Posted on 07/16/2009 8:01:10 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I wonder how history would have changed had Hitler been barred from being chancellor due to the fact he wasn’t born in Germany.
I’m curious why you consider my point evidence of left-wingedness.
I agree that the requirement that the president be native-born being in the Constitution settles the question, up until the Constitution is amended to read otherwise.
My point was merely about the argument some were making on the comments page for this article: someone born elsewhere, but raised here since the age of two, is more likely to be a traitor than someone born here.
This is an utterly idiotic argument. In fact, I think an excellent case can be made that someone who is born elsewhere and chooses to be an American is less likely to become a traitor than someone who is born here and grows up taking the American system for granted and being educated only in its flaws.
Can you comprehend that it is possible to disagree with the validity of a particular line of argument while still agreeing with the position it is intended to support?
I challenge you to look back thru my many thousands of posts and find a single one in which I indicate a shred of admiration for Cuba, Iran, Syria or Venezuela. Or for their governments, anyway.
BTW, a naturalized citizen is not “a foreigner.” He is every bit as much a citizen as one who is natural born. This can be seen by the fact there are only two posts in the entire USA closed to him, President and Vice-President.
It isn't necessary to the argument, and it isn't correct.
Link please. I keep seeing it referred to in a lot of these articles...
Sniff, sniff at post #103.
You object to using correct facts in making an argument? Why?
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.