This began as a very important protection in the colonial period. We didn’t want a naturalized citizen becoming chief executive and turning us into a vassal state. There was a very legitimate fear that British or French loyalists could move us into a subservient position, whereas the founding fathers wanted us to be a strong independent nation.
Nowadays, however, this is no longer a realistic position. First, there just isn’t enough power vested in the White House to carry this out, even if someone wanted to. Second, the idea of the US becoming a vassal state to anyone is ludicrous. At most US foreign policy would just swing decisively towards another country. So the reason for the restriction just isn’t there any more. There’s a movement to amend the Constitution and let in naturalized citizens, which I’m all for.
The argument that a naturalized citizen would have a strong loyalty to their homeland has two major flaws. First, they left their beloved homeland. They packed it up and headed over here. There’s a good chance that a naturalized president would have an antipathy for their homeland if anything, and given the places people flee from there would likely be a good reason for antipathy. Secondly, it’s not like nativeborns don’t have strong opinions about various nations. I, for one, would be on CNN screaming at the dirty Brits to get out of Northern Ireland on a daily basis. But that’s part of the considerations that go into electing a president.
Joe Lieberman is a strong and public supporter of Israel. That doesn’t make him disloyal or unbalanced, it is just one criterion on which people judge him as a candidate. If Arnold ran and wanted to give Germany and Austria most favored nation trade status (assuming they dont’ already have it), people will consider that when deciding who to vote for.
mambo–from my understanding, yes you can, because you were born with your citizenship, if a mexican woman crosses the border just in time to have a baby then her baby is qualifiable… (to my knowledge)
fruitbat— a person is smart, people are stupid… under the circumstances, yes we could elect an al qaeda operative… heck, our current president has enough ties as it is…
Well…this is certainly an overly PC overreaction to what I interpreted as a very reasonible statement from Vriggs. It is not unheard of that someone born of another country might experience conflicting loyalties when it comes to dealing on an international level with their birth-country. We question our presidents if they have too close a relationship to a particular corporation, let alone another country.
Mambo - What matters is your citizenship, not the physical location of your birth (unless it relates to your citizenship). So go ahead and run for Pres.
To argue that a child that leaves his home country at age 12 (pick an age) to come to the U.S. has an allegiance that will hinder that person to have proper allegiance with the U.S. is ingenuous.
As has been pointed out, I can also come up with a long list of alliances an American born person might have that would keep me from voting him into office.
If it is true that Bush has a special ‘understanding’ with Israel because of whatever reason, is that reason enough to not let him become president?
Sorry, but I haven’t read anything yet that convinces me that this is not just bad law.
All we need to get rid of it, is for some liberal judge to say that that clause is “unconstitutional”. Yes, I know it’s in the constitution, but that’s a formality. What did those racists like Jefferson and Madison know anyway?
And, because we have had 40 some odd presidents that were citizens, we now have to have at least 40 presidents who are not citizens or at least are only naturalized as opposed to native born citizens.
Okay, I’m an idiot :smack: It should really be “I know you’re a good, loyal citizen like the others in this land and you may have done much for your country…” not “done have”, whatever that might mean. Hopefully, third time’s the charm I can’t type. Heh. Just ignore me altogether.
I don’t in any way shape or form say that immigrants or natural born citizens are not capable of fulfilling the presidential/prime minister duties. I’ll even up that to saying there is no discernable difference between the ability level of a n.b.c. and one born elsewhere.
The difference comes in where loyalties may lie. Some will have loyalties to the country they were born in. Some (most) will have the fire of patriotism that burn as hot as any n.b.c. The contentiousness comes in because I made the observation that the loyalty may lie in the other country.
Consider the flipside of the question. You were born in the US or Canada. What, could ever, make you raise a gun to fight your birth country? Assume you move to Sweden, even if you absolutely love it there - will you ever forsake your loyalty to the US or Canada? Would you be able to make a decision to the advantage of Sweden to the detriment of US/Canada? To run the country in the best interest of it’s people there should be no inner conflict.
This is the point I want to make. Two more notes to this - I am only a second generation Canadian (my parent under my vision would never be able to be Prime Ministers). Secondly, I qualified my initial post with a disclaimer that this is my opinion only. I elaborate here to give some insight into my thinking but I don’t content to be infallible. My life experiences certainly must colour how I see things and this post is in no short order of my personal prejudace in the way I see the world.
Oh and regarding the definition of N.B.C., the soil you were born on seems a natural starting point but to fully qualify all conditions would need to be juedged on a case by case basis. I think the essense of who is a n.b.c. is clear and the discussion can go on without a bill of inclusions and exclusion.
P.S. Hinton no hard feelings I intend not to offend you.
Someone born of an American parent or parents abroad IS a natural born citizen, and hence eligible to become President. I don’t know about an adopted infant.
I assume you don’t know that, with a few exceptions, you must be a US citizen (naturalized is OK) to work any federal government job. Permanent residents need not apply.
Examples of exceptions would be local staff at embassies, or foreign language translators. Generally a foreign worker must sign up for a particular job and will not be eligible for promotions.
It’s not so simple. There are many countries where you can only be a citizen if one of your parents is a citizen. One example is Germany. If you were born in Germany to parents with no German heritage between them, you are not German.
Also, the rules for US citizens having kids outside the US are a bit complicated, too, and it depends on a lot of factors. For example, I have a friend who was born in the US to Canadian parents, and returned to Canada when he was 2. He is a US citizen (because anybody born on US soil is a citizen), but his children aren’t, because he didn’t reside in the US at least 3 years before a certain age (18?). This is according to the law as it was when he had kids. I don’t know if the law is different now.
I can’t run for president for another nine years(or be elected, anyway, I think I could run at 34, couldn’t I?) Is that age discrimination? It seems like a rather abritrary rule to me, but… there isn’t a good enough reason to change it.
The fact that it is wrong isn’t a good enough reason?
Is not doing the right thing its own reward?
I think y’all are looking at it backwards. My concern is not so much for the rights of the individual that is denied a chance to be President as it is for the damage to the right of all of us to decide for ourselves who will lead us. I hate the restrictions on who can be President not because they are discriminatory but because they are undemocratic.
Regardless of parents’ nationality, isn’t a person born in an airplane crossing over the continental USA considered a USA citizen?
If that is the case (and it might be wrong, but I remember reading it somewhere) then that would be an odd way of determining citizenship. I think I would rather see a foreign born President who took the time and energy to become a citizen
than a somebody whose mother happened to give birth on a flight as it passed over Cleveland.
I thought that an airplane belonged to the country of origin, and counted as territory of such.
When I went to Amsterdam a few years ago, I went via KLM Airlines. I noticed on the washroom door that there was a sign saying that I was under Dutch law now.
I can’t type. Heh. Just ignore me altogether.