Either that, or being born within the U.S borders. If it was only that both parents were of U.S citizenship, Obama would not have been president since only his mother was a U.S citizen. Say thank you to Hawaii!
True. This is why so many Mexican couples try to be on the U.S. side of the border when their child is born. They must also try to have the birth take place in a hospital, so there is an official record of the birth. Being born in a camp or orchard somewhere probably wouldn't help much.
I understand that the official head of the Canadian government is the British monarch. In the US of A, the President, by law mus be born (not naturalized) as a US citizen, Being born in the US qualifies a candidate as a born US citizen regardless of the nationality of the parents, but having at least one us citizen as a parent also qualifies someone born outside the US as a natural US citizen.
Back in the 2000 presidential nomination campaign, Republican candidate John McCain face some birther opposition because he was born in Panama , Since both of his parents were US citizens he is a natural US citizen.
Thanks for the clarification, interesting.
As for Canadian head of state, the monarch is simply a rubber stamp whose function is performed by the governor general or lt. gov. for the provinces. The gov. general or lt. governors don't have to be Canaduan born. The monarch does not have to be UK born, all of which don't suggest that our system is more rational but still wonder about the utility of requiring US born for president?
My understanding is that the then-recent example of Poland was also prominent in their minds. Poland had an elected king (once elected by the Polish diet, a monarch for life), but it could be any nobleman; and people outside of Poland would vie for the prize. Not only that but the diet had to vote unanimously to take any sort of action. As a result of lack of cohesion, Poland was at the time undergoing repeated partitions and would eventually be swallowed up by Prussia, Russia, and Austria.
As others have stated, it is to protect the US from being sold out by pro British politicians. Nowadays its nothing more than a patriotic stance. The whole "Murica for Muricans" idea.
We can't have any foreign born socialists, communists, Marxists, Islamists, Atheists, non whites and all undesirable heathens come to Murica and change our ways of life of God, country, guns and unlimited supply of fried foods.
I agree that there is some basis for resenting those of other races and cultures but curious as to how that might affect the suitability for governing?
For example, I resent Obama and people of his sort because they got good quality skin and my ancestors (Wales) cursed me with thin, easily damaged, colorless covering. I don't wish them ill but do quitely pout at the injustice. If there were a diety, I would blame it.
That and the French, Italians and Persians have food which is far tastier. None of this is fair at all....
I don't think Marxists, communists or socialists have decent ethnic food although some seemed to offer sour grapes.....
Some Atheists can make cracking pasta according to the teachings of His Noodliness (peace and sauce be upon Him) but none of that helps my sunburn. Grump, snivel, pout.
You should try soul food. Then you'll really have something to pout over. (And possibly a heart attack too)
I'm not sure if that's a slam against or endorsement of soul food. Personally, I love soul food, especially the barbecue part of it.
Most whites-against-blacks racism has been against black males, so I wonder if it might have something to do with black men swinging major pipe. Jealousy in other words.
What does that mean???
What does what mean?
Not being disrespectful but maybe a bit dull.