Nationalism and the Race for American President

Nationalism and the Race for American President

The news this past week has been about Senator Cruz and the fact he was born in Canada.  While most believe that the idea of a "natural citizen" includes not only those people born in the US, but also those who were born outside the US but to a U.S. citizen; there is still some question about whether those born outside the country should be allowed to run for office.

As a non-American, I have no say in their politics, but I do have an opinion about this.  First, let's examine why this is an issue at all.  At the time of the U.S. becoming a nation, they were under the thumb of the British.  The framers of the constitution reasoned that a person born in the U.S. (or at least, born of U.S. parents) is assumed to be free of the influences of a foreign government.  There were other provisions to cover the initial period of American Constitutional Law (in other words, at the time the U.S. became a nation, nobody had been born in the "U.S.").  So, anyone who had been born in the "colonies" was considered a natural-born U.S. citizen.

Let's get back to something more recent.  Senator Cruz was born in Canada, and I think his family moved to the U.S. when he was four years old.  His mother was born in the U.S., making Ted Cruz a U.S. citizen by birth.  However, since he was born in Canada, and Canada allows dual citizenship, he actually maintained his Canadian citizenship until renouncing it in 2014.  From what I've read, most constitutional experts agree that Cruz is eligible to run for president.

Now, consider three "what-if" scenarios.

What if Cruz (or any candidate) was born in a country unfriendly to the U.S.  What if he had been born in Russia, or Iran, or Cuba - still to a U.S. born mother?  And what if he had moved to the U.S. at the age of 20 (instead of age 4)?  According to the U.S. laws, he would still have been considered a natural born American; and providing he had a minimum of 14 years of residency in the U.S. and was at or above the age of 35 (those last two items both being requirements to serve as president) he would be just as eligible to run for President as he is now (a Canadian born, who has been a resident of the U.S. since age 4).

Here's another scenario.  What if Ted Cruz had been born in the U.S. to non-U.S. citizens?  And what if those non-U.S. citizens were spies for an unfriendly foreign government and had been grooming their child for just such an intrusion into the government?  According to current rules, Cruz would be totally eligible to run (having been born in the U.S. and lived here for more than 14 years)?  Although not spies, this second scenario does fit the parentage of a second contender for President:  Senator Marco Rubio.

My final scenario pertains to future lands that become part of the United States.  Prior to Alaska and Hawaii becoming states of the union (both of these happening during my lifetime), would persons born in those places *before* amalgamation with the U.S. have been considered eligible to run for President?  How is this applied for future lands that may become part of the U.S.?

What I'm trying to point out is that the rules for eligibility for President have very little to do with the "qualifications" and "personality" necessary to be an effective leader.  Maybe some day, these rules will be replaced with more reasonable requirements - such as basic citizenship and a declared allegiance to the country.  Time will tell.