Left wingers like yourself admire our enemies; such as cuba, iran, syria, venezuela, etc; but even those genocide countries will never allow a foreigner to be their president.
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.