Birthers seem to fall into two categories. There are those that believe that Obama is a Kenyan and therefore ineligible to be President under Article 2’s requirement for candidates to be “natural born citizens.” There are also those that want clarification as to the term “natural born citizen” and to develop and enforce stricter rules on proving eligibility for future campaigns.
This article concerns the later. While the ongoing examinations and even law suits concerning Barrack Obama’s eligibility continue three years after taking office, questions swirl around other candidates as well. Those seeking legal clarification and to establish clear guidelines for vetting candidates are also taking aim at Rick Santorum, whose father may have been an illegal alien at the time of his birth, potentially making him ineligible. Members of the birther movement are also focusing on Romney’s eligibility due to his parent’s lengthy stay in Mexico.
But, does one’s nationality at birth really matter anymore?
The Founding Fathers had legitimate concerns about power and the fledgling United States. European nations were greatly influenced by the leaders of neighboring countries and used both official, embassarial and nefarious means in order to exercise control across the borders. These countries salivated at the thought of controlling resource rich North America.
John Jay, the one time head of the Continental Congress was so concerned about foreign intervention and the possibility that a man of foreign loyalty could take over the military, that he wrote to George Washington in 1787;
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
This sentiment and effort to prevent foreign intervention was mirrored by delegates at the Constitutional Convention. Initially they contemplated reserving the selection of the President to the providence of the Legislator, but ultimately decided on this:
In Article II, Section 1, the U.S. Constitution says:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States…
But, does location at birth equal loyalty?
Whether of not you are a fan of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Governorship, I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who believed he had used his power to promote Austria or to grant them some sort of favored nation status. And Arnie came to America as an adult.
In fact, America is full of immigrant success stories. Families from every corner of the globe who scrimped and saved to get the money to come to the United States, studied to understand the political process and responsibilities of citizenship so that they could legitimately claim to be “real” Americans, and worked hard to achieve the American Dream. Some of these extremely patriotic Americans, like Arnie, have entered politics, but because they came to this country as children, they are barred from rising to the highest level. Clearly, being born abroad doesn’t mean that one’s loyalties lie elsewhere.
Of course the fear de’jour is a Muslim overthrow. In fact, for the past fifty years, the small but powerful, radical Wahhabi sect of fundamental Muslims have spent tens of millions of dollars in sending “fundamentalist pioneers” to settle throughout Europe and the United States. Pledging to create a Muslim Planet, they have used a modern version of “conquer by conception.” Romans and others found that it was easier to secure a conquered land by encouraging soldiers at the end of their tour or who were unfit for battle to settle down with local women and raise families. They were also encouraged to bring their own extended families to join them, changing the ethnic and cultural makeup of the conquered population. They essentially used a program of breeding out retaliation. This worked well for a generation or two, but ultimately people felt loyal to their home and community, much more so then to the original location of their ancestors.
Today the extremely strict Wahhabi are faced with a problem ultimately faced by every strict cultural or religious organization in history. As the old saying goes, “once they see Paris, it’s hard to keep them on the farm.” In other words, the farther away from the strict control center, the more likely people are to adopt the habits, customs, beliefs and freedoms of the locals. Not only have the majority of the children of these fundamentalist pioneers’ embraced western ways, they have also ushered in a growing Muslim reform movement in North America that embraces women and gays.
So ineffective has the plan of world domination been here at home, the Wahhabi have had to alter their plan to one of recruiting and radicalizing disenfranchised Americans. Americas born and raised right here on American soil. Americans born to full citizens. Americans willing to rise up and kill other Americans. So being a “natural born citizen” is clearly no guarantee of loyalty either.
So if loyalty can’t be guaranteed by birth, and some of the most patriotic Americans in the country are themselves immigrants or the children of immigrants, instead of defining “natural born citizen,” perhaps the litmus test should simply be legal citizen.
The Second Article of the Constitution puts restrictions upon contenders for the highest office. One must be thirty five years old, which is a nod to the idea that one must be “older” to have the experience, wisdom, and maturity to hold such a position. A candidate also must have been in residency for the previous fourteen years. This of course prevented the potential election of someone who may have been born in the US, but had lived under a foreign influence for a good portion of their life. Those still seem like good ideas
Today multiple states are facing legal challenges based on their apparent lack of oversight in the vetting process. These challenges are nothing new and have in fact plagued candidates for decades. But perhaps rather than fight over horses that have already bolted out of the coral, it would make more sense for these states to join forces and put it to an Amendment vote.
As a Constitutionalist, I am not thrilled with the fluidity of the concept of the Constitution being a “living document.” This simply means that changing tastes and mores and political pressure can dictate direction and the country vacillates back and forth on issues that should be quite clear if strictly interpreted. However, I am for clarifying vague concepts and if necessary, adding Amendments that make the political process not only more clear, but also easier for citizen involvement.
So my question to you, thoughtful readers,
Should we amend the Constitution and eliminate the birth location issue, requiring instead legal citizenship and a residency requirement?