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 ...
I hope you don’t get in trouble over that. I know a guardian angle is looking over you :)
Who's refusing to discuss? Not me. Up until this point, you've been purposely cryptic in your responses, which doesn't help the other guy to grasp what you're saying.
So, what do you want to discuss? Your original post, or what?
Does your loyalty include loyalty to the procedures the Founders provided for amending the Constitution? Or do you just selectively pick and choose which parts you feel like being loyal to?
The putrid smell of a vile troll...
Those are current laws. I linked to them. They operate today, under the language of the law.
Yes, some of the people naturalized were already alive. But a child born today in the Virgin Islands or Guam is a citizen of the US at birth. IMMEDIATELY UPON THEIR BIRTH.
Your reading comprehension appears to be impaired. If you are not rational or capable of reasoned thought, it would be a waste of my time, and only cause you irritation, if we were to continue our correspondence.
************************************************************************
Wow, no need to be that touchy. We both agree that folks RETROACTIVELY made citizens from the time of their births are NOT natural born citizens because they were not citizens immediately upon their birth. Now, you’ve somewhat veered from that discussion to something else. So let me ask you something.
In YOUR opinion, is a child born today in Guam (who you say is an American citizen at birth) to two parents who are from Guam but are American citizens. Is THAT CHILD who was born in Guam a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN for purposes of eligibility for the Presidency?
Yes, and a Guardian Angel, too!
You’re the very best, Karl Spooner!!!
I made the rather simple suggestion that the Constitution be amended - using the procedures the Founders provided - to clarify the standards used to determine who is eligible to be president, and that those standards should be clear, rational, and reasonable. I do not believe the current NBC standard provides anything other than fodder for useless fighting.
Is that so cryptic?
Perhaps you should take a bath, then.
Sorry that I misspelled Angel!
No. But you misstate the statute. It is along these lines, using your sentence structure:
a child born today in Guam to two parents who are citizens of any country in the world are citizens of the US immediately upon their birth.
You said they were NBC. "The ONLY damn thing 'natural born citizen' means is that the person is an American citizen immediately upon their birth" @ 50
They are rational and reasonable as they are. Our constitution is the most rational, reasonable. and long lasting of any such document in the history of the world.Messing with it to try to get an unqualified person qualified For the presidency is an example of political infamy. Hands off that which has worked well for over 200 years. CRUZ is NOT eligible under the original intentions of the constitution.
The mere fact that there is such a raging argument over such thin, ambiguous matters is proof positive that the standards are neither rational nor reasonable. The standards should be clear enough that we never have to have this argument again. It’s wasteful and detracts from the serious discussions of substantive issues we should be having instead.
And this goes far beyond Cruz, who would in any event get no benefit out of a properly done amendment to the Constitution. It goes to fixing this problem so we never have to deal with it again in future.
If you'd stated it just that way from the top, I doubt you'd have run into so much hostility on the thread. I half suspected that that's what you meant, but it wasn't possible to be sure because of how you worded it.
I personally wouldn't mind seeing an amendment to the Constitution stating that, "NBC is defined as: born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents."
Using a modicum of logic and reason, it can be seen that the above definition is the purest form of citizenship that exists. There is no question, that that is precisely what the Framers would have intended when inserting that requirement into the Constitution.
The office of president is the only office in our government that has that requirement, and for very good reasons, which I won't belabor here.
And I would agree that having it stated as such would achieve the aim of clarity that I seek. On the substantive grounds I don’t believe the standard should be so restrictive, but I do agree that it should be that clear.
Look, I know you likely don’t want to answer the question and are probably just pretending to be obtuse, but let me ask you one more time.
Is a child born today in Guam of parents who are residents and citizens of Guam (and also American citizens—probably from their births) an American citizen at the birth of that child in Guam? And, 2nd, is that child born in Guam a “natural born citizen” for purposes of determining eligibility for the American presidency?
These questions are NOT complicated and are meant for clarity. Don’t fear answering them please -— YOU were the person who brought up the Virgin Islands & Guam and American citizenship.
You are trying all the usual liberal tactics, try to change the subject and distraction from the original subject. I am saying nothing of the sort re: black people. In fact, I would strongly support Allen West for Veep. So shut your mouth and stop trying to dissimulate the question into racist grounds.
Trump’s mother was naturalized an American Citizen years before Donald was born. His father was a citizen and he was born in New York, U.S. A. He qualifies on all counts.
Cruz has only the argument of one count and loses on two. There is NO question Trump is a Natural born citizen, but there is enormous evidence that Cruz is NOT.
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.