Can somebody natural born, but was a foreign leader, ever become President?

May 23, 2023 | Jonty30

[Jonty30]

Just a question of curiousity.

I understand, from the intents of the Founding Fathers that this should be impossible due to dual loyalties, but is there anything stopping a natural born US citizen from becoming Prime Minister of Canada and then coming back and becoming President of the United States?

[GreenLanternCorps]

Do not ever accuse me of supporting the mutilation of minor children because I disagree with you over a point of constitutional interpretation.

[Jonty30]

Honest, nobody.
I was just wondering about this possible loophole, where somebody is born in the US and has US citizens as parents. Their citizenry was not given up, but they spent time in a foreign country, like Canada, that allows dual citizenship for the Prime Minister. After serving his time, he returns to the US and works to get himself nominated as a nominee.

Just the principle, nobody in particular.

[GreenLanternCorps]

1. The innocent unborn child is, at birth, immediately subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

2. The illegal alien parents can be arrested, jailed, fined, and imprisoned by a US Court. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States

[steve in DC]

Peculiarly, you could ask that same question of Winston Churchill.

Jerome Avenue, in the Bronx is named after Winston Churchill’s grandfather.

His mother Jenny Jerome married his father, the British subject.

Not terribly unlike Barack Obama, whose American mother married a British subject.

[Robert DeLong]

First off I didn't accuse you of anything, I said I suppose you support it. I said that because you have bought into the lie about the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment to believe that their intent when they wrote it and passed it, was to make all people born on U.S. soil automatic citizens.

But that was not their intent. Their intent was to make those who were brought here either as slaves or as indentured servants, who then bore children, that their children were automatically U.S. citizens.

The 14th amendment did not intend to cover births by people on visa that were temporary instruments to allow non citizens entry into the U.S., nor those who entered the country illegally, as automatically considering their offspring as being citizens. In 1964, the interpretation was not viewed to cover these instances of birth in our country with regards to citizenship, period. I remember my civics lessons from back then. They had to apply for citizenship and then follow the process. They also did not honor chain migration either.

[PapaBear3625]

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/08/24/should-birthright-citizenship-be-abolished/birthright-citizenship-is-not-actually-in-the-constitution

That text has two requirements for citizenship — that an individual is born on U.S. soil; and that an individual is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when born.

“Subject to the jurisdiction” means more than simply being present in the United States. When the 14th Amendment was being debated in the Senate, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in its drafting and adoption, stated that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant not “owing allegiance to anybody else.”

And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be interpreted in the same way as the requirement of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which afforded citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”

The Supreme Court has never held otherwise. Some advocates for illegal immigrants point to the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that case merely held that a child born on U.S. soil to parents who were lawful, permanent (legally, "domiciled") residents was a citizen.

The broader language in the case suggesting that birth on U.S. soil is alone sufficient (thereby rendering the “subject to the jurisdiction" clause meaningless) is only dicta — not binding. The court did not specifically consider whether those born to parents who were in the United States unlawfully were automatically citizens.