One day, those children could technically move back to the US and run for US President.
Yes, but they would also have to be a resident of the US for 14 years (as well as be 35 years of age).
Would this go against what the founders were actually trying to stop; that is to protect the US from forgein influenc?
Not necessarily. If the person has no allegiances to a foreign nation I see no reason to think that the Founding Fathers' intentions were somehow undone.
If the intent is to protect the US from foreign influence, I think we've got much bigger issues around, like the fact that so much of our national debt is owned by foreign countries.
And look how much that debt was increased and mismanaged by the last two presidents.
No, who you have in charge of the country is a VERY big issue, as it influences all other issues.
Edit: Also, just noticed that his birth name is apparently "Rafael Edward Cruz" yet he goes by the moniker "Ted". Why change his name? What is he afraid of? What else is he hiding? </sarcasm>
Same issue with Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, people are less likely to press that button if they see a "foreign" name. Parts of rural and suburban Texas are similar to Louisiana in terms of having radioactive cannibals who only venture out to eat flesh and vote straight ticket Republican.
I'll have to check, but I'm pretty sure being born to a US citizen counts as natural-born citizenship. That was one aspect of McCain. Or I could just make some joke about how Calgary is part of the United States.
Though it is absolutely lulzy to see people who are so xenophobic...and then they want to amend the Constitution so their favorite immigrant can run. (This actually was a thing for Schwarzenegger.)
@BatterysRevenge: In show business, there was Issur Danielovitch, better known as Kirk Douglas.
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
I'll have to check, but I'm pretty sure being born to a US citizen counts as natural-born citizenship. That was one aspect of McCain. Or I could just make some joke about how Calgary is part of the United States.
It's an unsettled legal question. Most scholars agree with what you're saying here. I tend to disagree, as I articulated earlier in the thread, but I'm still open to having someone convince me otherwise.
It suggests that in English law, a natural born subject was one who owed a natural allegiance to the crown by virtue of their birth. This, notably, included those born to English parents abroad, dating back to at least the 1300s.
Essentially, yes, this is yet another reason the birther movement is stupid. Obama could have been born in Kenya and it wouldn't matter, because he was born a citizen (unless you want to wade into the extra crazy conspiracies about how his supposed parents aren't his real parents; there's some timecube-level insanity out there on this stuff).
If one is inclined to be creative, one could interpret "natural born" as meaning something special, but the reason the overwhelming balance of scholars interpret it as meaning "citizen from birth" is that it's fairly clear idiomatically and historically that "natural born citizen" is a phrase that the drafters of the Constitution would have understood as a synonym for "citizen by birth." Trying to deconstruct the phrase and assign special meaning to "natural" would just be a linguistic exercise in back formation and not helpful to understanding the meaning of the text.
Essentially, yes, this is yet another reason the birther movement is stupid. Obama could have been born in Kenya and it wouldn't matter, because he was born a citizen (unless you want to wade into the extra crazy conspiracies about how his supposed parents aren't his real parents; there's some timecube-level insanity out there on this stuff).
Now that I think about it, that actually would follow logically from the premises of the theory. Either that or Ann Dunham flew from her home in Hawaii to Kenya in order to give birth to Barack for some reason.
But honestly I don't think most birthers have thought it that far through.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Personally, I don't think that natural born citizenship should be a requirement for the presidency.
Why not?
Why should someone who was born in America be able to run for president but someone who immigrated here as a child can't? It isn't like you will be more loyal to your country if you were born here than if you were born in another country and immigrated here.
Why should someone who was born in America be able to run for president but someone who immigrated here as a child can't? It isn't like you will be more loyal to your country if you were born here than if you were born in another country and immigrated here.
First of all, it's not about being born in America, it's about being born a citizen of America.
And actually, I think that's the point. The requirements for the president are that a person have American citizenship from birth to prevent that person carrying loyalties to another country.
But one can be have American citizenship from birth and also have another citizenship from birth. This requirement does not prevent carrying loyalties to another country.
Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship. If that's not enough, it poses some troubles. What if San Marino decides that all humans get San Marino citizenship from birth?
But, if renouncing one's dual citizenship is sufficient to resolve that issue, why isn't it also sufficient for naturalized citizens to renounce any former citizenship?
But, if renouncing one's dual citizenship is sufficient to resolve that issue, why isn't it also sufficient for naturalized citizens to renounce any former citizenship?
Because it's not the same issue. The issue with dual citizenship is that a person with dual citizenship is legally bound by the laws of both countries, and the president of the United States should not be bound to allegiance to any country except the United States.
The issue with naturalized citizens, on the other hand, is that they have not held allegiance to the United States since birth.
It seems to me that we can view allegiance in one of two ways - either it's something you decide for yourself, in which case it makes perfect sense that you can renounce it and acquire it, or it's something innate, in which case you can't renounce it or acquire it. The citizenship-by-birth requirement seems to only make sense under the latter definition. If that's the definition you want to go with, it doesn't make sense to accept that Cruz can simply say "I don't want to be a citizen of Canada anymore" but Arnold Schwarzenegger can't say "I want to be a citizen of the US".
Certainly though, Cruz meets the standard of "may possess attachments to any other nation." If being born in the US to foreign parents is enough to convince you someone doesn't possess any such attachment, and owes their full allegiance to the United States, why aren't you also convinced that Cruz owes his full allegiance to Canada?
If that's the definition you want to go with, it doesn't make sense to accept that Cruz can simply say "I don't want to be a citizen of Canada anymore" but Arnold Schwarzenegger can't say "I want to be a citizen of the US".
Wait, what? Arnold Schwarzenegger is not only perfectly capable of saying he wishes to be a citizen of the United States, but in fact also is one, and, by my understanding, has been one since 1983.
Or are you trying to argue that wanting to be a citizen of a country and being a citizen of a country are the same thing?
If being born in the US to foreign parents is enough to convince you someone doesn't possess any such attachment, and owes their full allegiance to the United States,
That does not necessarily mean they do. It is, however, a proper safeguard.
why aren't you also convinced that Cruz owes his full allegiance to Canada?
Why would I be convinced he does? He renounced his Canadian citizenship in favor of being a citizen of America, which he has been his entire life.
Right, I shouldn't have said "want to be a citizen" I should have said "owe my allegiance to". Ted Cruz can convince you that he has no allegiance to Canada simply by saying so. But Arnold can't convince you that he has no allegiance to Austria just by saying so. The only difference is the circumstance of their birth. Does the circumstance of one's birth actually change their ability to hold allegiance? If we found out tomorrow that, unbeknownst even to himself, Ted Cruz was switched at birth, and is actually the child of Canadian parents, would that suddenly change your belief about his allegiance?
Right, I shouldn't have said "want to be a citizen" I should have said "owe my allegiance to". Ted Cruz can convince you that he has no allegiance to Canada simply by saying so.
There's more to being a citizen than just saying so, Tiax. You may have noticed there are laws involved. So kindly stop attacking strawmen.
But Arnold can't convince you that he has no allegiance to Austria just by saying so.
Arnold has dual citizenship.
The only difference is the circumstance of their birth.
And that Arnold maintains his citizenship to Austria.
Does the circumstance of one's birth actually change their ability to hold allegiance? If we found out tomorrow that, unbeknownst even to himself, Ted Cruz was switched at birth, and is actually the child of Canadian parents, would that suddenly change your belief about his allegiance?
It would change my belief that Ted Cruz is eligible to be president, yes, because he would not be American by natural birth, and I have already stated that I believe that only a person born American and American his entire life should hold the highest office in the United States.
[There's more to being a citizen than just saying so, Tiax. You may have noticed there are laws involved. So kindly stop attacking strawmen.
Arnold has dual citizenship.
And that Arnold maintains his citizenship to Austria.
The hypothetical I'm presenting is that Arnold would renounce his Austrian citizenship just as Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship. If you accept that Cruz's renouncing his Canadian citizenship removes any foreign allegiance he may have held, then you should also accept that Arnold renouncing his Austrian citizenship removes any foreign allegiance Arnold may hold. The circumstances of their births don't change this. One does not magically gain the ability to renounce foreign allegiance because of their parents' citizenship at the time of their birth.
It would change my belief that Ted Cruz is eligible to be president, yes, because he would not be American by natural birth, and I have already stated that I believe that only a person born American and American his entire life should hold the highest office in the United States.
I didn't ask you if it changed your belief about his eligibility. I think we're all clear on what the constitutional requirement is. I asked you about his allegiance. If you found out that Cruz was actually born to Canadian parents, would you doubt his allegiance to the United States?
The hypothetical I'm presenting is that Arnold would renounce his Austrian citizenship just as Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship.
It wouldn't matter, because Arnold is not a citizen at birth. The two aren't analogous.
If you accept that Cruz's renouncing his Canadian citizenship removes any foreign allegiance he may have held, then you should also accept that Arnold renouncing his Austrian citizenship removes any foreign allegiance Arnold may hold. The circumstances of their births don't change this. One does not magically gain the ability to renounce foreign allegiance because of their parents' citizenship at the time of their birth.
You're mixing problems. The problem in Cruz's case was that he was of dual citizenship. The problem in Arnold's case is that he is of dual citizenship AND was not a citizen at birth.
I didn't ask you if it changed your belief about his eligibility. I think we're all clear on what the constitutional requirement is. I asked you about his allegiance. If you found out that Cruz was actually born to Canadian parents, would you doubt his allegiance to the United States?
Depends on what his next action was. If it is as I imagine it would be, which is apply for citizenship here, then no, I don't see any particular reason to doubt his allegiance to the United States.
It wouldn't matter, because Arnold is not a citizen at birth. The two aren't analogous.
You're mixing problems. The problem in Cruz's case was that he was of dual citizenship. The problem in Arnold's case is that he is of dual citizenship AND was not a citizen at birth.
Yes, I understand that Arnold is not a citizen by birth. I'm asking you to defend why not being a citizen by birth carries more weight than being a foreign citizen by birth. In the latter case, you are happy to accept Cruz signing a piece of paper saying that he doesn't want to be a citizen of Canada, and you no longer have any doubts about his allegiance. In Arnold's case, you are not willing to accept such a signature. You would still have doubts about his allegiance.
So, explain to me the reasoning that gets you from "X is not a citizen by birth" to "X's allegiance to the US is too questionable for X to be president", and ensure that your reasoning does not also get you from "X is a citizen of another country by birth" to "X's allegiance to the US is too questionable for X to be president".
Depends on what his next action was. If it is as I imagine it would be, which is apply for citizenship here, then no, I don't see any particular reason to doubt his allegiance to the United States.
If you don't doubt Cruz's allegiance in this hypothetical, why should he be barred from the presidency? (Note that I understand what the current rule is, and why he would still be legally ineligible - I'm asking you to defend that rule, and explain why he should be ineligible given that there is no reason to doubt his allegiance).
Yes, I understand that Arnold is not a citizen by birth. I'm asking you to defend why not being a citizen by birth carries more weight than being a foreign citizen by birth.
... Because one is a citizen of America and the other isn't. How is the difference not obvious?
In the latter case, you are happy to accept Cruz signing a piece of paper saying that he doesn't want to be a citizen of Canada, and you no longer have any doubts about his allegiance.
Because his allegiances have been to America since his birth.
And that's the key here.
Now, if you want to argue that a person who has held dual citizenship should not be allowed to be president, and must have only held citizenship in America to be so, I'm willing to listen to that argument. I believe that argument has merit.
However, I disagree that the naturally-born requirement for president should be repealed.
Not necessarily. If the person has no allegiances to a foreign nation I see no reason to think that the Founding Fathers' intentions were somehow undone.
And look how much that debt was increased and mismanaged by the last two presidents.
No, who you have in charge of the country is a VERY big issue, as it influences all other issues.
Same issue with Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, people are less likely to press that button if they see a "foreign" name. Parts of rural and suburban Texas are similar to Louisiana in terms of having radioactive cannibals who only venture out to eat flesh and vote straight ticket Republican.
You win a prize if you guess the reference.
Though it is absolutely lulzy to see people who are so xenophobic...and then they want to amend the Constitution so their favorite immigrant can run. (This actually was a thing for Schwarzenegger.)
@BatterysRevenge: In show business, there was Issur Danielovitch, better known as Kirk Douglas.
In other (albeit related) news...I'm pretty sure this is, perforce, contrary to the 24th Amendment
On phasing:
It's an unsettled legal question. Most scholars agree with what you're saying here. I tend to disagree, as I articulated earlier in the thread, but I'm still open to having someone convince me otherwise.
http://books.google.com/books?id=44kDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA95&dq="natural born"&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XO5aVOI9qdGJAoLYgcAC&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q="natural born"&f=false
It suggests that in English law, a natural born subject was one who owed a natural allegiance to the crown by virtue of their birth. This, notably, included those born to English parents abroad, dating back to at least the 1300s.
If one is inclined to be creative, one could interpret "natural born" as meaning something special, but the reason the overwhelming balance of scholars interpret it as meaning "citizen from birth" is that it's fairly clear idiomatically and historically that "natural born citizen" is a phrase that the drafters of the Constitution would have understood as a synonym for "citizen by birth." Trying to deconstruct the phrase and assign special meaning to "natural" would just be a linguistic exercise in back formation and not helpful to understanding the meaning of the text.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
But honestly I don't think most birthers have thought it that far through.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Why should someone who was born in America be able to run for president but someone who immigrated here as a child can't? It isn't like you will be more loyal to your country if you were born here than if you were born in another country and immigrated here.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
And actually, I think that's the point. The requirements for the president are that a person have American citizenship from birth to prevent that person carrying loyalties to another country.
I don't see why that would ever be allowed, though, for the exact reason I stated.
Which, I did not realize, is actually a problem for Ted Cruz, seeing as he's a dual citizen.
But, if renouncing one's dual citizenship is sufficient to resolve that issue, why isn't it also sufficient for naturalized citizens to renounce any former citizenship?
Because it's not the same issue. The issue with dual citizenship is that a person with dual citizenship is legally bound by the laws of both countries, and the president of the United States should not be bound to allegiance to any country except the United States.
The issue with naturalized citizens, on the other hand, is that they have not held allegiance to the United States since birth.
Therefore, it is sound to prevent anyone who has not been an American his entire life from attaining such a rank.
Certainly though, Cruz meets the standard of "may possess attachments to any other nation." If being born in the US to foreign parents is enough to convince you someone doesn't possess any such attachment, and owes their full allegiance to the United States, why aren't you also convinced that Cruz owes his full allegiance to Canada?
Or are you trying to argue that wanting to be a citizen of a country and being a citizen of a country are the same thing?
That does not necessarily mean they do. It is, however, a proper safeguard.
Why would I be convinced he does? He renounced his Canadian citizenship in favor of being a citizen of America, which he has been his entire life.
Arnold has dual citizenship.
And that Arnold maintains his citizenship to Austria.
It would change my belief that Ted Cruz is eligible to be president, yes, because he would not be American by natural birth, and I have already stated that I believe that only a person born American and American his entire life should hold the highest office in the United States.
The hypothetical I'm presenting is that Arnold would renounce his Austrian citizenship just as Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship. If you accept that Cruz's renouncing his Canadian citizenship removes any foreign allegiance he may have held, then you should also accept that Arnold renouncing his Austrian citizenship removes any foreign allegiance Arnold may hold. The circumstances of their births don't change this. One does not magically gain the ability to renounce foreign allegiance because of their parents' citizenship at the time of their birth.
I didn't ask you if it changed your belief about his eligibility. I think we're all clear on what the constitutional requirement is. I asked you about his allegiance. If you found out that Cruz was actually born to Canadian parents, would you doubt his allegiance to the United States?
You're mixing problems. The problem in Cruz's case was that he was of dual citizenship. The problem in Arnold's case is that he is of dual citizenship AND was not a citizen at birth.
Depends on what his next action was. If it is as I imagine it would be, which is apply for citizenship here, then no, I don't see any particular reason to doubt his allegiance to the United States.
Yes, I understand that Arnold is not a citizen by birth. I'm asking you to defend why not being a citizen by birth carries more weight than being a foreign citizen by birth. In the latter case, you are happy to accept Cruz signing a piece of paper saying that he doesn't want to be a citizen of Canada, and you no longer have any doubts about his allegiance. In Arnold's case, you are not willing to accept such a signature. You would still have doubts about his allegiance.
So, explain to me the reasoning that gets you from "X is not a citizen by birth" to "X's allegiance to the US is too questionable for X to be president", and ensure that your reasoning does not also get you from "X is a citizen of another country by birth" to "X's allegiance to the US is too questionable for X to be president".
If you don't doubt Cruz's allegiance in this hypothetical, why should he be barred from the presidency? (Note that I understand what the current rule is, and why he would still be legally ineligible - I'm asking you to defend that rule, and explain why he should be ineligible given that there is no reason to doubt his allegiance).
Because his allegiances have been to America since his birth.
And that's the key here.
Now, if you want to argue that a person who has held dual citizenship should not be allowed to be president, and must have only held citizenship in America to be so, I'm willing to listen to that argument. I believe that argument has merit.
However, I disagree that the naturally-born requirement for president should be repealed.