Well, then. Back to the original wording of the US Constitution: ““unless he now be a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
That was changed.
Cruz is a dual citizen. Dual citizenship is not OFFICIALLY a class of citizenship in the US, it never has been. THERE IS NO US LAW which officially recognizes dual citizenship.
We are discussing US laws here, right? Not some “honorary citizenship”.
You SHOW US a US law that states we have provisions for dual citizenship as a official class of US citizenship.
US CITIZENSHIP. Was Mr. Jefferson BORN a dual citizen? NO.
Doesn't matter in the slightest. You said:
Dual citizenship was not legal under US law OR English common law (since you keep focusing on such) at the time the Constitution was signed in 1787.
If you're doing anything, you're just playing with words here.
It is clear that dual citizenship existed in the very early days of the United States.
It is clear that our THIRD PRESIDENT was a DUAL CITIZEN, AT THE TIME HE SERVED AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
If the Framers of the Constitution had been so opposed to "divided loyalty" as you claim, don't you think they would have made such an outroar that Jefferson would have been forced to renounce his French citizenship?
Remember, this was just a dozen years after the Constitution was written, and less than that after it was ratified.
And yet... no one... gave... a royal flip.
Are you like the rest of the birthers? In that you're going to believe in birtherism even if the facts are all against you? Because I have sole title to a fine, fine bridge that is set to hugely appreciate in value. I need to sell in order to raise cash for a sick Dalmatian.