(February 4, 2016 at 2:15 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Here's an interesting one for you. The debate about "natural born citizens" and presidential eligibility was brought up in the 2008 election (with Obama), and again this year because Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother.
This isn't a thread about what constitutes a "natural born citizen", but rather whether that clause should even exist. The USA is on a very short list of countries which require their head of state to be a "natural born citizen", rather than someone who has gained citizenship via another means.
So what do you think?
Personally, I think that all citizens should be allowed to become President, but much like the requirement that Presidents be older than 35, people who have gained U.S. citizenship via means other than birth should have held that citizenship for a number of years (e.g. 20) and also been a U.S. resident for the same period of time.
Agreed that all US Presidential candidates should be citizens of a minimally mature age, but since Bush and the current race's Republiclowns have proven that age<>maturity, there is dire need for psychological evaluations and IQ testing as well - they should be required to pass both, and score at least 135 on the IQ test before being allowed on the ballot!
On duration of citizenship, if England needed a new King right and they want you wherever you are, then you could get the job as soon as you land on their soil according to historical precedent - therefore, I tend to doubt that it's really oh-so-very important here. You can be natural-born in the US and still have dual citizenship with your parent's country of origin, and that issue would be truly important - such details need to be made public, and allegiance to other countries which apply must be publicly renounced.
Mr. Hanky loves you!
