Foreign-born US President

[nclib]

Angus, would you support the rights of persons born abroad to American parents to become President?

[angus]

What law? It's part of the Constitution ... which Jefferson did not write.

Article 2, Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

This particular Clause (along with many others!) was written by Jefferson.  I know you'll argue this point, as your history professor probably told you he was in France at the time.  And he was.  And most of his correspondence with Madison included congressional concessions and queries about the absence of a Bill of Rights (which was later added to placate the Rhode Island delegation), but I'll make the argument (in another thread, as it deserves its own thread) that Jefferson was at least one of many authors of this requirement, if not its primary sponsor.

I'll also add that the Berbers consider the Liver the organ in which Love resides.  So, you can insert Heart, Liver, Kidney, whichever you prefer.  If I have left out anyone's conventional organ of Love, it is an omission of ignorance, not one of ethnocentrism.  I would delineate them all if I knew them all.

The law?  The Law is the Constitution.  The Constitution is the Law.  All else is merely clarification.  (I'll say in advance of the obligatory sequence of admonitions about Supreme Law from our religious friends that by Law I refer to the Law of the USA.)

[angus]

Angus, would you support the rights of persons born abroad to American parents to become President?

as a technicality, of course I would.  as is specified in the Law.

but, as a philosophical issue, hmmmm....

Dammit Mark feel free to jump in here anytime!

It's actually a pretty good question, you'll give me some time to think about it first.

[Erc]

Wasn't Jefferson over in Paris when they were writing the Constitution?  Or was that the Bill of Rights...

Anyway, back to the topic at hand...

Although I can certainly understand Philip's point of view here (and shared it at one point in time), I do have to disagree.

Naturalized citizens weren't born in the United States by lot of fate.  They chose to come here because they wanted to, because they liked something about the United States, whether it be its political freedoms or its good economy.

Just like converts to a religion, 'converts' to a nationality are often (although not always, if they grow disenchanted) much more patriotic Americans than the locals are--because they chose to be American, and they know what makes America great...because they've seen other countries that don't have the liberties that America takes for granted.  And, in many ways, that makes them more American than many of us.  And I don't see how we can deprive them of the ultimate right of any American citizen--to run for the office of the Presidency of the United States.

[angus]

yes, the objections made by Richius, which generally are those I attempted to voice as well, do not apply to a person who is a US citizen by virtue of his foreign birth to US citizens.  (for example, the children of military service members or diplomatic corps members)  My understanding of the clause in the constitution is also that they are eligible, but my knowledge of constitutional law is pretty weak.  (I'm not a lawyer)  Still, beyond the technicality, such a person is a native in every sense of the term.  I'd call them analogous to the Citizens that the Constitution describes.  Clearly, the framers recognized that anyone who was willing to put his life on the line by offending the Crown would be as culturally loyal to the US as a native.  I think that kind of naturalism extends to a person born of US national parents in a foreign country. 

A more interesting case would be what about those folks whose mothers swim across the Rio Grande just to have their babies as indigent care patients at hospitals in Texas border towns?  Clearly they do it just so their babies can be US citizens and have a better life.  I may be one of the few conservatives who don't hold that against them, although in unguarded moments I suspect all would admit to understanding the motivation.  And just as clearly they'd be culturally loyal to La Patria, as Mr. Fox refers to his country in his wonderful speeches.  Mind you, as a technicality, these persons are native-born US citizens, and subject to all the rights, priveleges, and responsibilities thereunto appertaining, but as a philosophical issue, would our collective objections apply to them, and for the same reasons?