SO SAYS my ninety year old dad, who is a genius, graduated at the top of his law school class, clerked in the Federal court system and practice law for over 50 years.
SO SAYS my high school government teacher, born in US, parents born in Russia, spoke four languages, career air force,worked for the CIA and was a teacher extraordinaire.
SO SAYS Hoosiermama....don't argue with her she's your elder show some respect kid.
Too bad we couldn’t get a company that has a job posting that requires you to be a natural born citizen in order to apply! Thhen a person that has 1 US parent and 1 foreign parent applies for this position. The company then denies that applicant on grounds that they are not natural born. The applicant then sues the company stating they are natural born and a judge would need to decide this case to determine if this person is or is not a natural born?
What do you think? hahaha
My head is just spinning with ideas cause this is so darn frustrating!
Link On February 25, 2004 Senator Don Nickles (R-OK), Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) introduced a bipartisan bill (S. 2128)
************************************* From http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/New_Initiatives.htm:
New Initiatives to Eliminate the Natural-Born Citizen Requirement in the U.S. Constitution By John Yinger October 7, 2004
On October 5, 2004, the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate held hearings on proposals to eliminate the natural-born citizen requirement in the U.S. Constitution. The hearings were convened by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, chair of the committee, whose Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment, S. J. Res. 15, would make naturalized citizens eligible to run for President after they had been citizens for 20 years (and met the other requirements in the presidential eligibility clause). The same amendment was introduced in the House of Representatives, H. J. Res. 104, by Representative Dana Rohrabacher, who testified at the hearings.[1]
Several other proposals also were presented at the hearings. Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Barney Frank (D-MA), and Darrell Issa (D-CA) spoke about The President and Vice President Eligibility for Office Bill, H. J. Res. 59, which would allow anyone to run for President once they have been a citizen for 35 years. This amendment, which was sponsored by Representative Vic Snyder (D - AR)
and co-sponsored by Representatives Conyers, Frank, and Issa as well as Representatives Ray LaHood (R-IL), William D. Delahunt (D-MA), and Christopher Shays (R-CT), is worded so that the citizenship requirement replaces the age requirement. The 14-residency requirement is retained.[2] This amendment was first introduced on 6/11/2003.
The key difference between these proposals is the time-of-citizenship requirement. One of the witnesses at the hearing, Dr. Matthew Spalding of the Heritage Foundation, urged the Senate to set a time-of-citizenship requirement that would ensure the loyalty of a presidential candidate. I believe, and said so at the hearings, that this approach is a mistake. A time-of-citizenship requirement does nothing to ensure loyalty. It is neither necessary nor sufficient for identifying a loyal candidate. Indeed, as I explain in my testimony, the natural-born citizen requirement has exactly the same flaw, which is key reason why it should be eliminated.
In my view, the best time-of-citizenship requirement should be decided on the basis of fairness, not on the basis of the illusion that a longer time is more likely to ensure loyalty. One approach, which seems reasonable to me, is to say that a naturalized citizen should have to wait as long as a natural-born citizen for the chance to become President. Because a natural-born citizen must wait 35 years, from birth until he or she meets the age requirement, this approach leads to a 35-year time-of-citizenship requirement, as in H, J, Res. 59. Fairness arguments could also be made, no doubt, for the 20-year time-of-citizenship requirement in the S. J. Res. 15 and H. J. Res. 104.
Although elimination of second-class citizenship for all naturalized citizens would require a constitutional amendment, full citizenship for foreign-born adoptees, a subset of naturalized citizens, might be achieved through the Natural Born Citizen Act, S. 2128, introduced by Senator Don Nickles (R-OK), Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Senator James Inhofe (R-OK). [3] This bill, which was defended by Senator Nickles at the Senate hearings, provides a definition of a natural-born citizen that includes foreign-born adoptees. If it were passed and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, therefore, it would allow foreign-born adoptees, but not other naturalized citizens, to run for President. It is not clear whether this approach would be accepted by the Supreme Court.
More information on the hearings, including statements submitted by the witnesses, can be found at http://judiciary.senate.gov/[Dead Link]. My written statement can be found at this site or at http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/facfa/JYTestimonyOct_o4.pdf My oral remarks can be found at http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/facfa/WrittenStatementOct_04.pdf.
BUT, I am alarmed that there were attempts to make this change back in 2003 and 2004, which surely would have been unconstitutional. Don't these lawmakers THINK? This was just a sop to a lobby -- parents of adopted children brought home from overseas orphanages -- Russian, Chinese, Korean, etc. Why should we create a 2-tiered system of naturalized citizens where adopted children can run for President and natural lchildren who movere with their alien parents cannot? Good grief!
I’m very likely older than you are, hon, born the year after WWII ended.
I disagree, and so does the 14th Amendment and
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 in the U.S. Code.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
Close...
born on US soil / parents either born on US soil or parent/s naturalized before child is born
but either way, both parents would have been US citizens at the time of the child's birth.