So you think she would run for president, and then change sides or surrender in a war against her home country? I think not. The group of people who run for president is self-selecting, and people who don’t like the country very much are not going to bother.
While I’m not going to comment, the man just told you his family might turn traitor after swearing a public oath of allegiance. I don’t really care for the rest of the matter, but I think even you would probably not go that far.
Nice of you to work in a dig at me there. :rolleyes:
ETA: If you think I meant I’d take up arms against the US, I was speaking the other way around, though frankly I’d prefer not to take up arms against anyone.
You comprehended it just fine.
If it were a legitimate concern in the 1780s, why can it not be a legitimate concern today, or in the future? What is different today in this respect?
I’d rather keep it. Where you’re born (err, where I was born, I guess) is of no particular concern to me, and many other “enlightened” types - for instance I was born in Georgia, a state for which I hold no particular affinity - but I think it still matters a great deal to most people. You hear all the time that some XHugePercentage of people live within some XSmallNumber radius of where they were born. Our worldview and culture is shaped by where we were born and where we grow up. Sure, there will be some people who get here when they’re 2 weeks old and get screwed, and a guy who was born here and grew up abroad might slip through and here and there, but they’re the exception. I think this is a rule best left alone for the foreseeable future. Maybe when the world is truly “flat”[er] in the economic/political sense it should be revisited.
And can anyone else imagine a worst case scenario where a “ringer” was brought in to run the place? Essentially some overhyped corporate or political guru from abroad who is a genius and going to do great things . . . only to completely misunderstand the country, screw things up more than usual, and serve his own interests more than politicians already do.
I’d just really rather not.
Plus, Obama was born here so fuck all the whiners who can’t handle a young/black/liberal/whatever-bothers-them president. They can all kiss my ass. We had to sit through 8 years of George monkey-fucker W. Bush.
I’ve often wondered the point of the “Born in the US” thing- I mean, as the OP says, if they were born in Sandistan to US citizen parents and moved back to the US when they were two and have no ties to Sandistan whatsoever, I’d say they’re just as American and Bob and Mary Smith from Green Tree, Oregon, who were born in Portland and have never been outside their state.
Then you have complicated things like “Was the Panama Canal Zone part of the US? What about the US zone in West Berlin?” As others have said, being a “Foreigner” might have been an issue for a President back in the early 19th Century, but nowadays I really don’t think it’s an issue and as long as the President is an American Citizen (and has been living in the US for a while) I really don’t see what where they were originally born has to do with their ability to be El Presidente.
Australia, incidentally, says you can’t have Dual Citizenship if you’re in the Federal Parliament- even if your second citizenship is British or New Zealand!
This does mean I won’t be running for Prime Minister anytime soon, fortunately for Australia. 
“Natural Born” isn’t really defined anywhere but is usually assumed to mean “born a citizen”, not “born in the geographical US”. The most surefire way to be born a citizen is to be born in the US, but there are others (like being the child of a US citizen). The circumstances under which citizen parents pass on that status to their children are slightly more complex (so that, for example, an ex-pat’s 200 great-great-grandchildren aren’t all citizens) and have varied a bit over the years. The whole birther argument is based on the state of the that particualr law then–then way it was written, Obama wouldn’t have been a citizen at birth had he been born in Kenya.
Redefining “Natural born” to mean “born to 2 US Citizens on US soil in a hospital that is owned entirely by US stockholders and attended by doctors who are descended from the signers of the Declaration” is their fall back position.
Who cares what they think? If it’s the right thing to do, we shouldn’t refrain from doing so just to spite idiots.
I see the whole “Natural Born” think not as a restriction on individual, but rather an unfair restriction placed on the American public. I mean, if Americans want to vote for someone born outside the country, why shouldn’t they be allowed to do so?
If voters decide that a naturalized citizen is the best person for the job, then according to the most basic rules of democracy, he or she is the best person for the job. And if voters want a person who “isn’t that enamored with America” - well then, I guess that’s what they’re looking for in a president, isn’t it?
A country deserves whoever it elects.
The phrase is “natural born,” not “born in the U.S.” and a child born to U.S. citizens while living in Sandistan would be a natural citizen with full rights to be elected president. (George Romney was born in Mexico and his presidential campaign was derailed by his own ineptness; there was no suggestion that he was not eligible to run.)
Because the voters are stupid.
It was a legitimate concern in the 1780s because most citizens of the new “United States” still thought of themself as British, and there was always an off chance that the loyalist viewpoint might somehow reassert itself, leading to the election of King George.
This, of course, would have been awfully embarassing.
On the other hand, a quick straw poll I just took around the office indicates that all Americans now consider themselves Americans. The American fascination with the royals notwithstanding, I don’t think Her Brittanic Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second will be a popular write in candidate anytime soon.
However, as noted above, I have absolutely no problem with the requirement, in that at this point is shrinks the pool of available candidates by a trace amount.
Could an argument be made that the 14th amendment, guaranteeing equal protection under the laws, has overridden the “natural born” requirement for President?
In other words, wouldn’t that treat me as a natural born citizen different that a naturalized citizen in violation of the amendment?
[quote=“Blalron, post:1, topic:505885”]
The geographical location where someone exited their mother’s vagina can’t possibly impact how they will govern.
Hitler:
Born in Austria, the rest is as they say, history.
Now imagine if he’d emigrated to the USA during the depression
There was some obiter dicta discussion of it in Wong Kim Ark, the SCOTUS case which established that the children of foreigners born on US soil had the right of citizenship, but it’s not binding law and it actually involved the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause, not the equal protection clause.
Probably not.
Everyone seems to be treating the question as if there were only two options, either leave it as it is, or open up the presidency as an international free-for-all.
What about a middle ground? The current eligibility requirements include that the President must be 35 years of age, why not change that to say that the president must have been an American citizen for 35 years? This eliminates the possibility of Hitler coming over during the depression and taking over while allowing those people who came here when they were two weeks old to strive for the office.
I think (with hesitation, I’m sure I have missed something) that this compromise addresses all of the objections on both sides of the argument so far. If anyone sees any problems with this idea (besides the inherent time and effort that goes into amending the constitution) I would be curious to know what they are.
Commerce, communication and travel by airplane make it a completely different world. In the 17th century, people thought monsters lived in the New World. When de Tocqueville wrote about American government, people in Europe would have known little about it otherwise. Today, you can get on a computer and not only read about any part of the U.S. or its history that you are interested in, you can see what is happening there at this second, and if you have a little money, you can get there in (usually) well under 24 hours. You think that doesn’t change things a bit? Don’t be ridiculous. And if you think any of that is going to go away instead of increasing, please explain how.
Two-plus centuries ago, a foreign-born president could conceivably have threatened the security of the U.S. Today, that’s not the case - somebody born in China and adopted by American parents, or who immigrates to the country to start a new life, can be as American as anybody else. And further, if they can’t do a fair job of fitting in it’s unlikely they would be elected president. As far as the concern of other countries having a foreign agent as a ringer - I’d say put down the Tom Clancy novel.
It probably doesn’t make as much sense these days with immigration control, but it does serve the purpose of preventing a diplomatic style take over of the country. For example, 500 million Chinese wouldn’t be able to immigrate to the US, elect Hu Jintao Jr. as President, and then go back to China, effecting an expensive but bloodless takeover of the US.
And even if it could happen, they could just recruit a native born citizen to suit their nefarious purposes like a Lee Harvey Oswald or John Walker Lindh.
I believe that we are not following the intentions of the founding fathers with regard to what natural born means. At the time when the constitution was written who was history’s greatest dictator. Julius Caesar. He stripped the Roman Senate of much of its power. The founding fathers did not want the president to act in that way. So no cesarean sections for our presidents only natural childbirth.
Well, why are we changing the requirements? If it’s to let Arnold Schwarznegger run for Prez, then sure, why not?
But if it’s to quiet the Birthers, then it won’t work. They’d just claim that his visit of two weeks wasn’t counted, or that he secretly lived outside the uSA for a decade, or that he’s not really a US Citizen- the paperwork was forged.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
(Oddly, there’s more real issue about McCains’ “natural born” status than there is with Obama, but the Birthers never mention that.)