What do you think "natural born American citizen" means

Not sure if this has been done before. One of the requirements to be a Presidential candidate here is a very broad term that they must be natural born American citizens. This year, I discovered that the states apparently define this term according to their own laws. In one state (forgot which), a judge actually considered not putting Obama on the ballot because his father was Kenyan. Try figuring that third to last poll option out and make sense of it. Obama was born in Hawaii to a very American mother. When I last looked, Hawaii was a US state by 1961 and had been US territory for decades before.

I'm stuck between options one and two. If both parents currently bear American citizenship, regardless of whether they were born here or not, their kids should be considered "natural born". I think I'll go with option 1 just for convenience purposes for the candidates. To show that all their documentation is from the US.

I think the whole concept is utterly retarded if you ask me. I mean, why would someone who's born in the US be fit for ruling the nation but someone who moved there when they were - I dunno - 2 years old is not?

If you've been granted US citizenship you should be able to do anything a "born" american can do.

Indeed. The prohibition made a miniscule bit of sense when there was a somewhat-legitimate fear of British immigrants usurping the presidency, but now? It's just stupid.

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

I think the whole concept is utterly retarded if you ask me. I mean, why would someone who's born in the US be fit for ruling the nation but someone who moved there when they were - I dunno - 2 years old is not?

If you've been granted US citizenship you should be able to do anything a "born" american can do.

My dad had a friend who was extremely intelligent. Like, he could really have the potential to be a politician or something.

But because he was born in South Korea and lived there for a week (and spent the other ~42 years in the USA) he couldn't EVER run... just because of this dumb rule.

I suppose back in the 1700's or 1800's it could make some amount of sense, like John said. But these days? It should be removed.

Yeah, it should be removed. But good luck trying to do so.

To be really honest, it is not like this is really important anyway. I think the US has bigger problems right now than this.

^ That's a typical way to tell people to shut up. Yes, we have bigger problems. However, I think everyone already knows that, and there's always room for discussion of anything. No reason to try to pressure people into silence on issues they feel are important enough to talk about.

Regarding the topic, I've always been under the impression that anyone born on U.S. territory is considered a natural-born U.S. citizen, regardless of their parents' citizenship.

Here's something from the relevant Wikipedia article:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.[1]

I don't think that because someone was born in a different country, that it makes them "unfit" to rule the United States. I think they should have had to of lived here for at least a decade and show considerable knowledge of how our system works, but there are too many people that are natural born American citizens that I know would never be a good canidate for any ruling office.

"Rule" the United States?

As long as at least one of the parents is an American citizen and the child is born in America then I would consider them a natural born american citizen.

---------- Post added at 03:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:48 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Gamzee

My dad had a friend who was extremely intelligent. Like, he could really have the potential to be a politician or something.

But because he was born in South Korea and lived there for a week (and spent the other ~42 years in the USA) he couldn't EVER run... just because of this dumb rule.

I suppose back in the 1700's or 1800's it could make some amount of sense, like John said. But these days? It should be removed.

He's able to run for any political office except for President.

A natural born American is any person born on territory held by the United States. That's it. Like Hombre de Mundo said, the idea that just because someone happened to be born somewhere outside of the nation means that they shouldn't be allowed certain principles is sickening and completely backward.