It’s antiquated, and unneccesary. The location of someones birth seems to me utterly irrelevant to how “American” somebody is or how fit they are for leadership. Especially if they moved to the United States when they were very young children and have no memories of their “native” country.
That’s why I have a hard time getting worked up over the “birther” thing. If true (the evidence strongly suggests it’s not), so what? It’s just a technicality to me. The geographical location where someone exited their mother’s vagina can’t possibly impact how they will govern. The basis of the rule has no reason behind it other than superstition, really. As if being born on American soil magically imbues a person with some special quality that a person born away from the imaginary line doesn’t posess.
Is someone born in the United States, then shuttled away to France for his first 21 years, then moving back to the U.S for 14 years somehow more deserving of the Presidency then someone born in Kenya, brought to the U.S a week after his birth, and has lived in the U.S continuously ever since?
It’s not worth the expense of going to the time, trouble and expense of modifying the constitution just so a bunch of obvious nut jobs have to find something else to whine about.
Also, there are already enough people who are eligible to run for president so that we can be assured of the availbility of high quality candidates. There’s no real concrete benefit in going to the time, trouble and expense of modifying the constitution just so Arnold Schwarznegger or Ahhmed Chalabi can run for highest office.
Agreed. In the 1780s, perhaps there was a legitimate concern that a foreign-born president would be a traitor to the country or simply be unable to understand the U.S. Today, that’s not a big concern. I’ve thought this was a dumb provision since I was a kid.
That’s an absolutely terrible argument. I don’t think this part of the Constitution is going to get overturned any time soon - just look at the birthers if anybody thinks it could - but the provision is unjust and should be overturned for that reason. “It’s too expensive” or “we already have enough good candidates” doesn’t enter into it. And if it did, those arguments still wouldn’t make sense. Imagine women still couldn’t vote. Couldn’t someone have said we already had enough eligible men that we were assured high quality candidates were available?
Would you mind explaining what the hell this means? Do you think the world is going back to 18th century commerce and communications sometime soon? Do you think the British will try to make the U.S. a colony again? I can’t think of any way to read this that makes it remotely comprehensible.
Expense is relative though, not allowing woman to vote is hugely unjust, it affects the rights of millions in a massive way. Fixing that problem was worth pretty much any expense. The number of foreign born folks who might realistically aspire to the Presidency on the other hand, is minuscule, and they’re being barred from precisely two jobs. Passing an amendment for such a minor defect simply isn’t worth it.
Plus I think there’s something to be said for not amending the Constitution too readily, I’d rather suffer from some trivial deficiencies then have to deal with folks trying to get whatever issue of the day passed into the Nations founding document.
Yeah, we should take down all the evil dictators in the world too, regardless of cost.
Your so called injustice here is of miniscule proportions. I expect that the damage done to the stability of the constitution by caving to birther morons would be far worse than any possible benefit derived from infinitesimally increasing the size of the presidential candidate pool.
How is this worth evaluated? If you’re losing good candidates, it can only be a negative. And further, yes, it’s unjust.
The Constitution has been amended 17 times in the 200 or so years since the Bill of Rights was passed. The last time it was amended was in 1992, and the last time before that was 1971. There is no grounds for concern that the document is being amended too often.
The only way to cave to birthers would be to remove Obama from office, Squink. They would hate an amendment like this because they are afraid foreigners are stealing their country, so allowing foreign-born citizens to run for the presidency would terrify them.
Also, are you sure you want to draw an equivalence between granting equitable rights to American citizens and pointless invasions of foreign countries?
I am a naturalized citizen, and am married to another. Our families are littered with naturalized citizens. Trust me. Most of us are simply not as deeply enamored of this country as the vast majority of native born Americans.
In case of a war between the US and her home country, even I would have to admit that you had better watch my wife’s activities very carefully.
Most of us are here for the economic benefits, some of us are here because our old countries are dangerous. Nevertheless, this is never our home in the most visceral sense.
I am presumably going to be a naturalized citizen one day, if the USCIS ever gets its act together vis-a-vis my paperwork. I have to agree, although not to the extent you describe for your wife- in a war between the UK and US, I’d happily take up arms if necessary.
Nevertheless, I see no problem with the natural-born requirement.
I find this a bit odd, though. If you’re just here for the economic benefits, why did you apply for citizenship instead of just a green card?
How so? I would definitely think you’d have to have lived a number of years in the states – but say the “Birthers” were correct? That’d be an absolutely ridiculous reason to bar someone from being president.
