I found the following “fact” at the website http://www.uselessknowledge.com
Does anyone know if this is true? Was one of America’s presidents born in Canada?
If so, it’s a little late to do anything about it now.
There have been representatives under the age of 25 and senators under the age of 30 (including Henry Clay).
Speculation exists that President Andrew Jackson was actually born on a ship from England, and not in Waxhaw Settlement, SC. I agree with the BobT that it is a little late to close the barn door at this point in history.
The requirement for being president is not to be born in the US, but to be a natural-born citizen. A baby born abroad to US citizens would be a natural-born citizen, as long as the parents filled out the paperwork. I don’t know if this would apply in Chester A. Arthur’s case, or even what the law at the time was (the “other ways” to be a natural-born citizen are subject to legislation).
This came up with George Romney in 1968, who was born in Mexico to American parents. There was some discussion of the issue, but the consensus was “natural-born” meant “a U.S. citizen from birth.” Of course, once Romney was brainwashed, it became a moot point. 
Well, since FL obviously doesn’t have a fair vote nowadays, what’s a little rigging in prior elections? I mean, did you expect our politicians to be HONEST?
This would be irrelevant anyway, since he was born in 1767:
(bolding mine)
yawn This is as tired as “all your base are belong to us”.
No wait … more so.
The fact is that politics is a lot cleaner and more civil than it was a little more than a hundred years ago when anyone could publish any dirt on anyone without fear of reprisal. The libel laws weren’t enacted until 1888 (IIRC). Political opponents made wild accusations of whoring, fathering bastard children, bribery, theivery, you name it. When was the last time you heard a modern politican call someone a liar? (and use that word. It simply isn’t done.)
Chester A. Arthur grew up in a small town in the northwest corner of Vermont to parents who were both US citizens. He could have been born on the moon and still have been eligible to run for the Presidency. The rumor got started when the Democrats hired a New York lawyer, Arthur Hinman, to do some creative muckraking when Chester Arthur was the VP running mate. Hinman made many wild claims, but eventually he published a pamphlet in 1884 entitled “How A British Subject Became President of the United States”, three years after Garfield was assassinated. It had a hint of plausibility, but it was too late. Chester A. Arthur’s biographer and most historians dismiss the claims, as well as most people living in the US at that time. The fact that Chester’s family often visited his grandmother in Quebec, and the lack of early family documents is enough to leave a twinge of doubt in some people’s minds. What’s needed to prove this claim is affirmative evidence. There isn’t any. But it doesn’t matter. His parents were citizens at the time of his birth. Therefore, Chester A. Arthur was a natural born citizen. It’s funny how even the seemingly dull presidents have their itneresting stories, isn’t it?
I neglected to add the following bit of info with respect to the definition of “natural born citizen”. In the majority opinion of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, in 1875, Chief Justice Waite wrote:
That should settle it.
Jinx, I’m going to try to be as clear as I possibly can so you understand.
The legitimacy of Bush’s presidency, the Florida vote controversy and all related matters belong in Great Debates.
In General Questions, George W. Bush is the President of the United States. Your asides are a violation of the rules of this forum and an insult to the people who rely on this forum for factual information and who hold their political opinions in check while here.
This is an official warning. Do not do this again.
John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, so yes, birth in the 50 states isn’t the requirement.
I managed to find out a little more about the Chester Arthur claims on the UselessKnowledge site (A few pages farther, there’s a link to a page with a bit more info on this question). Apparently, Arthur’s parents immigrated from Irelend to Quebec, then to the US. Chester was born right around the time they came to the US, which muddles things considerably. Specifically, it sounds like his parents may not have been US citizens at the time of his birth. If this is the case, then where Chet was born becomes very important to this issue.
From what I can gather, it sounds like they’re saying that Chester Arthur moved up his birthday a year. Instead of doing it to make the Little Leagues, though, he did it to move his birthdate up to the time when his parents were in the US, so he could pass as American-born.
Have I helped clarify the issue? Does anyone know anything more about the question now?
Regardless of whether or not Chester Arthur’s parents were U.S. citizens when he was born in 1829 (as is believed), the question became moot once the 14th Amendment was ratified which made anyone born in the U.S. a citizen.
You would have to assume that the intent of that Amendment was to retroactively apply citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. regardless of the time so that the Southern states couldn’t deny freed slaves the rights of citizens.
That’s just it: they’re saying that he was born in Lower Canada (modern-day Quebec), not in Vermont or any other place in the US. And if his parents weren’t US citizens at the time, then Chester Arthur was an immigrant, and as such had no right to become President of the United States.
The 14th Amendment is irrelevant to this issue.
I’m sorry I misread your post. I had read it as Arthur being born of immigrant, non-citizen parents in the U.S.
Upon closer inspection, I had erred and indeed the 14th Amendment would have been irrelevant.