I’ve resisted getting involved with the President’s birth certificate drama, other than an occasional joke, for the simple reason I believed eventually it would be produced. But in the mean time, volumes of research has been produced which discusses the issue of eligibility. The fact that this debate took place at all is perhaps the biggest witness to the fact that clarifications of intent is needed. Some say the intent of the authors is unknowable, others produce documents that support one interpretation or another. Others will try to twist the words to their desired outcome, and after giving every justification for why they think their position is supported, conclude with something that logically reads like: “every justification I just used to support the case I just made should be removed from the constitution.” Whoa, there, fella.
The underlying point is important. Why did taxpayers send $23 Million dollars to support a referendum to a country the president’s father was a lifelong citizen of? Is the President of our country eligible to be president of another country also?
Sole allegiance to the United States should be, (and I believe is), a requisite of the Presidency. There should be no ambiguity, no doubt that the person holding that office has undivided devotion.
The fact that so many issues devolve from citizenship is one reason I think this needs absolute elucidation; if we don’t agree what a citizen is, how can we then discuss immigration, or entitlements? If we have non-uniform immigration enforcement, can we continually expand entitlement programs that only encourage more immigration, while not resolving the central issue of citizenship?
In the United States, we don’t have denizens. We have Natural Born, which would seem to indicate sole, indisputable allegiance. If you adopt Vattel’s version, Natural Born encompasses three conditions: Both parents citizens, and born on native soil. Other interpretations are less strict, Born on native soil, with one parent or the other being a citizen. My contention, that the former, being the highest standard, is the only one that indisputably meets the condition of sole allegiance.