Replies

He lost it because he didn't fulfill a residency requirement for someone in his category (since abolished, as I understand it). This is one of the cases around the edges I mentioned before, because I've seen cases like his called "automatic naturalization." But if he had fulfilled the residency requirement and retained his citizenship-from-birth, I don't think anyone would have challenged his eligibility for the presidency.

And you do not find it absurd that on the one hand he can be expelled from citizenship, but on the other he can be President of the nation? All contingent upon acts not associated with his birth?

You must believe in quanta superposition on a macroscopic scale. I think I have a cat I'd like to sell you.

And you do not find it absurd that on the one hand he can be expelled from citizenship, but on the other he can be President of the nation?

Sure, it's a little absurd. There are a lot of absurdities in the law, as specific cases test the definitions and limits and create contradictions. It's like QA on a software program: until it gets in the hands of the users, you don't really know where it might break. I note that this particular contradiction seems to have been resolved by later legislation that means someone in Bellei's situation would not be subject to losing their citizenship. I also note that part of the Bellei decision rested on him not being covered by the 14th, since he was born outside the US, so it's not really relevant to the eligibility of people born here.

I take it you think Bellei was not eligible?

You must believe in quanta superposition on a macroscopic scale. I think I have a cat I'd like to sell you.

Oh sure, how do I know there's a cat in that box?