It is only a controversy in your head.
It is only a controversy in your head.
being a US citizen at birth is not the issue and not disputed. being born as a citizen of canada and cuba as well... that's the problem along with your misunderstanding of the Constitution. the eligibility requirement for POTUS is not just citizen, but NATURAL BORN citizen. there is a difference and a reason for using it.
the vast majority of Americans know nothing of the distinction between being born a US citizen and being a natural born citizen. this is due to the vast majority qualifying as natural born... that being on the soil to two citizen parents. they just have no experience with foreign citizenships.
the Constitution of the United States describes the requirements for many federal positions. ALL of them specify that the person obtaining the position MUST BE a US citizen. that's it... just a citizen... for all but one position. the office of the president. for that position, the founders specifically used 'natural born citizen'. why?
there are two main reasons, as discussed in the federalist papers. the first being they wanted to insure, at least by birth, the person assuming the position would not have split allegiances with another country. secondly, they wanted to insure no future king of england could become president of the united states. they had just come through a bloody revolution, after all, and no way did they want england to get her hooks back into the country.
so what does that mean? the founders used the term 'natural born' to insure no future king could assume the office. this would require both parents being US citizens... which, until bjclinton, meant you could hold no other citizenship or claim to citizenship to another country. it would also mean the person would have to be born on US soil to avoid citizenship claims via the soil.
if you don't believe the two citizen requirement, test it this way:
if william and kate flew to NYC and she had her first child in a NY hospital... then flew back to england, the child would be an American citizen as well as the future king of england. at the age of 20, he moves to NY and at 34, runs for president... and wins. the day after his inauguration, events unfold such that he becomes king of england. this was only possible as both parents were still citizens of england at his birth. if they were US citizens, they would have had to renounce their british citizenships and any claims to the throne... removing the possibility of their child becoming king.
I have read both of your comments. Whether I agree or disagree it is the perception of both local 9-12 and Tea Party groups that he is ineligible.
They are “hung-up” on the Natural Born issue and just not going to accept your comment of his being born a citizen as acceptable.
They vow not to vote for several candidates for this reason and no PUSHING of facts will budge them. Parents later becoming citizens does not qualify them... Raised in America loving, Patriotic homes or dedication to the USA are qualifications equally falling on deaf ears.
Don’t bother with the “lesser of evils” they will accept Hillary before they will give in to the accepted practice or other arguments I have heard people confront them with.
Any suggestions?