I’ve been wondering if the United States should get rid of that little bit in the Constitution that says that the President must be native-born. Should we? What problems, if any, would we run into if we get rid of that?
Another question: why, in the name of all that is good, do we have that requirement, when other countries seem to get along fine without it. (Chile is run by a former Japanese citizen, IIRC, although I’m wrong pretty often about these sorts of things.)
Because if we got rid of it, Rupert Murdoch would become president. Seriously, though, I think one of the reasons was the fear of the establishment of foreign dynasties. Remember, the House of Hannover, which was on the throne at Britian at the time, was German (well, Hannoverian), and, in fact, George III was the first Hannover King to speak English. This is a WAG, but I think the writers of the constitution were afraid that, if that requirement weren’t in there, the electors might say “We want King X” to be our president, and keep reelecting him indefinately, turning the U.S. into a de facto monarchy.
Do we need it? Nah.
Is there a point to changing it? Nah.
It gives the eight or ten people who have read the Constitution the warm, fuzzy feeling that the leader of the nation will not have been sent over by some other country for nefarious purposes. On the other hand, it hasn’t hurt us, any. Who were you hoping would run? Murdoch? Kissinger?
My kid?..
Not really, I wouldn’t want my kids to be president - I’d rather they sold drugs to schoolkids (not really, but President is pretty high on my “I hope my kids never want to…” list. But my kid was born in South Korea and came to the US at 6 months when we adopted him. Just because I don’t want him to be President doesn’t mean he should be denied the opportunity through accident of birth.
[quote]
(Chile is run by a former Japanese citizen, IIRC,
although I’m wrong pretty often about these sorts of things.)
[quote]
The president of Chile is Ricardo Lagos, who is not noticeably Japanese. You’re probably thinking of the former president of Peru, Alberto Fujimori, a native-born Chilean of Japanese descent. IIRC, no country has a current leader who is an immigrant (unless you count Prince Phillip, Elizabeth II’s husband–he’s Greek) I concur with Tomndebb; if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.
Damn! I meant "a native-born Peruvian of Japanese descent.
Since the OP is philosophical, I’ll give a philosophical answer. Yes, the requirement is obsolete and should be eliminated. Why would we want to rule out anyone with the desire and ability to do the job? That goes against the principles of equal rights and opportunities we claim to stand for.
My experience with naturalized-as-adult citizens is that they invariablyare always more dedicated to the country and its welfare than the majority of those who had their citizenship handed to them. The naturalized have carefully thought about what is important to them, who they really want to be, and what they want to dedicate themselves to. To me, that makes them better Americans than those who have slid along, never exploring what American-ness really means to them because they’ve never had to. That in turn may make them more likely to be good public servants if they choose that career path.
Oh, btw, all generalizations are untrustworthy, including this one.
I guess that’s all I have to say. I don’t think it is an unreasonable request to ask that the President of a country be a native-born citizen. Equal opportunity? This isn’t McDonalds for christ’s sake. It isn’t even based on fear of foreign takeover in my mind.
That said, there isn’t any super-practical reason for it, but I don’t think it is an unreasonable request.
I think we should get rid of it. We could be missing out on a great president who is the foreign-born adopted son or daughter of Americans, or a person who emmigrated to America at an early age. It would be better, IMHO, to get rid of the requirement now, rather than to wait until a specific challenge presents itself. I think it’s interesting that candidates, when they can, often play up that their parents or grandparents were immigrants. The image of the hard working, dedicated immigrant is a recurring theme in political campaigning.
Although that does present the problem of where the line is drawn. I believe the general rule for naturalization is five years of permanent residency (three if you are the spouse of a citizen), and that seems far too short of a time for presidency requirements.
The problem of acquiring a foreign-born president is that his views must be in lockstep with the mainstream in this country. The provision of the presidenthaving to be a natural-born citizen was really in response to Alexander Hamilton (born in the Virgin Islands). The Federalists did not care for Hamilton’s calling for a strong king-like leader after America gained independence. So they made sure that Hamilton will never be able to run for president
I learned the same thing about Hamilton in school, although I now believe that is something of a colonial myth. The founding fathers kicked things off with the ratification of the Constitution – anyone who was a citizen at that time, regardless of place of birth, was eligible.
Who was the last president to fit that bill?
There already is a 14 year residency requirement, in addition to the citizenship requirement: Article II, § 1 provides:
And I never understood that bit about Alexander Hamilton - as delphica notes, he was a citizen at the time of the ratification, so why wouldn’t he have been eligible?
Personally, I would have thought that a citizenship requirement (whether born or acquired) and a 14 residency period should be enough.
(Here in Canada, all that’s required to be Prime Minister is that you be a citizen, eligible to vote, and have lived in the riding you want to represent for 6 months.)
Well, Hamilton was born on the island of Nevis, not on a Virgin.
Here’s the relevant bit from the second Article of the Constitution: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the
Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen
Years a Resident within the United States.”
Hamilton moved to New York in 1773, and so was eligible to run for president when the Constitution was ratified in 1787.
I want Arnold to be president so that he can carry on the Kennedy dynasty!
Since he’s dead, the question is moot, and he wouldn’t have wanted the job anyway; but I always thought that it was a crying shame that Isaac Asimov could never have become President because of this rule. A more loyal American has never lived.
About whom it is now suspected there may have been some finagling of his parents’ naturalization papers. When he fled Perú, Japan recognized him as a citizen and granted him protection as such (not as a refugee or asylee, who’d have to justify his status). That is another thing the rule seeks to prevent.
Many nations have a natural-born-citizen requirement. Mexico IIRC used to have a restrictive criterion (born WITHIN the country + both parents themselves-native-born + ineligible for any other citizenship, or something like that) they had to amend before President Fox could run – and to this day their constitution requires native citizenship for a lot of posts besides presidency. Of course, in their case and that of a lot of Latin America there is the historical precedent of folks like Maximillian, and Walker, which they seek to avoid.
The US could probably do with allowing a naturalized President, maybe by requiring a longer residency and a more explicit repudiation of all alegiance or link to the former homeland (but wouldn’t that make for awkward State Visits…), but it’s unlikely to be changed.
jrd
BTW, the Canada example (short citizenship-residency requirement for the PM) is a little skewed as the Head of State is the Queen, who involves a whole different set of rules…
Two things.
I love the term “riding” for a constituency. There just have to hundreds of jokes about what the politicians are doing there.
Fujimori not only was of Japanese descent, but when he bolted the country and fled to Japan, the Japanese government violated the Nationality Law and declared that he’s a Japanese citizen. FWIW, the Japanese government lost the last case in which the government of the day attempted to violated the Nationality Law.
Ah, but Elizabeth reigns - she doesn’t govern. That’s what PM Chrétien is for.
Isn’t the whole voting thing supposed to cover that? So says the theory of democracy anyway. In fact, if you accept that, voting more fairly and democratically covers every possible restriction you could put on who can be the president. If the people don’t want a foreign born president they won’t vote for one. If they do, isn’t it undemocratic to place an arbitrary restriction on it?