Natural Born Citizens: Understanding Who Can Be POTUS in a Nation Beset By Divided Loyalties

Every four years, we are reminded that the president of the United States must be a "natural born citizen." But what does this even mean? Does it apply to everyone born in America, and is there a difference between a "native born" (one naturalized at birth by statute) and a "natural born" (one who does not require any naturalization) citizen?

That's the thing: It's never really been decided who is and is not a natural born citizen of the United States. In fact, there's not even universal agreement that anyone born within the borders of the United States is a natural born citizen. Unsurprisingly, there is an ideological divide in the United States between those who believe anyone born here is a citizen and those who disagree.

While the concept of a "natural born citizen," which goes all the way back to England, is often discussed in terms of who can and cannot be the president, it alludes to bigger issues: Of illegal vs. legal immigration as well as assimilation, because its goal is to protect against electing someone with divided loyalties. The concept itself has roots in the Old World, but it also presents pressing questions for the United States today that go far beyond presidential politics and to the very core of the character of our nation.

There was a massive immigration to the United States between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the Great Depression. However, those who are so quick to remind us of this historical truth neglect another: There was also an almost total moratorium on immigration between the Great Depression and when Ted Kennedy and his paymasters opened the borders in 1965. Further, those such as Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter have explored the role that mass immigration played in dramatically expanding the scope and size of the federal government in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Birthright citizenship was for freed slaves. So why is it being used to allow the children of illegal aliens to vote in our elections and enjoy other benefits of citizenship? More to the point, why are we allowing one faction of American politics to import an unlimited number of reliable voters, and how is this undermining our representative republic?

To continue reading Natural Born Citizens: Understanding Who Can Be POTUS in a Nation Beset By Divided Loyalties, please visit ammo.com/articles/natural-born-citizens-naturalized-us-citizenship-who-can-be-potus

I agree that we can get rid of birthright citizenship at this point.


note:I only read the last line*

In terms of the qualifications to be president, I agree 100% that the constitution is extremely vague.  This a perfect example why textualism is a fools errand. A strict textual interpretation would literally mean that George Washington could never have qualified to be president for the simple fact that he was born under British rule in the colony of Virginia.

I agree this is an absurdity, but there is no provision in the constitution that states "prior to this date" the following clauses shall be enforced. In other words there is no savings clause contained anywhere within the document, and as we all no if it is not within the four corners is simply should not be given any consideration.

On the topic of birthright citizenship, I think it would be instructive to look at Ted Cruz. His father was a Cuban national, whom knocked an American in Canada, in which country he was born. The relevant test to determine if this foreigner is a Natural United States Citizen, rests on the simple question if his mother lived within the United States within the previous 5 years, (I believe 5 years is correct but it may be longer).

Textually the constitution makes any person born on American Soil an automatic "natural" citizen. Why don't you ask Donald about all of the pregnant Russians spend the last trimester of pregnancy at Trump Towers Miami. Google it, cause its true.