Quote:
|
but as internationally adopted children at such young ages i don't think it's fair.
|
It sounds like you're saying that internationally adopted children who were adopted young should be eligible for the presidency -- but perhaps that other immigrants shouldn't be? I just want to make sure that I'm understanding what you're saying because it doesn't quite makes sense to me.
It seems to me that if our children should be eligible then all immigrants should be eligible, whether they were internationally adopted or not and regardless of how old they were when they arrived in the US. I don't see how our children are different from children adopted at older ages (where would the line be drawn?) or other immigrants.
There is, in fact, some legal scholarship around the argument that the eligibility requirement is antiquated. It was made in part to avoid foreign influence or foreign "takeover" as well as to avoid the establishment of an aristocracy in the US (by preventing members of the European aristocracy from becoming president). I think we're far from having to worry about the European aristocracy taking over our government!
And in this era of global migration, global economy, and global politics the distinction between naturalized US citizens and citizens by birth seems arbitrary.
So I would agree that it might be time to rethink the constitutional requirement -- but I would apply that to all US citizens, not just to internationally adopted children.