Eazdzit, I’m not trying to give you a hard time, and I don’t want an apology from you at all. I’m not unhappy with you. I’m just interested to see how the government site you linked me to bears on the issue in question. See your Government site reference here: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD
I went there, didn’t see anything pertaining to the presidency. I actually searched for the words ‘president’ and ‘presidency’ in there to see if I had missed something, and didn’t find one instance of either.
If you think that the U. S. Constitution clarifies this, then I would urge you to link to Article II, Section I, Clause IV. Here’s a link to that. (please see Paragraph V. @:) http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
In that paragraph it states...
“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Here it does not preclude children (people) who were born on U. S. soil to foreign nationals.
So you linked me to a government web page that does not clarify the issue. You also mentioned a portion of the U. S. Constitution covering this issue that does not clarify the issue.
That’s all I’m saying. I don’t see the justification for your and or SatinDoll’s comment that children born on U. S. soil, whose parents were not citizens, cannot be considered natural born citizens. You may both be right. I just don’t see justification for that perception at this point.
To my way of thinking, it is an absurdity on top of an absurdity to think that children born to illegal aliens are not only considered citizens, but may also be eligible to run for the presidency. None the less, I do not see anything precluding this to be true.
This being the case, I welcome some form of rebuttal that indicates my take on this is wrong. My take is that our Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches would not strike down such a child’s ultimate eligibility.
I’m not trying to put words into SatinDoll’s mouth here either. If she didn’t make the case you are, then I apologize to her. And to you I admit she may have said it on this very thread. I just didn’t review her comments here since she didn’t address me directly.
I await your response.
Take care.
I had meant to to back and add your pseudonym in the “To:” section in the above post, but I forgot before posting. Please be advised that you may wish to address the above post.
I wanted to mention to the both of you, that when I posted #s 35 and 36 here, I had not expected to see the Admin Moderator’s comments 00:01:18 later on another thread. It was not my intent to post something you would not able to respond to.
I apologize.
Admin Moderator’s post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/gop/2860542/posts?page=49#49
In my mind it is all about what or how a person puts meaning to ‘natural born citizen’ which is an explicit statement/qualification given in the Constitution as you have quoted. For me I consider the extensive recorded debates and comments of the Founders to mean qualification requires citizen parents ‘and’ being born on the soil of the parents citizenship; in the immediate situation USA soil. I have in my lifetime taken civics and history courses that tell me this is what the Founders intended. I believe this wholeheartedly even though my brother who was killed on Okinawa and I also a vet of WWII would not be eligible for POTUSA because our parents were not naturalized citizens.