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 ...
NBC was put in the Constitution by the framers for very good reasons. Poland was dismembered right about that time in large part due to foreign born rulers. They didn’t want that to happen to us. Supporters of Barack Obama and Ted Cruz obviously don’t care about that. Very selfish, IMO.
Who's Rubio ? Where was he born, and what citizenship were his parents ?
Should a Prince of Serbia be allowed to become President? Greece? Russia? Denmark?
2012 Archduke of Austria marred an American Citizen.
2013 a marriage of Swedish royalty
2009 Germany
2002 Cambodia...and so on
Yes. By statute. And an anchor baby can be president for that reason.
The same as your BIL and my father who clerked in Federal appellate court system and often won cases there later I his life. My only regret is he is no longer wit us to see this as settled law
Ummmm, there's a bad connection somewhere. Here are my contentions:
I'm not sure why you are pitching this particular hardball at me since it is YOUR position, not mine, that elevates jus soli over jus sanguinis in contradiction to the intent and wish of the Framers.
It's you and your co-thinkers that gave us this abomination. Take some responsibility, for crying out loud!
“”Whatever the merits of this concern back in the 1780s, it is hardly a plausible scenario today.””
Surely, this is a joke. How long does the writer think it would take a “naturalized citizen” to completely turn the country upside down if he/she were to take the office of the presidency? Haven’t we seen enough proof over the past few years that without loyalty to THIS COUNTRY, everything from there is all downhill for US......
I’ve heard good things about that show, thanks. (A child born in uk would not have been eligible for the American presidency however )
I hear ya’. Just saying, I can picture some duplicitous prick (like Orin Hatch) making those arguments
Here’s one.
Zeid is the son of Prince Ra’ad bin Zeid, Lord Chamberlain of Jordan.
Married American citizen.
I can’t believe so many on this site think the children of royalty born in foreign countries should be able to run for POTUS
Because it’s a liberal stand. If you agree with it as said by others earlier up thread you are not a conservative
And, by the way, the verbiage you INCORRECTLY attributed to me in your post was actually made by the person with userID ‘WhiskeyX’. You may or may not have known that -— but follow the breadcrumbs and you’ll see that it is true.
READ THIS PARAGRAPH FROM THE ARTICLE AT LEAST TWICE.
“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.”
AND HERE IS MY VIEW ON THE SUBECT:
While I’m not ready to allow the Presidency to some naturalized Jehadi (been there, done that), it would make some sense for Congress to define Natural Born Citizen, a phrase that may have been understood by some in the late 1700s but has never actually been defined in law. At least as far as I know.
But we need to end the divisive and stupid arguments about the meaning of ‘natural born’.
..................................................
Divisive? Stupid? From the founding until 2008, the pople of the united States were protected from a foreign president by this “divisive and stupid” phrase, Natural born citizen. What has happened to our country since this foreigner has been president? Common sense would dictate the continuation of natural Born Citizen as the REQUIREMENT to be president.
The country has been divisive since its birth. Lets stay that way for another 200 years. To be otherwise is to be a slave.
Because sadly, there are those of us who feel that the Canadian-born son of a Cuban father is America’s only hope, we are determined to throw out this constitutional protection in these days of massive invasion from south of the border and the middle east, not to mention the legal immigration of huge numbers of Somalis, Syrians, and Haitians. We already have massive numbers of legals and illegals with they are all reproducing massive massive numbers of anchor babies, plus visa babies from Asia. So picture 20 years from now, we have an anchor baby reaching the age of majority, maybe he/she did not even grow up here, speaks little or no English, no cultural identity to the US, decides to exercise his right as a “natural born” citizen. (Question, after we have thrown out two citizen parents, born on American soil, what is the precedents to keep the requirement that the candidate be age 35 or have lived in the US for 14 years?)
So here we have this foreigner with no cultural, language, or family ties whatsoever to the US, running for President, and we have massive numbers of Anchor babies, of voting age, as legal and illegal voting immigrants. Consider also the move to do away with the electoral college as well, so that the presidential election will be determined by a few cities and not the country as a whole. Consider there will be cities that will consist almost entirely of these voting blocs, and these cities, along with massive fraud, will make this complete and utter foreigner who does not even speak our language, commander in chief of our military and chief executive of our land?
Tell me, will we have a country then? Or will we be just second class citizens of a state of Mexico or Saudi Arabia or ???
Good point. But consider the following:
1. The U.S. is filled with radical leftists who meet every requirement for the presidency and yet are hell-bent on destroying the country anyway.
2. Our government is so heavily exposed to foreign lobbyists as it is that in some way we're barely even a sovereign nation anymore.
Trump hasn’t completely neutralized Cruz, yet.
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.