Mr Rogers said:
If Putin came here, had a son he abandoned, and the son was raised by the American mother and American grandparents, then in what sense does the child owe squat to Russia?
Let's use a better example:
If Pol Pot came here in 1973, had a son he abandoned, and the son was raised by the American mother and American grandparents, then in what sense does the child owe squat to Cambodia?
There are three problems with your limited view of international immigration:
- Pol Pot and Cambodia were enemies of the United States
- Cambodia recognized that all children born to Cambodian men were citizens of Cambodia
- All dual citizens at birth were and still are required to have allegiance to the 2 (or more) countries to which they are citizens
- Dual citizenship was and still is not recognized by Cambodia. Therefore they can, at their disposal, require any citizen born to a Cambodian to be under the juridiction of the government of Cambodia regardless of any other birthright claim
Many countries do not recognize dual citizenship, even if the U.S. does. In those countries they have the right to claim their
natural born citizens just as much as America does theirs. The framers knew this. That is why they wanted to make sure no president would serve two masters, especially when one of the masters is an enemy nation.
Cambodia is NOT a better example, since Obama’s father was a citizen of the UK here by permission of the US government. However, if he had a child while here, Pol Pot’s son, raised an American and living in America, could be President. At least, the Supreme Court indicated so...
For Senator, the Founders were content with someone who had lived here 9 years. For President, they wanted someone born here.