(February 4, 2016 at 2:58 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Regardless, it is there and whether or not it should or should not be is irrelevant.
*sigh* you get that this is a thread discussing a hypothetical right Min? The fact that it exists in the Constitution doesn't mean we can't discuss whether or not it should exist there.
(February 4, 2016 at 2:58 pm)Minimalist Wrote: So, and this is bound to piss off the birthers, Obama who was born in Hawaii would be "natural-born" even if both his parents had been Kenyans while Cruz, born in Canada, would have some problem.
Cruz would only have a problem if both his parents were non-US citizens though.
(February 4, 2016 at 3:18 pm)KUSA Wrote: The purpose of it was to make sure the president has an allegiance with the US and not another country. I agree with the intent of the this.
What if Putin came over here and got elected? That wouldn't be good at all now would it?
I understand that, but blanket banning seems a little harsh. After all, there are plenty of U.S. Citizens who have worked for foreign governments, have spied against the U.S., etc. These people would have all be eligible for the presidency.
That's why I personally think there should be a restriction, but it should be on the amount of time the person has been a citizen. A foreign national who has become a U.S. citizen and has lived in the U.S. for 20 years is highly likely to be allegiance to the U.S. more so than his or her country of birth.
(February 4, 2016 at 3:54 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It exists as protection against foreign influence. Makes it a little more difficult for the proverbial "manchurian candidate" to get into the highest elected office.
The issue of foreign influence seems more important than an inconvenience of a few decades, at most, for the politically motivated.
It makes it more difficult, sure, but not impossible. An American citizen can easily ally themselves with another country (many have done in the past) and they would still be eligible.
