Years of residence or any time in the USA is no absolute guarantee at all of allegiance to the USA. One only needs to review the history of certain people from WWII to today to show such residence should not be taken/used as a sound qualifier for POTUSA and as without doubt intended by the Founding Fathers by expression and writings. Rubio appears to be the type of person we should be looking for as a POTUSA but as for me I want no more stretching of eligibility to allow more Obamas to be put forth as Obama’s enablers have managed.
I concur. The issue of eligibility is too clouded and open to interpretation by whomsoever is in power at any given time. There should be a definitive definition. In my opinion that definition SHOULD be that the person born in the U.S. have parents who were citizens of the U.S., and that their citizenship is continuous for a specified period of time prior to that person’s birth (let’s say minimum 14 years). The Founding Fathers clearly were concerned that no person with allegiance to another country or state gain access to the highest councils of our government. I wonder, therefore, why this was not more clearly spelled out.