“It looks like you are ignoring the 14th amendment. Would a 100% loyal American who loves this country beyond all else not count if he was born in Miami, and his parents were Cuban?”
Ahhh. Now we’re getting into the territory of whether illegal alien’s children should be granted citizenship.
In a word “no”.
Special dispensation is made for Cuban exiles, and the argument can be made that they ARE U.S. Citizens.
“That’s what you said, isn’t it? “
No, not at all.
“That isn’t what the constitution says. Even without the 14th amendment. “
What isn’t what the Constitution says? You asked me to define “natural born” (citizen), and I told you how I would define it.
“Natural born is never defined. “
Except by half a dozen different government agencies. Immigration has rules about citizenship, DOD adopts those same rules, the State Department probably has their own rules. In them, they probably don’t have a glossary, but they have rules governing it.
““a citizen..., at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.”
So to be president you’d need to be 225 years old? Tough crowd...”
Yeah, especially for vaccuous twits.
I’m sorry you think that’s what that means. I can only hope you’re just pretending to be that inane.
In a word “no”.
Agreed. But that is the law and we have to live with it. (At least until it is repealed, if it ever is)
Special dispensation is made for Cuban exiles, and the argument can be made that they ARE U.S. Citizens.
Ummmm, not quite. With dry feet, they cannot be deported back to Cuba. They still need to become naturalized to be US citizens.
Besides, why should Cubans be so special, hmmmm?
You asked me to define “natural born” (citizen), and I told you how I would define it.
Yes. But you never actually did define it except to give a circular definition, What you said boils down to: natural born means natural born.
Except by half a dozen different government agencies. Immigration has rules about citizenship, DOD adopts those same rules, the State Department probably has their own rules. In them, they probably don’t have a glossary, but they have rules governing it.
Muddying the issue by deliberately confounding the rules for "citizenship" with being "natural born" doesn't help.
Yeah, especially for vaccuous twits.
Hey, you were the one that quoted it as if it was applicable in this election cycle, you even emphasized it as if it was crucially important today.
I’m sorry you think that’s what that means.
The whole point is that I DO NOT know what "natural born" means, and neither do you. If you did, you could give an actual definition, rather than parroting a sentence that contains the phrase without actually defining it.
I think the Founding Fathers intended that any future president be UNQUESTIONABLY an American, first, foremost, unambiguously and without any hint of divided loyalties.
The current debate is jus soli vs jus sanguinis. Does it suffice to be born on American Soil, or be born from American Blood?
If I got a vote, a president would need BOTH.
Yes, that would mean a good and loyal man would not qualify.
Yes, it might mean a total cur would.
The Founding Fathers hoped the voters would stop the latter. Frankly, having seen modern voters, I'm not so sure.
Doesn't matter, "agencies" don't get to define what the Constitution means, nor to define terms contained in it. The reason is obvious. As one example, they could define "arms" to only mean "upper limbs" and nullify the Second Amendment. Or define that talking within 1 mile of a government facility is not "speech". ( of course the opposite has occurred, and "dancing naked" and other "forms of expression" has been defined as "speech".)
Other than as modified by the 14th amendment, the term "natural born citizen" must be read to mean what it meant at the time the Constitution was adopted. (Although the 14th amendment concept was pretty much incorporated, for white people at least, in the founding era understanding, it just wasn't limited to that)