I know that people of neither US-owned island(s) can vote for president, but can they legally run for the office? The constitution states that the president must be U.S.-born, but does that include places like Puerto Rico and American Samoa? What about Saipan or Guam?
It does not mean he must be born on US soil. It means he must be born a US citizen.
Sure can. They might have some practical problems, because they’re not likely to be nationally known…Puerto Rico and Samoa tend to get ignored in the press, but there aren’t any legal problems with them running. Puerto Ricans and American Samoans are citizens from birth.
I’m not disagreeing with you, but I just wanted to point out that everyone born on US soil is a US citizen, and also that Puerto Rico and American Samoa are both “US soil”.
John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Nobody seemed to think he was ineligible.
It doesn’t really matter where you were born. For example, babies born to American tourists overseas are American citizens.
Since Puerto Ricans are US citizens, the answer is yes, a Puerto Rican can run for President.
I’m unsure about the legal status of Somoa these days. Are they still a US posession?
My children were born in Canada, but are American citizens by birth, and thus entitled to run for President of the United States. There are other ways to be born American than to be born on US soil.
According to Article II, section 1, clause 5 of the US Constitution, “No Person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
So it all depends on what the definition of “natural born citizen” is. According to Title 8 of the US Code (see http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html), the following are considered to be natural born citizens:
* Anyone born inside the United States
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
So the answer is yes, Puerto Ricans can become president. I think.
The U.S. will just not be able to elect a president named Eni Faleomavaega.
It would be too hard for Tom Brokaw or Dan Rather to say.
Well, what are they waiting for? All of our current options kinda stink. 
Well, they’re eight. I’m guessing they’ve got 27 more years to wait. (Minimum age for the President is 35, right?)
Tell 'em to run under the banner of the Dog Party. “As far as our canine brothers and sisters are concerned, we’re fifty-four! Down with the bipedal bourgeousie!”
What about Alaska and Hawaii? Both became States in 1959. Where they possessions? If not, is someone born in either state ineligible to become president if they were born in 1958?
They are “grand-fathered” in, and thus eligible to be President.
OK, right now, the following US extraterritorial jurisdictions have their inhabitants be US citizens by birth: Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, Guam (The NMI however haven’t had it long enough to qualify, since only the late 70s)
8 USC 1402 categorically extends the condition of “natural born citizen” to PR as of 13 Jan 1941 (Previously, in 2 Mar 1917 most PRicans were made citizens-by-decree)
The following doesn’t: American Samoa. They are " nationals" , entitled to the protection of the US.
Palau, the Marshall Islands and the Federation of Micronesia are considered separate nations.
A native of Puerto Rico, Guam, USVI, and a few years from now the NMI, could be elected President… However, it seems you would have to be a resident of a State or DC.
Based on the (edited by me for relevance) list above, I’d say “not necessarily”. Since the third item distinguishes “a U.S. possession” from “the U.S.”, any such possession must be “outside the United States” for purposes of presidential eligibility. Thus, two Puerto Rico residents who have both spent their entire lives on the island would apparently not be able to groom their child for the presidency of the U.S.
On preview, however, I see that JRDelirious has linked the U.S. Code revision that explicitly defines Puerto Ricans (except for any who may be left from pre-April 11, 1899) as “natural-born citizens”. Still, my reasoning would seem to hold (mutatis mutandis) with regard to Guamanians, U.S. Virgin Islanders, etc.
ltfire: As the previously linked John McCain article mentions, Barry Goldwater was born in the Arizona Territory three years before Arizona became a state. Had the grandfathering mentioned by Cerowyn not occurred, the first seven presidents could not have served, as they were born inwhat were then British colonies. When Martin Van Buren was inaugurated in 1837, he became the first U.S. leader to have been born after the signing of the Declaration of Independence and adoption of the Articles of Confederation. As late as the Zachary Taylor administration (1849-50), the country was run by a man whose birth predated the ratification of the Constitution and the inauguration of George Washington.
I continued searching 8 USC 1403-09 (just keep changing the last digits in the URL of either of the above links) and found the various statutes defining citizenship for several extraterritorial jurisdctions. According to these, “natural born” aplies jus solis (by right of the soil, i.e. irrespective of parentage) as follows:
USVI: as of 25 Feb 1927
Territory of Hawaii: as of 30 Apr 1900
Territory of Alaska: as of 30 Mar 1867, except not until 2 Jun 1924 for Native-Am’s
Guam: 1 Aug 1950, retroactive to 1899 as in PR; however, with certain terms and conditions to be met if there is eligibility for other citizenship(s) (due to significant migrant populations from elsewhere in Asia).
Anyone not mentioned (Samoa and the Trusteeships) fell into the “non-citizen nationals” category.
The Northern Marianas apparently are covered separately from the Nationality law, under the “covenant” statute that effected their tranfer from a UN trusteeship to a full-time US territory. Born citizenship became effective in 1976(8? my references disagree!), and as in the case of Guam imposes terms and conditions in case the person(s) may be eligible for a different citizenship.
Canal Zone natives were jus sanguinis natural-born citizens – dependent on a citizen parent.