ill
Superstar
This is the argument all far-right parties use in Europe. "His ID says French, but he's not really French, look at him".
Let's have less outlandish scenario so I understand better : say an American travels the world (because that's what some people do), meets an American girl in Paris l, has a kid in Paris, then they move back to the US when the kid is one year old, and the kid only lives in the US afterwards.
Is the kid considered a "natural born American" since both his parents are, or not because he was born outside the US?
Breh Tony Parker was born in Belgium. You think he cares about Belgium or vice-versa? This is really basic (as in simplistic) reasonning.
"It's not where you from, it's where you at"
Just because the far-right uses it, doesn't mean its not a legitimate argument. If he was born on American soil, he's American. I think the Europeans may have more issues because they have large recent immigrant groups that have numbers to really affect policy. I don't know how France classifies natural born or if thats even a requirement so I can't speak on them. The "new world" of multi-cultural and multi-national entities kind of throws a wrench in things but I think this reverts back to common law and it states that you are natural born if you were born to citizens or naturalized citizens within America.
To the second question: I would say it depends. I would take a guess that if its two naturally born American citizens, then the baby will be American as well but I'm not exactly sure how that works. Maybe if the child is born in Paris, his birth papers would say he's a French citizen, would they not? If so, I would say they are not eligible for Presidency.
