It was a question. I.e.: why would the Framers have preferred divided loyalty over undivided loyalty? If it was discussed in the decision, on what basis was it concluded the Framers would have preferred divided loyalty?
” I.e.: why would the Framers have preferred divided loyalty over undivided loyalty?”
The Framers saw no divided loyalty in someone of foreign parentage being born and raised in the US. If they were raised outside of the US, then they obviously believed the voters could judge for themselves.
Is Rev Wright loyal to the US? He was born in the US of citizen parents. What about Bill Ayers? Is he loyal to the US? He was born in the US of citizen parents.
Your genes don’t make you loyal or disloyal to a country.
Is Obama loyal to the UK? He sure doesn’t seem to like the UK, or anything or place that involves whites. The people of America knowingly elected a racist who hates everything America was built on. No provision of the Constitution can prevent a majority from committing cultural suicide. If Obama was banned, they could have voted for Rev Wright...or John Kerry, the traitor from Mass, who nearly won in 2004.
Since the election of 1988, democrats have won, or come very close to winning. Since 1988, there has only been one election where the democrat candidate didn’t win the popular vote. Starting in 2000, there has only been one time that someone who didn’t loath America won the popular vote.
The problem with America isn’t Obama. It is with the majority of Americans, who apparently have rejected the laws of God, and every value that made America an admirable country. The 60s bore their fruit in the 90s, and a majority of Americans - natural born citizens, too - have rejected the principles that made us Americans.
The Framers could not prevent that.