U.S. Presidents & The Natural-born-citizen Clause

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

That a safeguard can be circumvented is no reason not to have them, or more specifically, to get rid of them.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

Precisely the point.  Being 'natural born' doesn't automatically confer allegiance of any kind.  Here's a more likely scenario than Putin running for the US presidency:

Walter and Ilsa, citizens of Sweden, come to the US on work visas.  They stay for an extended period, during which their son Karl is born in the US.  Since Walter and Ilsa have both maintained their Swedish citizenship, baby Karl is a Swede, not a USian.  But he is steeped in American culture, mores and values.  He speaks fluent, unaccented English.  After school, he joins the US army and serves with distinction.  Upon his discharge, he enrolls first at university, then goes to law school.  Karl works hard and builds a modestly successful legal practice.  At the urging of friends, he stands for the local council (or whatever the American equivalent is) and wins.  Over time, he attains higher and higher political office.  At the age of 50, he is understood by virtually everyone to be eminently suited to be President, a position from which he is forever barred.

Bit of a silly rule, if you ask me.

Boru

[Edwardo Piet]

What country you were born in is accident of birth and should never matter. Whether you'd make a good president is what's important.

[Minimalist]

*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.

And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Cruz would only have a problem if both his parents were non-US citizens though.

That is the question.  The Supreme Court in US v Wong Kim Ark ruled that a child born to Chinese nationals within the US was a US citizen.  It is harder to find cases dealing with the opposite question, namely the status of a child born outside of the US to US parent(s).

I did find Montana v. Kennedy, 1961:  Make of it what you will:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-co...6/308.html

Petitioner's mother is a native-born citizen of the United States and his father is an Italian citizen who has never been naturalized. They were married in the United States, and their marital relationship has never been terminated. Petitioner was born in Italy in 1906, while his parents were residing there temporarily, and his mother brought him to the United States later in the same year. He has since resided continuously in the United States and has never been naturalized. Held: Petitioner is not a citizen of the United States. -

[The Grand Nudger]

Precisely the point.  Being 'natural born' doesn't automatically confer allegiance of any kind.  Here's a more likely scenario than Putin running for the US presidency:

Walter and Ilsa, citizens of Sweden, come to the US on work visas.  They stay for an extended period, during which their son Karl is born in the US.  Since Walter and Ilsa have both maintained their Swedish citizenship, baby Karl is a Swede, not a USian.  But he is steeped in American culture, mores and values.  He speaks fluent, unaccented English.  After school, he joins the US army and serves with distinction.  Upon his discharge, he enrolls first at university, then goes to law school.  Karl works hard and builds a modestly successful legal practice.  At the urging of friends, he stands for the local council (or whatever the American equivalent is) and wins.  Over time, he attains higher and higher political office.  At the age of 50, he is understood by virtually everyone to be eminently suited to be President, a position from which he is forever barred.

Bit of a silly rule, if you ask me.

Boru

Blame that on Karls parents, not our laws.  The law is meant to keep his parents from becoming president, not him. We'll just go with someone else, however eminently suited he is, he's not uniquely suited or required.

[Minimalist]

Boru may well be right on that one, Rhythm.

In 1951, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit noted in Zimmer v. Acheson that "[t]here are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens", quoting a dictum by Justice Gray from United States v. Wong Kim Ark and Elk v. Wilkins.[6] The court ruled that Zimmer, who was born abroad in 1905 to a U.S. citizen father and a noncitizen mother, was himself a citizen under the nationality law in force at the time of his birth, but "his status as a citizen was that of a naturalized citizen and not a native-born citizen".[

Cruz' situation is slightly reversed from Zimmer in that his mother was a citizen and his father was not.  But that only makes Cruz a "naturalized" citizen which, sadly, is what Trump is saying.

Once again, I find it hysterical that the bullshit that the right-wing nuts tried to unleash on Obama is actually more appropriate to the King of Sleaze.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

If the US ever gets over its collective xenophobia regarding presidential birthplaces, I'm willing to serve.

I mean, if you lot don't mind switching to a Guinness and sheep-based economy and changing your national anthem to 'Red Haired Mary'.

Boru

That wouldn't be so bad a life

[AFTT47]

I'm rarely in favor of inflexible rules like this and I make no exception here. I understand the intent but its pretty dated. If someone ran for President today and his/her loyalties were elsewhere, it would come out. The scrutiny a candidate receives today is extreme. Look at the attention Romney got over riding his dog in a carrier on the roof of the family car, lol.

That said, the law regarding Presidents that I despise is the two-term limit. The only thing that should be limiting anyone's terms IMO is the voters.

[Tiberius]

That a safeguard can be circumvented is no reason not to have them, or more specifically, to get rid of them.

True, but I feel that in this case the safeguard has the potential to do more damage than it attempts to prevent. In this day and age, becoming President is a huge task, all parts of your life are scrutinized. The political process does more to weed out potential threats to the presidency than any law restricting eligibility.

In addition, whilst the president is an important role, there are many other important roles in government which do not have this restriction. I do not believe, for instance, that a Supreme Court Justice has to be a natural born citizen, nor does the Speaker of the House. Both effectively control the other two branches of government.

One could argue that a Supreme Court made up entirely of naturalized US citizens, or a Congress made up entirely (or mostly) of naturalized US citizens could pose more threat to the U.S. than the President.

That is the question.  The Supreme Court in US v Wong Kim Ark ruled that a child born to Chinese nationals within the US was a US citizen.  It is harder to find cases dealing with the opposite question, namely the status of a child born outside of the US to US parent(s).

I did find Montana v. Kennedy, 1961:  Make of it what you will:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-co...6/308.html

Petitioner's mother is a native-born citizen of the United States and his father is an Italian citizen who has never been naturalized. They were married in the United States, and their marital relationship has never been terminated. Petitioner was born in Italy in 1906, while his parents were residing there temporarily, and his mother brought him to the United States later in the same year. He has since resided continuously in the United States and has never been naturalized. Held: Petitioner is not a citizen of the United States. -

The U.S. Travel website states the following: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/...broad.html

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

So, Ted Cruz was born in 1970, meaning his mother had to have been physically present in the U.S. for at least 10 years, or 5 after the age of 14. Apparently Cruz released his mother's birth certificate, which states that she was born in Delaware on Nov. 23, 1934. So, assuming that she spent at least the first 10 years of her life in the United States, that would make Ted Cruz a U.S. Citizen at birth.

[Jenny A]

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.

That was the fear and I guess I understand it. I just think differently. Who is a better citizen then someone who affirmatively choose to be a citizen.

As to what a natural born U.S. citizen is, it's pretty obvious to me. If you are a citizen from birth you are a natural born U.S. citizen. Cruz and Obama both are. Schwartznagger is not.