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.
but a US born citizen could spend the first 21years of life living in a foreign country and be eligible at 35.
would you consider that person to have split allegiances?
US born and natural born, two different things, do not muddy the waters by using incorrect terminology. Go back and read the link I provided if you fail to understand.
US born and natural born, two different things ....
Again, not according to 600 years of Common Law, and 200 years of US Legal History.
go back and re-read his post.
The argument is that if a person is a natural born , then they don't have divided loyalties. to counter that, a person born in the US, and lived here for 18 years, then moved to japan to live there for 20 years; returns at 39 years old is still qualified for POTUS. So how does being born on US soil guaranteed loyalty to the US?
John walker Lindh. Born to us citizen parents, yet is a traitor to the US. he lived in the US all his life, till he joined the Taliban.
US born and natural born, two different things, do not muddy the waters by using incorrect terminology. Go back and read the link I provided if you fail to understand.
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
Yes I support it, You'd have to be something of a moron to discriminate on someone based on place of birth for such a complicated job. Honestly, there's nothing other than nativist sentiments among ignorant people behind keeping this, look at the birther movement.
Fewer words have never been written that could cause an intelligent man's head to explode so rapidly by seeking some form of logic contained therein.
Again, not according to 600 years of Common Law, and 200 years of US Legal History.
go back and re-read his post.
The argument is that if a person is a natural born , then they don't have divided loyalties. to counter that, a person born in the US, and lived here for 18 years, then moved to japan to live there for 20 years; returns at 39 years old is still qualified for POTUS. So how does being born on US soil guaranteed loyalty to the US?
John walker Lindh. Born to us citizen parents, yet is a traitor to the US. he lived in the US all his life, till he joined the Taliban.
I can see you still did not read my link. No reason for me to discuss this further with you.
A citizen is a citizen. As long as they are a legal citizen, naturalized or born on US soil, they should be allowed to run for any office in the United States.
I can see you still did not read my link. No reason for me to discuss this further with you.
even with both parents being US citizens and the child born in the US he could still spend the first 21years of life living abroad and be eligible at 35.
would you consider that person to have dual allegiances ?
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.
