szhosain wrote:
Ah, now here is where the rubber meets the road!! My opinion is that you are incorrect about this. Let me explain why I think so - regardless of the fact that I do not like him in the office of POTUS.
It is the phrase "natural-born US citizen" that is in question. BTW, The answer to my earlier question is: I am a "naturalized" US citizen, but not a "natural-born" US citizen and thus ineligible to hold the office of POTUS.
So, let's see if one more issue can be discussed: if one (or both) of the parents is a US citizen, and a child is born overseas for some reason, is the child a "natural-born" US citizen or not?
Some people say yes, some no ... but that has repercussions today which may not have been thought through by the writers of the Constitution!
For example, if US citizens working for the State department or the military are in a foreign country when their child is born, is the child a "natural-born US citizen" or not? This, btw, was exactly the issue that John McCain faced ... since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone to parents in the military.
My opinion (which has also been espoused by some legal experts): if a parent is US citizens, then the child is a US citizen, no matter where he/she is born. As long as that parent has not explicitly renounced US citizenship (there is a specific form and procedure available in US embassies for doing this!).
IMHO, this makes Obama a US Citizen and eligible for the office of POTUS. His mother was a US citizen - whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya is still irrelevant!
My opposition to him being elected does not have anything to do with his birth ... it has to do with my belief in his ability to do the job and also to espouse the over-liberal, socialist cause of the Democratic party members today. The check-and-balance in the Federal government has been lost with the recent elections.
Note that there are some interesting foreign examples too. Up until some years back, the UK government stated that a child born on UK soil was a UK citizen no matter what nationality the parents. Thus, my wife, who was born in Oxford, UK, is a natural UK citizen even though her parents were non-citizen students living there at the time. They were married in the UK, and my wife was born well after they had been there for a while - no funny last-minute travel involved!
And, now, since my wife is a natural UK citizen, our son is also a UK citizen even though he was born here in the US. Of course, he is also a "natural-born" US citizen, since both of his parents (my wife and I) are naturalized US citizens when he was born, and he was born in the US. He has a US passport and a UK passport (since multiple-nationality is now accepted by the US government).
Some years back, the UK government passed a law that if the mother was NOT a UK citizen, then the child could not be a UK citizen - even if the child was born in the UK! This was done because many people were traveling to the UK from Commonwealth countries and having their children there!
Makes the term "natural-born" somewhat tricky to define and maintain in this day and age, no?
Z
Standing ovation! Those two bolded lines should end this debate.
I have a similar situation as your son. My parents are naturalized US citizens and both were born in Jamaica. I am eligible for Jamaican citizenship, though Ive never had the desire to pursue this. I only have an US passport, though I am also eligible for a Jamaican passport. I think if I was travelling to an country without a favorable opinion of the US, I would obtain that Jamaican passport.