There are two sides to this argument. One side maintains that as a safeguard to the Republic, the Framers intended—and in fact did—bar persons w deep & abiding foreign allegiances from seeking the WH. The other side says the Framers were fine w turning the country over to a person w irrevocable foreign allegiances [i.e.: foreign allegiances via birth].
That's not exactly how I would put it.
I would put it that the Founding Fathers sought primarily to protect the fledgling country from the prospect that some royal dude over in England or some other European country might come over here, flash a lot of money, glitz, and star power, and take over the US government.
Europe had a history of exactly that: A king or queen from some other country could show up on the spot - particularly if there was a vacuum of existing royalty - and take over an entire country.
In fact, that was pretty much the NORMAL pattern of how things had long been done.
One of the actual MEMBERS of the Constitutional Convention had previously written to Prince Henry of Prussia, to see whether he might possibly be interested in becoming King of the United States.
As Max Farrand, expert on the Constitutional Convention, wrote:
During the sessions of the convention, but it would seem especially during the latter part of August, while the subject of the presidency was causing so much disquiet, persistent rumors were current outside that the establishment of a monarchy was under consideration. The common form of the rumor was that the Bishop of Osnaburgh, the second son of George III, was to be invited to become King of the United States.
This type of political intrigue (as well as the rumors of it) seems to have been the Framers' concern,
They do not seem to have been at all concerned about the possibility that a potential President might have parents from another country, or ideas from another country.
In fact, it is incomprehensible to me that people suggest the Framers wanted to protect us from foreign influence in the form of foreign ideas, and in the same breath swear that our idea of Presidential qualification came not from our own legal and cultural heritage, but from a Swiss philosopher.
Obama has in fact acted w vicious anti-American motives from the beginning.
You'll get no argument from me on that.
He has engaged in a relentless quest to undermine & destroy the country from the get go.
You'll get no argument from me on that.
This was entirely predictable. It is THE risk entailed in putting persons w irrevocable foreign allegiances in the WH. It is precisely what the Framers sought to spare us.
No, it is the risk entailed in electing politicians who are liberals, and who are caught up in harmful ideologies, or who are willing to sell out our country for their own gain.
Do you really think that John Kerry would've been much better? Do you really think the Clintons, who are prepared to sell just about anything to the highest bidder, are that much better?
Having parents who were not US citizens at your birth doesn't necessarily mean you're going to like other countries. It may well mean that you've seen the horrors of other countries and are actually more attached to this country than to any other.
Does Ted Cruz, for example, seem "unamerican" to you?
Yet you two argue otherwise. So put your $ where your mouth is and illustrate via his actual record how the country has nothing to fear from a POTUS w foreign allegiances.
I don't argue from what I think the Founding Fathers OUGHT to have done. I don't argue that they believed what I think they OUGHT to have believed.
I argue from what history says they DID DO. I argue from what history says they DID seem to believe.
Or do you think we should just toss out the Founders' ACTUAL actions and beliefs and decisions, in favor of what you or I or Joe-Bob feels they OUGHT to have done?
That, to me, is not a conservative position. It might be a patriotic position, in the sense that it is attempting to look out for the interests of our country, but it is not a conservative one.
In my opinion.
You missed my point. Here’s an analogy to help.
A prominent physician dies. Researchers pore over his notes for yrs afterward. It is noted that the physician isolated a certain virus. A dispute develops over what the dr intended to do w the virus. One side says he clearly meant it to be injected into human beings because it had beneficial properties. The other side says he explicitly warned against using it on humans.
After many yrs the virus is interjected into a human being for the first and only time. The subject dies.
The first side says the death is irrelevant. They continue to asseverate that the virus has beneficial properties—per their interpretation of the dead dr’s notes—and should be used again & again.
The second group says the death indicates their reading of the notes is the correct one.
This is where you stand, JW. You finally got your way and got a POTUS w divided loyalties by birth. He wrecked the country—on purpose—in a single term. The outcome was predictable, but you refuse to see any cause & effect. In fact, you’d do it again. The loss of the country is no price at all from your POV. Just so long as persons w foreign allegiances are allowed in the Oval Office, you’re happy.