Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
That is my position: if one is born here they are a citizen. But Republicans keep rehashing and reshaping the issue and maybe it is time that someone took this to the courts to decide once and for all.
|
Yes, but the requirement for Constitutional POTUS eligibility is
"natural born citizen." And the man who originated the term, John Jay (a Founding Father and the first Chief Justice of the US), meant it to exclude foreigners from eligibility. Those born dual citizens, even if born in the US, are born foreigners, as well.
The problem with being born a dual (or more) citizen (US as well as foreign) is that such persons owe allegiance to multiple countries and are legally obligated to obey the laws of multiple countries, including any mandatory service in a foreign military. I've already posted the link where the US State Dept warns about the problems of conflicting/competing allegiance and legal obligations.
What happens when a foreign country impresses a born dual citizen POTUS into service for them, as
they most certainly would have the legal right to do under international law?
That's what the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid with the 'natural born citizen' requirement. They wanted POTUS to have
no split, dual, or otherwise compromised/competing allegiance from birth to prevent that possibility.
Pretty simple, really. And extremely reasonable to require a POTUS and the Commander in Chief of our military to have 100% allegiance to the U.S. from birth, with
no competing/conflicting foreign claims on his/her allegiance or service.
To be clear:
the problem is conflicting/competing allegiance at birth via dual (or more) citizenship, and a foreign country's valid legal right according to international law to enforce its laws upon its own citizens/subjects, worldwide.
And renouncing a foreign citizenship with which one is born is iffy. In times of war or conflict, that renunciation may not be recognized. That's what happened in the early 19th century to U.S. citizen men
born in the U.S. to parents (fathers, given that historical era) who had been born British subjects before the U.S. gained independence. Even though those U.S.-born men had never stepped foot in England and had been U.S. citizens all their lives, the UK had the legal right under international law to impress them into service in the British Royal Navy because they were the progeny of those who had been born British subjects, and therefore were also British subjects themselves under British law.
That said... Congress had the chance in 2004 to define those with birth circumstances such as Cruz's "natural born citizens" for Constitutional Presidential eligibility purposes,
but did not.
2004 Senate bill 2128.
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.
