Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
George was a "Mexican", more so than Cruz being a "Canadian".
actually george romney ( thru his parents ) would have had to apply for mexican citizenship shortly after his birth. mexico did not recognize jus soli the year of george's birth ( he had US citizenship thru jus sanguinis ). canada does recognize jus soli so cruz instantly became a canadian citizen ( and US citizen ) at birth.
FWIW, it is good to have this discussion. My parents thought that you HAD TO BE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES, like the OP. My dad was in the army at Landstuhl W, Germany in 1964, where I was born in the Army Hospital, my mom, his wife was there as well, both were US citizens born in Pittsburgh, for many years, my parents told me I could never run for president. It was not until 1984, that my constitutional law professor, who was also the head of the county's Democrat Party, and town mayor, told me that was wrong and that I could run.
And FWIW, I was issued a German birth Certificate along with a US Department of State Birth Certificate. Guess which one the State of California allows for an ID card and which one they don't.
It seems unfair because a guy could be born in Norway, move to America when he's one, and then live here 40 years... why shouldn't he be allowed to be president??
As Cronkite use to say, "That's the way it is". I truly don't think it will change in our lifetime.
The original theory was that some foreign monarch (or lesser individual) could move the U.S. owning no allegiance to the country and become head of state. They also took your question in consideration and grandfathered in those not born in the U.S. prior to the revolution. Frankly, I think that the idea has long outlived its usefulness in the political process of being elected President in the 21st century is arduous enough. If the American people want to elect someone who is a naturalized citizen then they can judge the propriety of suck a person holding that office.
Right on.
But, no matter how outdated it is now, it is one of our oldest traditions, and America has very few traditions in comparison to the rest of the world. We cling to the few we have fiercely, wrong, right, or indifferent.
That's the reason why the flag and bald eagle are claimed by everyone on both sides and so vastly overused by all. Our symbols are even fewer than our written traditions.
Right on.
But, no matter how outdated it is now, it is one of our oldest traditions, and America has very few traditions in comparison to the rest of the world. We cling to the few we have fiercely, wrong, right, or indifferent.
That's the reason why the flag and bald eagle are claimed by everyone on both sides and so vastly overused by all. Our symbols are even fewer than our written traditions.
I don't think it should be changed. No other nation allows a foreign born president so why should we!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
