• SeaJ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What’s nuts is that he would still be a US citizen if he was born in Kenya so their argument was insanely moronic even if they were right.

    • HiddenLayer5
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Actually, this is a case of the US constitution being moronic. Because it forbids anyone not born on US soil from becoming president. For context, most countries only require you to be a citizen for a minimum amount of time before you can be head of state. Boris Johnson was born in the US and was still UK prime minister for example.

      It’s really ironic the settlers care so much about only people being naturally born in a particular place getting to rule that place.

      • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, it’s not. The provision was written into the US Constitution for reasons that made perfect sense at the time of its drafting. The framers were worried about the possibility of people who had been born elsewhere in the British Empire being subject to pressures on their extended families. The idea specifically revolved around the concept that only colonists could become president, again because they were worried about family entanglements with the rest of the British Empire.

        It doesn’t make a lot of sense in a modern context, but in order to accommodate the slave states, the US system was deliberately designed to be almost impossible to change and/or update, so we live with it even today.