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

[Tiberius]

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.

[FatAndFaithless]

I think it's an archaic and useless principle that should be removed. Whose vagina someone came out of and where they did should have no bearing whatsoever on their ability and qualifications to lead this country.

[Chad32]

I think it is useful if someone grew up here, and knows a good bit about Americans and their politics, but if they were born in another country, and grew up here, I don't think it matters.

[FatAndFaithless]

I think it is useful if someone grew up here, and knows a good bit about Americans and their politics, but if they were born in another country, and grew up here, I don't think it matters.

Honestly I don't even care if they 'grew up' here.  If they're knowledgeable about our history and politics, and have shown ability to lead and be effective in a political arena (which I'm assuming is a given, as we're talking about presidential candidates here) I don't really care where they grew up.

[downbeatplumb]

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.

Thinking of running huh.
Well you'd be a better choice than Ted or Trump hats for sure.

[Jackalope]

It shouldn't matter. Let the people collectively decide what criteria matter at the polls.

[Tiberius]

Another quirk I find weird is that the person in position #2 on the presidential line of succession (i.e. the person who becomes President if the current President and Vice President are unable to serve) is only required to be a U.S. citizen. The Speaker of the House could have been born in any country in the world, immigrated to the U.S., become a citizen, get elected to Congress, become Speaker of the House, and would still not be able to become either President or Vice President if either was unable to serve.

The current Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell should be in 8th place on the presidential line of succession, but because she was born a British citizen she is ineligible. She moved to the U.S. when she was 3!

[Minimalist]

The problem is that the constitution uses the phrase "natural born citizen" and never defines it.

[Tiberius]

The problem is that the constitution uses the phrase "natural born citizen" and never defines it.

No, but it's been interpreted as meaning someone who was either born in the U.S., or born outside of the U.S. to a parent who was a U.S. citizen (and there are some other age limit things, etc.)

This thread isn't about what the phrase means, it's about whether there should be a clause in the first place.

[Minimalist]

Regardless, it is there and whether or not it should or should not be is irrelevant.

the 1844 case of Lynch v. Clarke
held that parental citizenship was not significant in that Julia Lynch, born in New York while her British parents were visiting the US was a "natural-born" US citizen in spite of the fact that both she and her parents left the US soon after her birth and never returned.

In the course of the decision, the court cited the Constitutional provision and said:

Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.[48]

And further:

Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.[49]

The decision in Lynch was cited as persuasive or authoritative precedent in numerous subsequent cases, and reinforced the interpretation that "natural born citizen" meant born "within the dominions and allegiance of the United States" regardless of parental citizenship.

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.