Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Kansas58

So the founders intended that a child could be born to two foreign parents temporarily in the United States. Those parents could then leave the US and raise the child in some other country. That grown child could then come back to the US and become president. Is that what you are asking us to believe by your definition of natural born?

If so then what would be the point in putting it in the constitution in the first place. You are wrong. It was intended that the president always be loyal to the US and not some foreign country. The reasoning was clear. We can see the horrible effect of doing otherwise with Obama who’s loyalties are not with this country at all.


91 posted on 04/30/2011 10:12:14 PM PDT by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]


To: Revel
I never said that.
You wish to debate me by putting words in my mouth that I did not say?
How does that help your case?

NO, if neither parent is a citizen, I don't even buy the “anchor baby” situation we have now, with illegals having kids in the United States. The 14th Amendment says, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” which means, if the parents split up, custody probably won't be decided by a US Court, so -— the kid is NOT a citizen of the United States.

In your silly example? None were ever citizens, none ever became citizens.

114 posted on 04/30/2011 10:33:51 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson