Posted on 01/17/2016 4:37:25 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
In recent weeks, much time and effort has been devoted to debating whether Ted Cruz is a "natural born citizen" eligible for the presidency. Whichever way you come down on this question of constitutional interpretation, the real lesson of this debate should be the absurdity of excluding naturalized citizens from the presidency in the first place. Categorically excluding immigrants from the presidency is a form of arbitrary discrimination based on place of birth (or, in a few cases, parentage), which is ultimately little different from discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. Both ethnicity and place of birth are morally arbitrary characteristics which do not, in themselves, determine a person's competence or moral fitness for high political office.
The "natural born" citizen requirement was originally inserted into the Constitution because some of the Founders feared that European royalty or nobles might move to the United States, get elected to the presidency, and then use the office to advance the interests of their houses. Whatever the merits of this concern back in the 1780s, it is hardly a plausible scenario today.
One can argue that immigrants have less knowledge of the country and its customs, and might make worse presidents for that reason. But that problem is surely addressed by the constitutional requirement that a candidate for president must have been resident in the United States for at least fourteen years. As a practical matter, anyone who attains the political connections and public recognition needed to make a serious run for the presidency is likely to have at least as much knowledge of the US and American politics as most serious native-born candidates do.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Actually, I could go for that. Too bad we have this pesky constitution.
Don’t forget Winston Churchill.
He's allowed to do it because he helps a lot with the FReepathons.
Their correspondence has been retained and it is very clear what they meant. They wanted to be sure that the future President would be the child of American citizens to guard against foreign allegiances. Just being born in America is not an equivalent protection and does not square with the intent of the Founder’s or the best interests of America.
Her son will probably wonder why in the world his name shows up all over Freerepublic when he does a Google search.
Those crazy infidels.
The ONLY damn thing “natural born citizen” means is that the person is an American citizen immediately upon their birth. And there is nothing the matter with THAT requirement and much good about it.
Don't get me going. I consider the federal government illegitimate. It has zero moral authority. The courts are random, Congress is out of control and abstains from various duties, and the executive just does what he wants.
It was good while it lasted. The people are so stupid and lazy now, there is no way to revive it. There will be a crash and a reckoning. Good people will get hurt, lose assets, suffer needlessly - because our elites are greedy and corrupt bastards.
Other than that, everything is going pretty darn good!
You are dead wrong. The Framers knew EXACTLY what the term meant and it is exactly why they chose it. Deny all you wish, but before you do, dig a little deeper than disloyal people whose objective is to destroy the constitution as it was written.
Under present law and precedent an anchor baby is not only a citizen by birth, its a natural born citizen.
You can thank a series of moronic Supreme Court decisions elevating jus soli and disparaging jus sanguinis, in total disregard for the views of the Framers, for this particular outrage.
Ted is a natural born Canadian.
That is the first thing that should be clarified.
Maybe the solution is to no longer allow "anchor babies".
Allowing foreigners to illegally enter our country, and use our medical services for free, and then giving the newborn child of foreign parents citizenship is just stupid.
Slut.
Really?
I’m sure Cruz feels blessed by your support.
You wrote:IMHO it’s time to get rid of it and substitute something that is (a) rational, and (b) reasonable.
I replied what other parts you like to change to meet your reqirements of reasonable and rational?
A fair question I might add.
Then you reply:So, you flatly fail to address the substance of my remark, and then engage in ad hominems and insults. If you wish to point the finger of progressivism, you could do no better than starting with the mirror.
SMH
Yes.
It should not be done away with.
Somehow that seems counter-productive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.