John, thanks for the clarification. He still needs to tend to his knitting, though.
Loach, doesn’t it seem more likely that someone who has thought hard about what country to belong to, and why, and has made the personal commitment to join it, just might be a better and more responsible citizen than someone who was given it by accident of birth and has never had to face what it means? The naturalized US citizens I know are all much more aware and committed to it than a scary number of natives are.
Forgive my ignorance on the subject (being a non-American here) but what was the justification for the amendment originally? Why did your founding fathers decide it was necessary to exclude foreign-born Americans?
Yeah - or if the president was born in Quatar, for example, and there were some doin’s a-transpirin’ over there he felt need to interfere with… why, he could drag the whole American nation into some damn fool war that America had nothing to do with! Keep the stinking foreigners out of the White House!
I’ll take a stab at it and, if I’m wrong, I’m sure someone will come along and correct me.
Let’s say a guy comes over to the States from England and runs for, and becomes, president. During his inaugural address, he turns over full control to the King of England.
An English born president wouldn’t have any more authority to turn us over to the King than a native American. However, suppose George Bush I was a native Iraqi. Would he have moved against Hussein in Gulf War I? And would foreign govenments attempt to use the families of foreign-born presidents as extortion bait- for example stay out of this war or momma buys the farm?
In the 18th century it was still common for Royal Families to mix the allegiances of their respective countries thru marriage. The framers wanted to ensure the sovereignty of the US, and avoid that problem. In particular, wasn’t George III decried as being more German than British?
Right. How many people come here because of ideological reasons versus financial ones? Political refugess don’t come to the US because they hate their country, they come because at the moment and for the forseeable future it is against their best interest to stay there. And a political refugee who became president would be in a very powerful position to effect change in their native country.
I don’t think native-born presidents are inherently immune to manipulation or to not-sticking-there-nose-where-it-doesn’t-belong, but I think that the chances are greater that in most situations they’ll consider the US’s best interest before other countries. (Current president not withstanding.) I think every nations leaders should make decisions based first on what is best for their country and then what will least hurt others.
Anyway, I think it won’t happen. Shoot, we can’t even contemplate electing a native-born president who is not a white male and rich.
Sorry, but I find this argument (the fear of divided loyalties) as valid as the ones that (a) Catholics like JFK should not be pres., b/c they’d cave to the Pope when it came down to it (b) Japanese immigrants and their children should be rounded up and moved to camps far from the West Coast, for fear that they might support the Japanese during WWII.
I guess I’m opposed to the restriction. Really, the only question is, what is an appropriate time delay? Is 20 years good enough? Longer? Shorter? Or should the person instead have been required to have lived in the US since a certain age? (Say, age 10 or 12, so that they still share some experience of having “grown up” in the US?)
I am not aware of any groups eagerly pushing for a change in the requirements for President, and I haven’t seen any social disputes over the current rule. In fact, until Schwarzenegger was running for governor of California, I hadn’t heard of anyone proposing that we remove the “natural-born citizen requirement” from any side of the issue.
I am unconvinced that there is a problem which needs to be addressed with a change in the constitution, other than Arnie’s own asperations to the White House.
I look at it from a different perspective. I dislike the current situation not so much for the limitation it places on foreign born Americans but for the restriction it places on America. We should have the right to elect whoever we damn well please. If most Americans believe that a 12 year old retarded Palestinian is the best choice for President then she should be President. Period. We don’t need less choice in who runs this country.
2sense, there’s a difference between who can run and who has a realistic chance due to political experience, affiliation, wealth, etc. Any natural-born American over 35 (right?) can run, and you’d think that would give us plenty of options.
With the crap choices in people running for ANY office in the USA, I say the USA should farm the entire process out to India.
On the other hand, Arnie for President scares the crap out of me. Sadly, I think he would win running on a platform based on taglines from his popular movie (Much like how he was elected Gov’ner)
“Tu Osama, all I ave to say to yu, we’ll be bak”
I have no problem with the change, even though it could mean a (shudder) President Arnold. But then, I’m the guy that wants to let fourteen year olds and felons vote :).
Nonetheless, the next amendment to the constitution that changes presidential elections really ought to get rid of that outdated, harmful electoral college, an institution that makes no sense at all in the days of McDonald’s, airports, and the Internet, in a time in which geographic location is far from a solid predictor of a person’s interest.
Arnold could as easily be a Democrat as a Republican. His politics are smack dab in the middle of the road. Have you actually looked at his stance on the issues?
Given the last election, it’s pretty clear that it’s not a solid predictor: you got plenty of liberals in the blue states, and plenty of conservatives in the red states. The map don’t prove nothin’. We’re a far more mobile population than we were 200 years ago, and information travels much more quickly, and industries travel much more quickly, and the interests of a tech-support worker in Raleigh have far more in common with a tech-support worker in Seattle than with the interests of the tobacco farmer who lives 20 miles away. Plus, we’ve got the technology to do away with the electoral college now, and we’ve got a far more robust democracy than we had back then, with far more people eligible to vote, with far more disparate interests.
As for the “union of states” comment, we’re actually We the People that need governing; the states aren’t citizens, and the states shouldn’t get a vote.
)