Wrong on both accounts. Only problem is I can’t prove it because A.) it’s in the past, and B) the stupid primary election method that allows John Q. Shithead to pick a party’s candidate rather than party bosses usually skews it to a moderate RINO.
How can one be a permanent resident who has only lived here 14 years at the age of thirty five?
Permanent resident means you live here and nowhere else and intend to stay here. Why does the time matter?
Got it. You’re holding to a bigoted stance. Dress it up all you want, it still remains the answer to my question. And vaseline and toast don’t have a damn thing to do with it.
Now onto my soap box: naturalizing someone is supposed to have them considered a citizen of the country into which they’re naturalized. It’s supposed to make them the same as the people already citizens. The particular provision of the Constitution keeps that from being the complete truth in the US.
To expand on my post above: the Founding Fathers weren’t exactly known for their non-bigotry. They certainly held to some bigoted ideas. We’ve moved, as a society for the most part, past some of their bigoted ideas, and we’ve even legislated against some of their ideas. I see no reason why we need to keep one particular bad idea in place when for the other offices in government (excepting, of course for VP), that restriction is not there. It’s a stupid restriction and it needs to go. And that’s regardless of there being any particular person at the moment who would be a good candidate if the restriction is lifted.
Do you believe a 7 year old has the right to vote? If not, why not? Are you bigoted against them? They have to live under the laws of this country and they pay taxes.
Why shouldn’t they have a say in how their country/state/locality is run?
(Emphasis added.) Followed by a most dubious attempt at explaining or justifying:
How the living hell is that the same as someone whose parents brought him to the U.S. legally at 7 years old (to pick a number at random), was duly naturalized, went through school, university, etc. here, works and owns land and formed a family here, and now at age 35 wants to run for school board or city council or state assemblyman to represent the city he and his family have lived in for 10 years? :dubious::rolleyes: Do you really consider every naturalized American the equivalent of an infant or minor for not having been born here? :eek::mad: I’m a born citizen from two legally-immigrated and naturalized parents, and my full response to that position could only be indulged in the Pit.
What do you think naturalization is?!
You got that right. Most dubious, indeed.
It’s not the same. It’s pure hokum. Or, to use your term again, it’s most dubious.
I know plenty of naturalized people in government and military and they seem to be doing a good job of not being disloyal to the US.
My guess is that he thinks it’s a mistake.
My point of the 7 year old post was that there are certain prejudices we’re allowed to have. The idea that any form of discrimination is bad is rubbish. If it isn’t, then 7 year olds should be allowed to vote and felons should be allowed to vote and own guns.
Your example of a 7 year old coming here and become a citizen and then running for office at 35 is not the same as a 35 year old coming here, becoming a citizen, and running for office at age 50. That 50 year old is still going to have some loyalties to his nation of birth and it will skew his/her decisions as a leader on issues that pertain to that nation. This is the justification for the prohibition on POTUS.
Only if you wish to convince anyone else of it, or even to convince anyone else that your motivation for holding that position is above reproach.
FWIW, every naturalized citizen I know takes citizenship very seriously. They each made the conscious decision to be Americans and to commit themselves to the goal, a step many native-borns never take. Every single one is as devoted and loyal an American as anyone I know or have even heard of.
So, the rationale for not letting them take on the responsibilities of the highest public office, even though the lesser ones are good enough for them somehow, would be what exactly?
Your own bigotries don’t allow anyone to hold any position you don’t also hold, don’t they?
If this is such an important pressing issue, why hasn’t that clause been repealed yet?
Huh, what? Was that the old “Opposing bigotry is bigoted against bigots!” argument or what?
Because it isn’t pressing, and never has been.
Just as soon as man-boobs came into contention. No knowning after that…
Thank you.
It hasn’t hurt this country one iota to not allow foreign borns from being POTUS, and it never will. There are far more reasons for the prohibition than against it.
No doubt that was the argument of the Constitutional Convention delegates who inserted and voted for the constitutional provision in question … and then noticeably didn’t apply the same limitation to either house of Congress.
However, you didn’t limit your argument or position to the constitutional clause or the Presidency. There’s a reason why I highlighted your reference to naturalized citizens “elected to anything, much less elected President” and then used lower offices in my example.
Oh, horse apples. How do you know that is the case?
It’s a lame, outdated, and ridiculous justification. It needs to go away.
If we can’t amend the Constitution to clarify the Second Amendment, something considered hugely important, there’s no way we could amend it for something this petty. No way.
Maybe in future generations, but not before Schwarzenegger is too old to run.
Yeah and if we elect [del][COLOR=Black]Alfred E. Smith[/del][/COLOR] John F. Kennedy president he will build a tunnel connecting the White House and the Vatican and would amend the Constitution to make Catholicism the nation’s established religion¹, and don’t get me started on electing a Jew²!
¹ Which was asinine well before 1928.
² Actually, a Jewish person would, almost certainly, lead to a more rational relationship between the USA and Israel than yet another Christian pandering to lunatic fringe Christianity obsessed with “Israel and the Second Coming™”.
I seriously doubt that that 50 year old is going to have more loyalty to his nation of birth that he voluntary left than many American do to the nation(s) of birth of their great-great-great-grand parents. See; “Kiss me I’m Irish”, “Full Blooded Italian” etc, etc, etc.
It would be nice to get a reasoned definition of exactly what Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 means by “natural-born citizen” instead of reading the permutationless and hopelessly out of date case law the Birthers read as accurately as tea leaves! (I.E. according to, some, Birthers Obama isn’t a NBC because national allegiance follows the citizenship of the father and only the father. Foundlings and the children of unidentified rapists can never be eligible for PotUS!)
Or (IIUC) the Vice President!
CMC fnord!
It doesn’t *need *to go away- what *need *is there? Are we lacking in presidential candidates?
Is there some shortage of natural-born talent? Is there a foreign born citizen you want to see as President?
At the moment, one could argue we’re very short of decent presidential candidates.
Neither of those is my point.