General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president. [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Let's change your diversion to Toronto into a diversion from Toronto. The plane took off for Vancouver en route to Toronto, but, because of weather or engine trouble, was forced to divert to Minneapolis/St. Paul. On board are a pregnant woman and her husband, both Canadian citizens (but neither a diplomat). Soon after the plane lands in Minnesota, she unexpectedly goes into labor and gives birth in a Minnesota hospital. It's clear that that child is a U.S. citizen. It's also clear to all but the nuttiest birthers that the child is a natural-born citizen and is eligible to become President some day. (Some whack jobs said that Jindal, born in the United States to noncitizen parents, was ineligible, but that's a fringe view even within the generally fringey birther clique.) The kid can go to Canada once the weather clears, be brought up there, never set foot in the United States, and yet return to the U.S. for the first time 60 years later and be eligible to become President.
By contrast, Jennifer Granholm, born in Canada to noncitizen parents who brought her here at age 2, is ineligible, even though she was raised here for all her formative years. She's much more of an American than the Minnesota airplane baby. Yet, because of trivial accidents of birth, the Minnesota baby is eligible and Granholm is not.
I draw two conclusions. First, you can't disprove a theory by showing that it gives great effect to trivial accidents of birth. Second, the provision as currently written and applied is for that reason silly. I'd be fine with eliminating it altogether, trusting to the voters not to elect a fifth columnist. If some protection were to be retained, it could say simply that no one is eligible who hasn't been a citizen for at least 35 years.