Well, uh, no, actually, we don’t.
Should we? 
I’m a US citizen, wife is a Chinese citizen and my daughter was born in China, meaning she automatically was a Chinese citizen. Her US citizenship came about 2 weeks later after the paperwork cleared. so, she is an American by birth but won’t be able to grow up and be president. It’s a discriminatory rule.
I don’t see what the big fuss is… In Australia our Head of State is the Queen of England. It’s only that our head of government is Australian, which I don’t even think is a requirement here.
But to Rupert Murdoch, get your constitution changed and he can be your President. He could never be ours, even if he did come back here, we have ‘conflict of interest’ which stops media owners from running for a place in government (because the media is recognised as such as powerful force in the political process).
Infact, I would like the US to change it’s constitution to allow foreign born Presidents, because then it would give me a reason to move to the US, and make Australia another state of the US (that way our defence and free trade is guarenteed).
Alternatively I could become PM of Australia and get the US to adopt us, then would Australian born citizens be allowed to run for US President?
PerfectDark
China Guy, I’m not that knowledgable about US law, but the provision doesn’t say “born in U.S. territory” - it says “natural born citizen.” Wasn’t your daughter automatically a U.S. citizen by birth, by virtue of you being her dad? Did you have to apply for citzenship for her, or did you have to apply for a citizenship certificate as proof of her citizenship? There’s an important difference. If it was the latter case, then the fact that the paperwork arrived two weeks after her birth is not relevant - the question is whether under U.S. law she had citizenship automatically at birth.
I’m in favor of the rule. While there is no question that there are millions of American citizens that were born overseas that would make fine Presidents, I just am not comfortable with the idea of someone moving here and then running the country, especially in a wartime situation.
For me, it comes down to conflict of interest. What if you were born in China and became President of the United States. God forbid, China launces a nuke at us. Do you push the button . . . knowing you will kill members of your own family and millions, maybe a billion, of your neighbors?
If you were born in Iran, and the circumstances of a war would require the U.S. to bomb the shit out of the country- do you hold back because you have family there, and deep down in your heart, you are half-Iranina?
That wouldn’t make these individuals bad people- it’s just we cannot have a President with dual loyalty. And yes, you could be born on American soil and still have lots of family in a foreign country, and still be President, but I feel the rule helps to ensure more loyalty in that individual knowing he/she was born an American, and was raised with fellow Americans that by oath they would be sworn to protect as their President.
Remove the rule and you can have Arnie Schwarzenegger as president! After all, if Reagan can do it…
pan
Northern Piper is right. Your daughter is an American by birth, and the daughter of a citizen, which makes her a natural born citizen, and eligable to be president.
Northern Piper and Capt Amazing. Are you sure about this? I had a buddy whose father was in the Air Force and he was born in England, and always bitched that he couldn’t grow up to be President.
I am under the impression that you have to be born on American soil to become President.
Of course, we’ve got to repeal the unwritten requirement that you have to be a white male before my daughter gets to be pres anyway.
Well, all I can say is that there’s nothing in Art. II, §2 that refers to being born on US soil. (Besides wouldn’t it be sorta damp and uncomfortable for the mother-to-be? 
). It uses the phrase “natural born citizen.” It’s my understanding that a person can be a natural born citizen even though born in a foreign country.
It’s all somewhat hypothetical, as I doubt that there are any cases on this issue (although when Chester Arthur was nominated as Veep, there were rumours that he was born in Canada, and hence ineligible).
Nope. Of course, anyone born on American soil is a natural born citizen, and can become president, but there’s no requirement that you must be born on U.S. soil. Your daughter is a citizen of the U.S. from birth. I believe either Herbert Hoover or FDR was born in Canada, IIRC. Interestingly, John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, which was part of the US when he was born, but isn’t anymore. Of course, since he was born to American citizens, the subject is moot. There are a lot of misconceptions, however, about who can become president. A teacher once told the little brother of a Puerto Rican friend of mine that he couldn’t become president, which of course, is false.
Now I can tell my daughter she can grow up to be president, that is if the US can grow up and elect a woman 35 years from now.
You are guilty of a small ‘terminological inexactitude’
The Queen is our SOVEREIGN, the Governor General is our HEAD of STATE. Small point, but a constitutionally vital one, as Gough Whitlam could have readily confirmed.
(Apologies the the non-Aussies out there for the parochial pedantry)
Here’s a good discussion of what is meant by “natural born citizen.”
Candidates not born in any state:
The Panama Canal Zone was not American soil, it was merely under US governance.
George Romney, former Michigan governor, ran for the 1968 GOP nomination, but was born in Mexico.
Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona prior to its statehood.
I believe Pat Buchanan was born in DC, prior to its statehood (Lord help us).