Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sunrise_sunset
He can not be a natural born citizen of both, or the clause would not have been put in the Constitution.

Fortunately, he can be, just as Trump is. Each country makes up its own rules about who is or is not a citizen. The US can't allow itself to be whipsawed by other countries' laws.

Remember, it's the same with Trump. He's a national by virtue of the circumstances of his birth of both the United States and Great Britain. But as Americans we can't concern ourselves with what Canada or Great Britain do or we will forever be at their mercy.

137 posted on 01/09/2016 5:30:15 PM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]


To: John Valentine

The framers put in “natural born” to put a premium on a certain type of citizenship.

Why else include it ?


144 posted on 01/09/2016 5:33:52 PM PST by sunrise_sunset
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies ]

To: John Valentine

-Each country makes up its own rules about who is or is not a citizen. -

You are confused. Being a citizen is not that same as being a “natural born” citizen in the context of the late 18th century.

Read about natural law, which the Constitution is based on.


146 posted on 01/09/2016 5:35:23 PM PST by sunrise_sunset
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies ]

To: John Valentine

Actually, I think there is a clause in British law that the child of a British-born mother cannot claim British citizenship unless it is of good moral character. That would knock trump out of the running.


262 posted on 01/09/2016 6:55:09 PM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson