[4Zoltan]

Maybe this has been seen before, but I thought it was interesting on the question of dual citizenship.

“in the present cause, there being no proof, that Captain Talbot’s admission as a citizen of the French Republic, was with a view to relinquish his native country; and a man may, at the same time, enjoy the rights of citizenship under two governments.” Chief Justice Rutledge in Talbot v. Janson 3 U.S. 133

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0003_0133_ZO4.html

It would appear that in the 1790s the concept of dual citizenship was not unknown and was possible.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Yes, the concept of dual citizenship was recognized. Today, U.S. policy recognizes that dual citizenship is legal under international law because any sovereign nation has the right to determine whom are its citizens.

[Jeff Winston]

Thanks for posting that. It’s a new bit of illuminating information.

[edge919]

It does say one might enjoy citizenship rights, but it doesn't actually talk about such a person being a dual citizen, and especially not dual citizenship at birth. In the case of someone like Obama, it's irrelevant because the Supreme Court has noted that a person with dual allegiances would be problematic:

Such, I think, is the natural and indeed almost necessary meaning of the treaty [of 1783]; it would otherwise follow that there would continue a double allegiance of many persons -- an inconvenience which must have been foreseen and would cause the most injurious effects to both nations.

This is the ruling that U.S. v. Rhodes citing when it said one could either be a natural-born subject if born in the United States or natural-born citizen, but one cannot be both.

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.

It's an either/or proposition, not a dual allegiance proposition.