted upon the people of the United States for the election of one POTUS.

  10. BillCutting Says:

    Try this one
    or the googlebooks version

    Richard W. Flournoy, Jr.

    And in support of your article I also offer this.

    The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal: the first ten years, 1981-1991 : an … By Wayne Mapp

  11. BillCutting Says:


    [Because “municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired,” Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 329 (1939), 8 an applicant may be deemed a national of a particular country under its domestic law, even if he or she has no significant voluntary ties whatever to that country. 9]

    [ Municipal laws broadly applying the doctrine of jus sanguinis can . . . create dual nationality without regard to the individual’s connection to the state. Under this doctrine children are nationals if their parents are nationals, irrespective of the links (birth or domicile) between the child and the state.” Note, supra note 3, at 607 (footnote omitted).]

    Deputy Assistant Attorney General
    Office of Legal Counsel

    ed. well done. thanks! – leo

  12. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 68, talks about A2S1C5, though not by name.

    “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”

    This reflects the primary purpose for the requirement of “natural born Citizen”
    as well as the intrinsic quality of the President, that be is a “Creature of our own”. This dovetails with the law of nations’ “Indigenes” in French (indigenous). How can one be a “creature of our own” if born of a foreign father? Consider the many cases of alien, non native species unleashed on the US, and the damage they do, compared to the damage that Obama continues to inflict on the US.

    ed. excellent point. – leo

  13. thinkwell Says:


    I hope you see fit to comment on this observation as I think I have distilled the logical essence of the “dual” verses “natural born” citizen conundrum, at least from our country’s point of view. To wit:

    Although the USA generally adheres to the Law of Nations regarding cases of international competing claims of citizenship and, thus, may officially recognize the legitimacy of the dual citizenship claims of other nations placed upon certain of its own naturalized, foreign-born or even native-born citizens, it in no case ever recognizes such claims against what it considers its own natural born Citizens. Simply put, in the eyes of the USA, natural born Citizenship and dual citizenship are always mutually exclusive.

    In the well known case of the Elg child, she was born in the USA to Swedish immigrant, US citizen parents and thus was considered by our law to be a natural born Citizen of our country. At the age of four Marie Elizabeth Elg was removed to Sweden by her parents, who eventual renounced their US citizenship to reclaim their original Swedish birthright. Sweden probably then considered the Elg child to be one of their own through their derivative citizenship laws. But within eight months of obtaining the age of majority, Marie Elizabeth reasserted her US citizenship by obtaining a US passport through the American consul in Sweden. Her unbroken natural born Citizenship status was eventually confirmed by the SCOTUS in 1939.

    I don’t think the dual citizenship side of the issue was ever considered by the court in the Elg case, but considering that the SCOTUS explicitly confirmed her nbC status, I suppose they also would have officially rejected any claims by the Swedish government of dual citizenship in her case.

    So, what do you think? Are natural born Citizenship and dual citizenship always mutually exclusive?

    ed. I think as to A2 S1, all that matters is the status of the child at the time of their birth. The framers could not cover nor foresee every possible situation, so they settled on this particular safeguard, one that assures the child is born in the US to parents who are citizens.- leo

  14. With regard to Senator John McCain, I was preparing to ask you a question about U.S. State Department Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7, 7 FAM 1113 c.(1) that you previously cited. By happenstance, my internet search turned up this section of the Foreign Affairs Manual.

    Click to access 86757.pdf

    This section is titled 7 FAM 1130 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT. Two sections are of particular interest. I will paraphrase the sections.

    7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency

    a. No court has determined if a person born to citizens abroard is a natural born citizen.

    d. A person who is a natural born citizen pursuant to statute is not necessarily one according to the Constitution.

    7 FAM 1131.9 Birth in Panama; Special Provisions

    After citing laws that apply retroactively, this section says this:

    “[A] child born in Panama on or after February 26, 1904, to a U.S. citizen employee of the U.S. Government or the Panama Railroad Company is automatically a U.S. citizen at birth even if the citizen parent had never previously resided or been physically present in the United States. The child is not required to take any particular steps in order to retain citizenship.”

    Based on 1113.c.(1) I had come to the conclusion that Senator John McCain may not even be a citizen. He still is not a natural born citizen.

    By the way I may need a good lawyer (I’m kidding, I hope.). I wrote an e-mail to Senator McCain (I am an Arizonan) based on 1113 c(1). I questioned whether he was even a citizen. I did qualify my question by saying that perhaps I may have misinterpreted the section or that there may be other legislation that counters this section.

    If Senator McCain responds, I will let you know. Based on previous experience with writing to my representatives I doubt that he will.

  15. Philip N. Says:

    Bradley Manning is a perfect example as to why the Framers of the US Constitution feared people with Divided Allegiane and did not want such a person to become President.

  16. borderraven Says:

    Pete has a point.

    We cannot sue Pelosi, as a DNC Chair.

    Orly discovered the California Secretary of State is not culpable since there is no state law violated.

    Eric Holder won’t uphold his oath to the US Constitution.

    Berg proved Congress can’t be sued.

    The list goes on.

  17. thinkwell Says:

    I asked, “Are natural born Citizenship and dual citizenship always mutually exclusive?

    You then replied: I think as to A2 S1, all that matters is the status of the child at the time of their birth. The framers could not cover nor foresee every possible situation, so they settled on this particular safeguard, one that assures the child is born in the US to parents who are citizens.- leo

    I take that to mean two things:

    1) You don’t wish to directly answer the question (probably because you don’t know the answer with 100 percent certainty – maybe no one does – I can certainly accept that); and

    2) More importantly, the question of the mutual exclusivity between “natural born Citizenship” and dual citizenship is irrelevant to the requirements of A2 S1 in your opinion.

    Of course, in addition to the nbC requirement, A2 S1 has the age and residency requirements as well (but these weren’t under discussion). And an eligible person’s nbC birth status must have been maintained continuously, for if once lost it can never be regained.

    Further, I would observe that a child born here to US government recognized dual-citizen parents would be considered a natural born Citizen. This would be true even if both the child’s parents had themselves been the anchor baby children of illegal aliens and that child had been removed to and raised in the alien land of the grandparents. This dangerous perversion of the Framer’s intent is only possible because of the present misinterpretation of Fourteenth Amendment law, in my opinion. Eliminate the possibility of anchor babies and this loophole would be shut tight (and Washington could quit spinning so much in his grave).

    Take care and thanks for resurfacing. The country needs you.

  18. Leo,

    About this “dual nationality” thing. How can one reconcille that fact that Congress, in the sister Act to the 14th, came out directly opposed any “claims”, which is just pure conjecture not based in fact, of dual allegiance/citizenship:

    CHAP. CCXLIX – An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States.

    July 27, 1868 (Rights of American citizens in foreign states.

    Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Therefore,

    (Right of ex- patriation declared)

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.

    Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circumstances

    Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That whenever it shall be made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons for such imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the Presi-dent shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, it shall be the duty of the President to use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress

    Approved, July 27, 1868 [40th Congress, 2nd Session, Appendix to the Congressional Globe pg 561-62]

    We’re still at that infamous pass of what the definition of “is” is or in our case the definition of “subject to the jurisdiction”. That is the “key” to nationality & allegiance. The US Supreme in 1874 unanimously declared in the holding of the case before the court that it was:

    From Feudalism to Consent : Rethinking Birthright CitizenshipPublished on March 30, 2006 by John C. Eastman Legal Memorandum #18

    [T]he majority in that case (1872 The Slaughter-House Cases) correctly noted that the “main purpose” of the clause “was to establish the citizenship of the negro” and that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”[8] Justice Steven Field, joined by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Brad­ley in dissent from the principal holding of the case, likewise acknowledged that the clause was designed to remove any doubts about the constitu­tionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which pro­vided that all persons born in the United States were as a result citizens both of the United States and of the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.[9]

    Although the statement by the majority in Slaughter-House was dicta, the position regarding the “subject to the jurisdiction” language advanced there was subsequently adopted as holding by the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins.[10]…

    Drawing explicitly on the language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the Court continued:

    Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations[end quote]

    So when Gray wrote this deciding opinion in the Elk v Wilkins case just 6 years after the adoption of the 14th & its sisiter legislation, The Expatriation Act, he was fully aware of what “subject to the jurisdiction” was because it had already been codified in the 1866 civil Rights Act. Also, laws not supposing to bear redundancy, we find the definition of “subject to the jusrisdiction”, the Elk court merely had to go back a couple years because the 14th didn’t replace the 1866 Act, it merely ratified it by enjoining it to the US Constituion by the amendment process.

    In otherwords, the 1866 Act that was never repealed & is still in force today.

    ed. Your logic is right because the 1866 Civil Rights Act was still in force when WKA was decided, but your facts are wrong because that act was repealed in 1940.-Leo

    There was absolutely no doubt from the ruling in Elk v Wilkins that children born to any foreign father, regardless whether the father was a diplomat or not, was in the language of the Constitution a foreigner at birth. That is “jus sanguinis”. Also, Gray in the Elk opinion relied in US law but then some 14 yrs later in the WKA decision he had to go back to feudal law to somehow overturn his own holding in the Elk case.

    That to me is a real kicker here. Can we find any other cases in US history inwhich a Supreme Court justice overturns his own ruling and thus changes the definition of what “is” is?

    Leo, help me out here because I just can not reconcille in my mind that ‘dual citizenship” ever existed in the laws of this nation from the rulings in the cases that rely on US law and not some feudal doctrine of English subjectship that later came down the pike. That as well as the fact that the 14th did not repeal the 1866 Act, it merely strengthened & enforced it per Constitutional Amendment. Ergo, the law of “Redundancy” [Black’s Law 1150 5th Ed) Fed. R. Civil P. 12(f) and “Repugnancy” (Black’s Law 1171 5th Ed) Rule of Civil Proc. 8 should reign heavily in this matter.

  19. Leo,

    Do you have a link to that 1940 repeal that I can add to my research?

    ed. see this article by P.A. Madison which questions if WKA was wrongly decided…and read the second comment. It’s also in the FAM manual… – Leo

  20. OK, I see where the Act was repealed, however it still doesn’t change the fact that there could not have been 2 similar laws on the books with different meanings thus…

    by Congress in 1940 repealing the 1866 Act and leaving in tact the 14th and finally formally changing Title 8 to merely reflect the language of the 14th instead of the language of the 1866 Act, it still didn’t change the definition of the term “subject ot the jusrisdiction”. It merely updated it to reflect the language of the law left in place.

    The changes also did not affect the Expatrition Act of 1868 on dual allegiance, it merely removed part of it from Title 8 & transfered it under the laws on foreign affairs concerning the rights of US citizens abroad…

    Sections 13 and 14, relating to protection of citizens when abroad, were transferred to sections 1731 and 1732 of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

    Section 15, R.S. § 1999, which relates to right of expatriation, is now set out as a note under section 1481 of this title.


    this 1940 Nationality Act left in tact the law repudiating (“refutantia” in old English law) any claims, concepts or notions that the US had adopted any form of dual allegiance in our codified laws since its formation in 1776. IOW, one can not be a full “citizen” if they owed fetality to another nation, but I can see how they could claim to be a “national” aka “native” of the soil. Two very distinct terms in the eyes of the law. Native Americans were quote “nationals” however thay were not politically full “citizens” until 1940 and many not until a few decades later after the federal govt cracked down on the states.

    And that is why the US State Dept can not guarantee protection to those who claim to hold a foreign allegiance when they are traveling abroad. IOW, the US State Dept has officially issued a formal “dual allegiance traveler beware disclaimer” because ther is a law on the books that rejects it regardless of what they may claim in the FAM. And that takes us back to your article and the 2 different scenerios of a child born prior to naturalization and the child born after naturalization of the father. The US can not guarantee protection the child of the former due to his foreign allegiance at birth but the child of the later has the full & constitutional protection of the law. The only way to the child of the former to gain that protection is:

    SoundexIndex to Naturalization, Petitions for the United States District and Circuit Courts, Northern District of Illinois, and Immigration and Naturalization Service District 9 (1840-1950) Under the section on the background of Naturalization . . . .” (A1, S8, C4) this official government document states that:

    Married women and children under the age of twenty-one derived citizenship from their husband or father respectively. Children of unsuccessful applicants could apply for citizenship in their own right, at the age of twenty-one.

    1903 Cyclopedia of law and procedure, Volume 7 (America Law Book Company, New York) By William Mack, Howard Pervear Nash

    Children Of Aliens. The child of a citizen father and of an alien mother is a citizen ; but one born of an alien father and of a citizen mother is not a citizen

    DOUBLE CITIZENSHIP: In this country a double citizenship exists, for the term applies both to membership in the nation considered as a whole and to membership in the state in which the individual may reside

    John Locke as quoted by Wilson in Vol 1 of his works:

    ‘Tis plain,” says he, ” by the law of right reason, that a child is born a subject of no country or government. He is under his father’s tuition and authority, till he comes to the age of discretion; and then he is a freeman, at liberty what government he will put himself under ; what body politick he will unite himself to.”

  21. TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 1 > §§ 1 to 18
    §§ 1 to 18. Repealed or Omitted

    These sections, relating to citizenship, were affected by the Nationality Act of 1940, former section 501 et seq. of this title.

    That act was passed on Oct. 14, 1940, to consolidate and restate the laws of the United States regarding citizenship, naturalization, and expatriation…

    Section 1, relating to citizenship of persons born in the United States, was repealed by act Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 876, title I, subch. V, § 504, 54 Stat. 1172. It was from R.S. § 1992, which was revised from act Apr. 9, 1866, ch. 31, § 1, 14 Stat. 27

    American Diplomatic Code: TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN Powers From 1778 To 1834. (published 1834)

    (excerpt pg 565)

    [A]nterior to 1789, aliens were naturalized according to the laws of the several states composing the Union. Under this system, the forms varied and were often very loose. The latter was especially the case when they were drawn up by justices of the peace, as sometimes happened. Since that epoch, the forms have been uniform, and are only permitted before such courts of record as are designated by the laws of the United States. But the designation includes not only courts of the United States, properly so called, but courts of the several states. Minor children also of naturalized persons, if the former be within the limits of the Union, become ipso facto, naturalized. It must be added, that, for several years no discrimination as to the birth place of aliens was recorded. If attempts were made to procure the lists required, a first objection might have been that the courts of the several states were not bound to obey, in this respect, a call from the general government. But granting that all obeyed, the lists would have exhibited nothing more than the names of British natural born subjects, naturalized during a period of nearly thirty years, They would not designate seamen, the law not having required a record of the occupation; nor would they embrace minor children, their names never having been directed to be registered.[end quote]

    IOW, the law was revised to reflect the language of the 14th since the 1866 Act was no longer to be the main enforcer of these codes. It makes perfect sense. Also, by using the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction”, it leaves in place the enforcement of the Expatriation Act and the law repudiating dual allegiance. “Subject to the Jurisdiction” can not mean two different things in the same sentance in the law. One meaning for those born & one meaning for those naturalized which takes me back to Justice Waite & his deciding opinion in the Minor case and the oft quoted part of the opinion:

    [T]he Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners[end quote]

    However, one needs to continue reading where Waite explains it a bit further:

    [I]t is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

    The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,”…

    Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization, Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization[end quote]

    There is no distiction in the law as to the birthplace of the children of aliens. They are “persons” born and who become citizens upon the naturalization of the father and where “persons” who are born to citizens become citizens upon their birth.

  22. In large measure the culprit from which most, if not all, misunderstandings concerning “citizenship” within the U.S. is the “Born Clause” of the 14th Amendment its-self.

    I ask those that debate that native born and natural born are synonymous who then buttress their position with the Hail Britannia ramblings of Justice Gray in WKA to engage in a simple hypothetical.

    “Strip jus soli as an ‘automatic’ grant of citizenship and consider it ONLY as one of the circumstances requisite to being a natural born Citizen.

    Then apply only jus Sanguinis in ALL grants of Citizenship being considered for those within or without the Jurisdiction.

    Legally admitted immigrants being treated as now, a naturalization process, oath, etc.

    Now, who does the removal of jus soli affect…?”

    Most often the only response given is that I must be a racist, leaving the hypothetical unanswered.

    The FACT is that the only operative function remaining of the 14ths ‘Born Clause” is to grant the ‘citizenship benefit’ to those born within the territorial limits of the US to the children of alien foreign nationals, whether legally admitted or not.

    And that is the case ONLY because of the distortions emanating from WKA.

  23. The “natural born citizen” clause has been effectively annulled, without amendment, by AG Eric Holder, the DOJ, the U.S. Attorneys, and their threats of retaliatory litigation. I think the Constitution and the American people would be better served by focusing on Amendment XIV § 3, which would get the job done. Although that strategy abandons a slam dunk prosecution using Art. ii, § 1, ¶ 5, nbC is locked out of the courts, and ¶ 5 is de facto null and void.

    On the other hand, the usurper has established an indisputable record of fealty to an anti-American ideology, mainly the Marxist/Leninist/Maoist/Ché-Fanon communism into which his mother and her parents indoctrinated him from birth until he went to Occidental College. As a lifelong practicing communist, he is an atheist at heart, but as an infidel dhimmi, he is subjected to Is|am by the sword. His appeal to Christianity is a matter of expediency, a declaration his wife required of him for political purposes.

    Mr. Obama’s loyalty to globalist communism and his rendering of submission to Is|amist political ideology, as evidenced by an uninterrupted train of anti-American acts, make him unfit for office according to Amendment XIV § 3. A two-thirds majority of the Senate will never buy it, but a simple majority of the House very well might. We don’t need a conviction, just discovery. Convene a Congressional investigation with subpoena power, and he’s done.

    May I suggest former Inspector General Gerald Walpin as the chief investigator.

  24. Georgia is about the last chance to pass an eligibility law, House speaker is holding the bill after getting 20 of original 90+ reps sponsoring it take their names off after the local media found out about the bill and started bashing them. The House speaker is David Ralston(e) (?).

    Here is my letter to the Senate pro tempe. This needs to get out by Wednesday to have a chance to be a bill this year. Otherwise it dies, or it gets attached to a bill for next year. They wanted to CHANGE the wording and the date (to next year, as a political gesture to make it look like they weren’t targeting….guess who?). Please contact these reps, as well as the governor of Georgia. Tell them politely that you support HB401 as it written with no changes, no date changes. These are GOP leaders in both Senate and House that cc’d. You may want to contact others as well.

    da verg | March 13, 2011 at 1:07 pm |
    **urgent please pass this bill **Sunday, March 13, 2011 10:23 AM
    From: da verg
    To: tommie.williams at
    Cc: at, bill.cowsert at, john.wiles at
    Bcc: david.ralstone at, jan.jones at, larry.oneill at, edward.lindsey at, donna.sheldon at, allen.peake at

    Honorable Senator Tommie Williams, of the great State of Georgia:

    I am writing to ask you to throw your support behind
    the original , unabridged HB401 establishing
    eligibility requirements for office of POTUS. Please
    do not change the bill. As it stands it represents
    the historical, original intent of the Constitution as well
    as the definition of natural born citizen per Vattel, Bingham
    (amendment 14 author),and Patrick Leahy, Senator from

    The bill as written does not target one political party over
    another, it does not target one race over another,
    it does not target one creed over another, it just
    provides for verification of credentials per the age old
    definitions set down by our founding framers of our

    I offer the following reasons for keeping the bill intact.

    1 – Ignore the political rhetoric. In 2008, the US Senate
    took up a resolution to grant McCain eligibility for
    office of the POTUS. No one from either side of the
    aisle jumped or screamed bloody murder,
    no one said that this was a political ploy,or
    political embarrassment, or that it
    could be used against McCain. As a matter of fact
    Patrick Leahy , the Democratic Senator from Vermont
    said verbatim “ I understand it the definition of natural
    born citizen means that both of your parents must be
    US citizens…” Chertoff, then Dept. of Homeland
    Security said “…that is my understanding also…”. They went
    on to approve McCain despite the fact that he was
    born off base , not on US soil, to two US citizen parents.

    Please ignore the political rhetoric that some people
    have raised against this bill, it has no bearing on this issue.

    2- The bill is asking no more than what millions of Americans
    do every single day in order to get a job, get a driver’s license, or live legally in this great nation: show your birth certificate or other related bona fide credentials. Is the candidate for office of POTUS above the law?

    3- The Governor in Hawaii said in January he would get to the bottom of a certain someone, who shall remain nameless, credentials. He is still looking for those credentials and has produced no verifiable documents to date.

    4- Gibbs the White House press sec. said in one of his
    penultimate meetings that it is up to the SOS of each
    state to make the decision when asked about the many
    questions regarding Constitutional presidential eligibility. Also, several court cases punted it back to the states. This bill gives the correct guidance with clarification to SOS. Over the years the definition, like marriage, appears to be spun out by those seeking to change our tradition values for their own expediency or political agenda at the moment.

    Finally the definition of the HB401 must apply not only
    to the president but also to the vice president for obvious

    Please ask your fellow members to vote for this bill as it
    stands, with no changes, no date changes. The American
    people deserve to know the truth.

    Furthermore, I heard a rumor that the current Administration is offering a deal to cull this bill in return for Army Corp jobs. If that is the case, remember the HOUSE of REPS in CONGRESS control the the budget strings. Any deal
    has to pass the HOUSE as you well know.


  25. The Thai Prime Minister is in deep hot water since he recently admitted to being a dual citizen with British Citizenship.

    This situation looks to parallel our current holder of office.

    Some articles indicate that one must formally renounce their British Citizenship. The formal RN form does do that.

    I worked with a British couple who were on assignment in the US when they had a child. I remember them saying he would have dual citizenship status until he turned 18 and then he would have to formally decide. But that was in 1982. I am not sure if the law has changed since then to where the dual citizenship status just remains after reaching the age of majority.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: