Mdthbs

A few years back, there was a lot of news coverage of the increase in "birth tourism" (especially Russian and Chinese exploitation of it). Basically, people would come to the US very late in their pregnancy to have children with US citizenship, and then return to raise these children back in the parental homeland.

There were various reasons cited for this practice (economic opportunity, potential emigration, etc.), but I noticed that there was no mention of the future ramifications of these "non-resident" citizens emigrating and running for office, particularly the office of president. There's lots of info regarding "naturalized" citizens in public office, but little, if any, about foreign raised citizens (except those in military/foreign service born to at least one US citizen).

From what I've read, to become President, one must be a citizen over 35 who has lived in US for 14 years. (Correct me if I'm wrong) Although, I'm not a hardcore conspiracy theorist, I can't help but wonder if we should expect a "Manchurian Candidate" of sorts as a result of this practice becoming so widely adopted by adversarial nations. or am I just sliding down a slippery slope?

Could a US citizen born through "birth tourism" become President?

Yes in principle, with some provisions:

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution imposes only three eligibility requirements on persons serving as president, based on the officeholder’s age, time of residency in the U.S., and citizenship status:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
These requirements have been modified twice. Under the 12th Amendment, the same three qualifications were applied to the vice president of the United States. The 22nd Amendment limited office holders to two terms as president.

Regarding the natural born citizen thing the 14th amendment leaves little room for interpretation: if you were born in the US, then you are a citizen.

You'd also need to get ahead in primaries, but that's a different story.

To serve as president, one must:

1. Be a natural-born citizen of the US


2. Be at least 35 years old


3. Have been a resident of the US for at least 14 years

Provided they've lived in the US long enough and are old enough, there's nothing that would prevent a "birth tourist" baby from being elected president. But that raises another, fourth qualification to serve as president that's so obvious most people don't think about it. You must:

4. Be elected

A "Manchurian candidate" who grew up in another county and has spent the majority of their lifetime outside the US would likely be viewed unfavorably by the electorate, especially if they have strong ties to an adversarial nation. It's perfectly possible for them to be elected, but they'd have to be a great candidate to overcome the negative optics around their personal history.

Under the 14th amendment (emphasis mine):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

Thus, such a person would meet the "natural born citizen" requirement, regardless of the parents' immigration status at the time of the birth.

Also under the 14th amendment, if the person involved demonstrates disloyalty to the United States after having previously taken an oath to protect the Constitution. But if they remain loyal to the United States and live there for all of their lives (or at least 14 years of it), then they become eligible from the age of 35.

Could a US citizen born through “birth tourism” become President?

Possibly, but that is based on an interpretation of the Citizenship clause in the 14^th amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Some future Court could interpret the clause differently.

For example, of the State wherein they reside, taken narrowly, would mean that such a child, not being a resident of any state at time of birth, is not a citizen of any state and, therefore, cannot be a citizen of the United States. (That child's mother would have to have been a resident of a state.)

That, of course, would end birth tourism and prevent a "Manchurian Candidate", of sorts.

Neither the Electoral College, nor the House, nor the Senate, nor the Supreme Court has shown that it is willing to enforce the eligibility requirements for the offices of President and Vice President. On one occasion (1876) a commission settled a dispute about which slates were part of the Electoral College.

But even when members of the Electoral College have cast twice as many votes as they were supposed to, the House and Senate did not refuse to accept the alleged votes. Instead, a Constitutional Amendment was passed to clarify how the voting would be done in subsequent elections.

The Electoral College is an especially weak institution. It faces substantial obstacles to acting as a deliberative body. For example, in the aftermath of the 2016 election, the State of Washington sued one of its representatives in the Electoral College because he dared to exercise discretion about whom to vote for. I cannot think of any other Federal Office whose holders can be punished by a state for diligently doing their federal job.

On three occasions, the Electoral College has elected a person who did not satisfy a strict interpretation of the "natural born citizen" clause. On none of these three occasions did any of the Electoral College, House, Senate, or Supreme Court object.