# Eliminate the "Natural Born" provision for President **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 9, 2009, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-natural-born-provision-for-president/505885 "2009-08-09T23:25:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-natural-born-provision-for-president/505885/81 "2009-08-11T04:20:15Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > This really isn’t true at all. Search in GQ, there have been several threads with a whole bunch of examples. I did. There have been a couple of actual ethnic/racial minority heads of government/state elected- Alberto Fujimori in Peru, Benito Juarez in Mexico, and Carlos Menem in Argentina, but two of the three were members of such tiny minority groups that there was never any institutionalized racism against their groups because there were none of them around to oppress. There have been a bunch of not-really ethnic racial minority leaders, like Gordon Brown, Benjamin Disraeli, Nicolas Sarkozy (Scottish, Jewish, Hungarian) but they were still white guys. In the English speaking world, the closest one I found was Winston Peters, a Maori who served as Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand in the 90s, but he wasn’t elected and he wasn’t head of state or government. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-natural-born-provision-for-president/505885/82 "2009-08-11T05:56:22Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > In the English speaking world, the closest one I found was Winston Peters, a Maori who served as Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand in the 90s, but he wasn’t elected and he wasn’t head of state or government. The current Governor-General of New Zealand is an Indian, FWIW, and is thus technically NZ’s head of state as the Queen’s Representative in New Zealand. I know, not an elected position, but still, probably closer to what you were getting at… ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-natural-born-provision-for-president/505885/83 "2009-08-11T07:20:01Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > This really isn’t true at all. Search in GQ, there have been several threads with a whole bunch of examples. Yesbut- in many of those cases, the “President” has mainly ceremonial powers. Many nations with a Parliamentary form of Gov;t also have a President, who mainly serves like the Queen does in GB. However, I think we have to add females in real positions of authority, too. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-natural-born-provision-for-president/505885/84 "2009-08-11T14:01:36Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yesbut- in many of those cases, the “President” has mainly ceremonial powers. Many nations with a Parliamentary form of Gov;t also have a President, who mainly serves like the Queen does in GB. Most heads of state have mainly ceremonial powers, whether they’re monarchs or Presidents. The US is not unique, but certainly rare, in that its President wears both hats. ---
**Author:** ![buttonjockey308](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@buttonjockey308](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buttonjockey308)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-natural-born-provision-for-president/505885/85 "2009-08-11T15:42:08Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Is Americanness genetic? Something like 20,000 kids are adopted from overseas every year. What do they lose out on by living the first few months of their lives someplace else? Well, technically all nationality is genetic I suppose. The 20,000 adopted kids may grow up no different than the kids in the next house, but their true culture has yet to be learned. If a Chinese baby is adopted to Americans, it is not an American by birth, which is to say that when the Chinese baby grows to reach the age of reason, he or she may seek their true culture, their true background and their true heritage. This, of course takes nothing away from the parents that raised them, nor from them as naturalized Americans, however when the kid next door reaches the age of reason, he or she has to go no further than the front door to start the search for their true heritage. Through that search, they become Americans. > [@](#): > > Yes, and if you can’t do certain things for no good reason, it may be unjust. 😛 I guess we part ways on what a “good reason” means. > [@](#): > > You can if you’re descended from the right Germans. But I’m not, is that really a reason for me not to become king of England? That I didn’t have the right parents? I mean, it works for me, I understand that, but what do you think? > [@](#): > > The whole idea of equality is that you give people the same rights even if they are different. True, but being the leader is not a right, but a priviledge, afforded to but 44 men in the history of America. The odds are astoundingly long against becoming President, even IF you were born here. > [@](#): > > Which you can understand if you are born in France to American citizens and live there for a few years. However, if you’re born in China and adopted by Americans at age three months, you could never possibly understand. I get it now. I don’t know why I failed to catch on before. See above. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-natural-born-provision-for-president/505885/86 "2009-08-11T16:07:09Z")
> [@buttonjockey308](#): > > Well, technically all nationality is genetic I suppose. None of it is genetic, unless you’re stretching genetic to somehow include ‘where you were born.’ > [@](#): > > The 20,000 adopted kids may grow up no different than the kids in the next house, but their true culture has yet to be learned. This makes little sense but I guess it’s clear: you’re saying that someone born in the U.S. is always an American even if he is born to immigrants, but if he is born somewhere else and raised in America, he’s not really an American. If you are born here, you are automatically American, otherwise, even if you were brought here when you are a few weeks old, they must undertake a vision quest and decide they are Americans. Do you think this is sensible? I have to say I don’t. > [@](#): > > But I’m not, is that really a reason for me not to become king of England? That I didn’t have the right parents? I mean, it works for me, I understand that, but what do you think? Monarchy is not a democratic instutution, so it has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. > [@](#): > > True, but being the leader is not a right, but a priviledge, afforded to but 44 men in the history of America. We’re not talking about the right to be a leader. We’re talking about the right to an opportunity. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-natural-born-provision-for-president/505885/87 "2009-08-12T00:42:38Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > 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. Pretty sure Chalabi doesn’t want the job; red herring. And while Arnold-as-Presinator might not be a good enough reason, I think Samantha Power might be worth it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-natural-born-provision-for-president/505885.md?page=4)