Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: rolling_stone
The baby born on us soil to an American Citizen is a US citizen.

Ok. Well what we have here though is 'citizen' singular. Not plural. As in parent (i.e. mother- which you're always going to have present at the birth- no getting around that one) and not parents.

I guess if you think about it you can see where I am going. Here in this example, all that is needed is the woman to be an American citizen and the father to be unknown in order for the child to be perceived as natural born.

Let's say it (the question of where the child's father has been born) is never drawn into question (for the sake of argument) during the child's life and the child really doesn't have a clue who his father is but his mother suspects there is a small chance it could be that Mexican guy she slept with in Acapulco that time (or whatever). Would the child be able to run for POTUS? If the public found out the mother had slept with the pool boy in Acapulco 9 months prior to the child's birth, would it be reasonable of the public to demand some sort of proof that the father wasn't Mexican? Would the child's loyalties even be an issue?

What I'm digging at here is to find out what our perceptions are about what makes a person a legitimate citizen or not. This has to be done in an example not about Obama in order for us to be a little bit objective about it. Then once we figure out how we perceive this question and its possible answers we can begin to see how it relates to the President and how the public will perceive this whole thing and what is reasonable for someone to question and what not.

280 posted on 07/21/2009 7:26:37 PM PDT by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies ]


To: Prodigal Son
I stated what I believed would be the criteria to have two US citizen parents out of wedlock. Unknown if child has two us citizen parents or if they were born in the us is good for any job but President. Responsibility has rights that irresponsibility doesn't. Is that too much to ask?

Lets take this silliness a little further, according to the current perverted interpretation of the 14th amendment, children born in the us to two illegal aliens are citizens of the US. Should they be able to run for President of the US? IN my book they should not even be citizens as they should not gain from the illegal acts of their parents. They should be citizens of their parents country. Run for President? Surely you jest, we have the right to control the CINC of our Armies, the leader of our nation, that is why our wise white male founding fathers put the Natural Born Citizen clause in the Constitution, so liberals down the road could not try and rationalize stupid ideas like near foreigners being President. The line has to be drawn somewhere and I think they are in the right place and should be enforced.

287 posted on 07/21/2009 7:59:31 PM PDT by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson