“I think most people outside of here believe that the birth requirement is that as long as you are born here in the U.S. you are a natural born citizen, and that includes members of Congress.”
That would include any child of any illegal alien, communist dictator, Mexican NarcoTerrorist, etc., who was born in the USA - just like Anwar al-Awlaki, Islamic terrorist extraordinaire, born in Las Cruces, NM, to Yemeni parents.
So — as long as a person is born in the US, regardless of the parents’ citizenship, they can be raised abroad as an enemy of the US and reintroduced into our country in time to meet the 14-year residency requirement for POTUS?
I’d like to see an explanation from anyone who thinks that is what the Framers of the Constitution intended when they used the phrase, “natural born Citizen.”
You make a great point. The progressive liberals have guided the general population through political correctness that anyone born here can run for president. The election commission should have put their foot down and made a big deal out of letting Roger Colero, a Nicaraguan National, get on presidential ballots in several states.
Yes, that is so. Rules are rules. The Constitution doesn’t say if you are a Natural Born Citizen except for this, this, or this reason, then you can be POTUS. I don’t like it, but that’s the way it is. As far as being raised abroad as an enemy combatant, it would be up to the voters to decide if that person should be president. We have enough conservative media today that can bring this to light to the voters. I would hope that this never happens, but there is nothing in the Constitution that stops this. This scenario that you mention could happen no matter what citizenship status that the parents have. Parents born in the U.S. could be anarchists and raise an anarchist child overseas as well as a non-U.S. set of parents.
We have enough Communists masquerading as Democrats today in this country that are NBCs that could be president at any time.