Tell that to the Framers.
That preposterous hypothetical is exactly what they were protecting this nation from when they made that special requirement.
They had just finished fighting with the British. The LAST thing they wanted was for British citizens to be able to have a child on US soil and have that child RUN the country, particularly the military, some day.
These men wanted nothing but 100% allegiance to the United States AT BIRTH. Pretty smart, weren’t they. This qualification is determined AT BIRTH and nothing matters after that. Natural ‘BORN’. Not natural ‘when you’re running for office’.
That is what natural born is. It’s about ALLEGIANCE upon birth. You either have it or you don’t. When you are BORN to a US citizen and a UK citizen, you are not a natural BORN citizen of the United States. You are a citizen.
Yes, there is a difference. Any old citizen can be a Senator or Representative but it takes a special kind of citizen to be President. That would be one born with 100% allegiance to the United States of America.
Your FReeper name troubles me. Why the satanic numbers?
Infants and children do not have allegiances. They have citizenship rights if they are born on US oil. They are a citizen if they are born in the US.
I don’t see how it could be any clearer.
This is a great comment, except for the part where it’s utterly wrong and ignores the common law interpretation of “natural born citizen” as it existed in 1787.
One good explanation:
http://volokh.com/posts/1204265246.shtml