Now if we are to go by the one citizen parent argument think about this. A forty year old citizen of the US has lived here all his life. When he travels abroad he visits China and has sex with a woman in China and leaves and never sees the mother again. The baby grows up in China and raised as a loyal communist. How could this person have any allegiance to the United States? Yet some here believe this person to be a natural born citizen of the US and would be qualified for president.
do you think the founders would have agreed?
Oh but in trying too hard to be too cute to “throw logic on this” you posted an epic failure by your own standards: the logic of ensuring allegiance to the US.
Are you seriously saying that Cruz would have divided loyalties? And are you seriously saying that a Chi com (in your example) would ever win the office? Unless you are saying those things, your logic fails. And if your are saying those two things, you are delusional. Either way you lose .
No, they would not, and this was probably not a scenario they ever even envisioned. However, the act of running for president isn’t so simple that this hypothetical person would ever get that far.
By contrast Cruz moved to Texas at age 4, and I think everyone at Free Republic can agree that his allegiance to America is not up for discussion.
If your hypothetical person could run for president (providing Democrats thought they were even electable considering their running mate would need to be a translator) the issue of allegiance would be front and center and voters would (hopefully) know better.
Your point is an excellent one. I just can’t imagine that the founders would agree that Cruz would be in the exact same boat as your hypothetical person.
You mean as opposed to having a full blown Socialist who has lived in the U.S. his entire life running for President, as we have now?
You ignore the residency requirements of the mother and you leave out the residency requirements for the candidate.
Next bad analogy!