OK, a couple of questions about having to be born on US soil as a qualification to become President.
Since US embassies are considered US soil, if anybody was to be born in one (highly unlikely, I know), they would meet the natural born qualification, right?
Also, what if a natural born citizen renounces their citizenship, then later gets it back, does that have a negative effect (legally) on their ability to become president?
I had heard that Teddy Roosevelt’s parents rushed him to the embassy in Berlin so that he would be born on American soil. It turned out to be false (thank you SDMB). If your parents are American Citizens, then you are too, no matter where you might have been born.
The president must be:
When Michigan Governor George W. Romney was a candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 1968. Romney had been born in Chihuahua, Mexico BUT to American parents.
However, Romney’s campaign fizzled and the question was never seriously discussed.
Been interesting to see what would’ve happened
It’s not the soil specifically that matters, it’s that you’re an American citizen automatically by virtue of your birth. Granted, the most common mechanism for this is to be born on American soil, but there are other ways, such as saoirse mentions.
The OP’s question still remains, though… Suppose a pregnant woman were in an American embassy seeking political asylum, for instance, and while in the embassy, gave birth. Would the child be considered a natural-born American citizen? I think that embassies actually count as territory of the host country, despite the common misconception otherwise, so the question isn’t completely clear-cut.
US embassies are not US soil.
To correct some false info in the OP: US embassies are not considered US soil. Embassies are part of the host country. They have special status because they are the residences of ambassadors, but that’s all. Here’s a Staff Report on diplomatic immunity which unfortunately doesn’t cover the exact status of embassies, but it’s the closest they’ve come to discussing them.
[bad joke]Officer: Are you are naturally born US citizen?
Person: No, I was born Caesarean.[/bad joke]
Embassies enjoy an (cite):
I think what some folks above are talking about is extraterritoriality. For example, diplomats (such as Ambassadors) enjoy extraterritoriality in the country in which they are posted. The host country soil itself isn’t part of the nation of the diplomat posted there; it’s the fact that the diplomat is a diplomat of a certain office/rank which qualifies, per agreement, for extraterritoriality.
Along the same lines as the embassy question, wasn’t there a Supreme Court ruling that said that US military bases in foreign countries don’t count as US soil? I think the case in question invovled a refugee who was at the Guantanemo Bay base when she gave birth, and was trying to get US citizenship for her baby. The courts said, “Nope.”
Wow, all my life I’ve heard that embassies are concidered part of the country they represent. I’m not the only one either. For example, I think in the Simpsons episode where they go to Australia, one of the guards says something about the embassy being US soil.
I just looked up embassy on Wikipedia, and it does say embassies have extraterritorial status (never heard of extraterritorial until Monty’s post) which must be where the misconception comes from.
Wow, so many things I take for granted keep turning out to inccorect 
Oh well.
And as for Natural Born Citizen, well, I guess my ignorance has been fought on that one too. Thanks.
Oh, almost forgot. What about my second question. If you give up your citizenship, and then get it back, then legally, does it affect your ability to run for President?
Legally, I don’t think so, as long as it’s been 14 years since you came back. As a practical matter, you wouldn’t be likely to get more than 10% in the Democratic primaries.
I also noticed the same argument being made in court in some ludicrous movie about a Vietnam veteran accused of ordering the slaughter of an unruly crowd in Yemen. Someone will probably be able to give the movie’s title, though it’s best forgotten IMO.
That would be the frustratingly mediocre William Friedkin film Rules of Engagement.
The question of what “natural born” means has never been definitively addressed by the Supremes, although IIRC they did mention in dicta in a 1930s case that it meant actually born within U.S. territorial limits.
When Herbert Hoover ran in 1928, there was some question as to whether he was eligible to be elected President, as he’d been out of the country for much of the previous 14 years, doing hunger-relief work in Europe. A worthy cause, of course, so nobody complained too loudly.
This doesn’t seem at all plausible. First, Hoover had been Secretary of Commerce for the previous eight years; his war relief work was in the past.
Second, the Constitution does not say that the President had to be in the country for the previous fourteen years, just at least fourteen years of his life.
I note that the language of the Constitution doesn’t mandate that the President be a resident of the United States for the 14 years immediately prior to the election, just that 14 of the 35 years s/he has been alive were spent in the US. If the 14 years were those prior to the inauguration then anyone who had, say, served overseas in wartime (for example, Eisenhower) would be barred from the Presidency. I can’t believe that the Founders intended that.
Apparently it’s pretty tricky. Caution: Anecdote.
My partner’s father was a Canadian citizen (I say was because he was naturalized last year) her mother is an American citizen. While ma was pregnant with older brother they were briefly staying in Canada. Brother was born in Canada and given a Canadian birth certificate. A couple of months later they go back to the States. Brother gets his U.S. citizenship right away.
Dad, out of curiousity, checks to see if the brother, having been born in Canada, would prevent him from ever being the Prez. It does, indeed.
Christ. Sorry about the botched grammar in the last sentence of my post. :smack:
Says who?