(I’m thinking specifically of the President of the US, partly because I live in the US, and partly because I was inspired to ask this question based on another recent question about eligibility for POTUS. You are welcome broaden it to other types of government leaders, or even other government positions, if that’s more relevant to you; I don’t think the title of the government position substantially changes the question.)

I’m not opposed to eligibility requirements as a concept more broadly. And I know of other requirements that seem to have some amount of rationale behind their implementation—requiring the person to be a citizen, to be of a minimum age or older, even to have lived in the country for a specified amount of time prior to running for office. Fine.

I don’t see a good reason to restrict eligibility based on whether or not a person’s birth qualifies them to be called a “natural citizen.” Saying, Well, that’s just what the rules say, doesn’t seem like a particularly good reason.

So I’m not asking whether it’s what the rules say. I’m asking: Should it be what the rules say? Why or why not?

Topics: politics, government, USA, leadership, citizenship, presidents