You mean Boris Johnson?

When they made (it's an amendment) it made sense to limit foreign influence.

We still have foreign influence, but imagine an America where a dictator is deposed so they get refugee status and seize power legally. That is why the amendment passed.

Especially in the early days, America was worried about what would become our bread and butter.

The truth about Mamdani is America is full of people eligible to be president who would do just as good of a job.

The risk outweighs the reward.

Mamdani could still be a senator, and serve as long as he's elected.

Like, part of fixing our government, is taking a shit ton of power away from the president. We can't really do that till we get a progressive Congress, but that's the end goal, we don't want consolidated power, because that makes it easily corrupted.

If we don't limit Presidential power, we know Republicans and neoliberals never will.

It is naive to think the way the system works is because the majority want it to work this way.

States aren't ruled by public opinion. Public opinion is ruled by states.

The people were never given an option to vote on this, and it's been a thing longer than any living person.

This isn't to say it's a bad rule. I haven't made up my mind. However, it's not as good as a rule like one making the president divest from any business interest, as an example, and we don't have that. If we're not going to have a rule like that then I don't see any reason why a foreign born person shouldn't be allowed to be president. If it's about loyalty, surely loyalty to yourself exceeds loyalty to some other country of birth for most people, so that needs to be resolved more.

If it was just American soil, then any soil of the Americans would count.

But it's specifically only the soil of the country USA, which indeed does not unite America