For the past few years the mainstream media has been relating how Russia influenced the elections in favor of Donald Trump, costing Hillary the election, and while I have my own doubts as to the veracity of this narration it does bring up a valid point: foreign-influence on our elections is unacceptable. Indeed, foreign influence in our government itself should be highly scrutinized because of compromised loyalties.
Here’s a petition regarding dual-citizens within government, which is actually rather important. Important enough that the Constitution put an explicit requirement on the office of the President — “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” — the reasoning here is obvious and, just as Jesus said in Matthew 6:24, “No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other.”
The threat they were concerned with, in particular, was someone with foreign loyalty obtaining the Constitutional appointment of the President to the role of Commander in Chief, and thus able to command the armies and navies in suppressing the people themselves. During the constitutional conventions they were debating on how to do this until John Jay sent a letter suggesting that “natural born Citizen” be the qualification for President.
Now, if this was (and still is) a concern for the President, an argument could be made that there is some concern to be had for the Congress and Judiciary as well — especially considering how much money is given to foreign nations while we are more than $20 Trillion in debt for the former, and how the latter seems rather antagonistic towards border sovereignty.
Whereas dual citizenship introduces the possibility of divided loyalties we request that the citizenship statuses, current and past, of all Legislators, Executive Appointees, and Federal Judges be made public — all of whom are public officials, and whose day-to-day duties impact the People of the United States and all corporations in the United States.
Moreover, the “Emoluments Clause” (Art 1, Sec 9, Cl 8) clearly prohibits acceptance of presents or emoluments by foreign states to Officers of Profit or Trust, which all the aforementioned are, and the advantages conferred by foreign citizenship may well violate this clause, the purpose of which is clearly anti-corruption, and therefore should be available to public scrutiny to ensure such corruption does not exist.
There’s an article I came across, with the mind-bendingly stupid title of “In Praise Of Dual Loyalty” (archived) which lauds fractured loyalties, claiming that it’s time to celebrate “the complexity of 21ST century identity” and conflates ‘loyalty’ and ‘love’ — ignoring that you can love someone and still dislike, even hate, them (anyone with siblings will understand) — trying to square the circle saying of a hypothetical Israeli-American war: “I would work for a moral resolution, whatever that means, whether by the victory of whichever side is right or by negotiation.”
While that sounds good, it is a blatant falsehood: no man can serve two masters. In that case the author would hold to one, and not the other, and likely in an emotional judgment side with whichever had its story out first. As Proverbs 18:17 says: “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” — But in such a case would the other side even get the chance to state their case? — Obviously one side or the other will strive to control the story and, if they assume control of the proverbial airways, will strive to prevent ‘the other’ from said cross-examination.
In any case, the question stands: Who are our leaders loyal to?
Other Possibly Interesting Articles
The Heritage Guide to the Constitution: Presidential Eligibility
CDR Kerchner’s Article on the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ requirement
CDR Kerchner’s Article on the Definition of ‘Natural Born Citizen’