If someone has become a complete citizen of the United States who is no longer beholden in any way to another country, why not let them be president. I usually hate it when people say that so and so part of the Constitution is out of date or no longer relevant, but it seem to me to be true in this case. Am I wrong, is there something I am forgetting? Should we fear Arnold allowing his elite Austrian storm troopers razing Washington in 2012?
Also, what if a foreign born gets themselves in the line of succession? Say speaker of the house. What then?
I believe it is outdated. Where you are born should not matter. To use an extreme example, why should one identical twin that was delivered by c-section a few feet within the Canadian border be ineligable for the presidency, while his other twin who was delivered a few feet within the U.S borders can?
How about me. I was born in England. Both my parents are American, they just happened to be working in the UK for a few years.
I have been an American citizen since birth. I have lived (almost) all my life in the US (just the first few unmemorable months in England). My family has been Americans for so many generation I can’t even count. I identify exclusively as an American.
So why can’t I be president (not that I’d want to be…)?
I think you’ve got the Constitutional requirement slightly wrong. It’s that naturalized citizens cannot run for President, not American citizens who were not born on American soil.
I think that it was put in as a guard against the sort of political consolidation that was often done between royal families. Where you would have an utterly foreign, to the point where they could not even speak the language, leader marry someone and then become the new ruler. I remember that there was a very famous Czar that was actually German.
Well, I for one like that part of the constitution. I think that most of the time the emotional ties to the country are stronger when you are a US Citizen by birth than when you’ve just immigrated. And then there is that historical example of that Austrian guy getting elected in Germany… It’s really a prime example why “foreigners” shouldn’t be able to run for president.
When George I became king of England in the early 1700s, he did not speak a word of English, being from Hanover, which is in Germany. I agree that this citizenship requirement is foolish. People should be free to vote for whomever they feel is most qualified, be they under 35, foreign-born, or already president for two terms.
King George, the guy ruling during the American Recolution, was German born and mainly German speaking. That was a lot closer to home. Not sure about the Czar-- are you confusing him with GIII?
Knock this garbage off in my thread. If you are angry with him take it to the pit. Otherwise I expect you to at least post some sort of cogent argument or opinion rather than confusing insults.
Part of the concern is likely of a foreign-born president having a subtle, perhaps even subconscious, bias towards their country of origin. What if, to use an extreme example, a French-born president had to decide whether or not to declare war on France? Could we trust him to make the right decision?
A naturalized citizen can become almost anything they want in this nation, even in politics. The one exception is president, and I don’t think we’re missing a whole lot by keeping that prerequisite intact. The risks are minor, granted, but so are the gains made by repealing it.
And Blalron, any requirement can sound silly if you take it to its (il)logical extreme. A man is not likely to be any more qualified at age 40-plus-one-second than he was at age 40-minus-one-second, yet the 40 year age requirement makes sense. And anyway, in your example, both children could be American citizens if the parents so desired. Just as if my wife has a kid while we’re vacationing for a week in Mexico, he’s not necessarily a Mexican citizen.
Jeff
As a nitpick, George III, who was king during the revolution was English born and English speaking (and I don’t think he spoke any German, actually). However, George I, the first Hannoverian king, was German.
I believe you are thinking of Catherine the Great. She was a German princess who got married to Peter, the future Czar. He was also German by birth, but due to those silly interbreeding royals he could have become Czar of Russia, King of Sweeden, or King of Hanover, but I digress. Catherine and Peter both spoke Russian. Catherine even converted to the Russian Orthodox Church.
George I and George II both spoke German. George III actually learned the language of the kingdom he was ruling, which is usually a good thing.
As for the OP, I’m ambivalent. I can’t think of any situation in which the American people would nominate and elect a foreign born president. Albright, Kissinger, and Arnie are all good people, but I can’t think of either of them as president. I see this as a cross that bridge when we get there situation.
I always wondered what would happen if we had a Presidential candidate with dual citizenship by birth. In most cases you only need one USC parent to be a USC by birth, so there’s always the second parent, or what if one or both parents have dual citizenship themselves? Some countries allow citizenship to be passed down two generations or more, so a situation is more possible than you might think. Or what about someone who was born in the U.S. to foreign parents, but was raised in a foreign country after teh parents returned home?
The possibilities boggle the mind. Just imagine the campaign debate headadaches about allegiance alone.
George III was the grandson of George II, who like his father was born in Hanover. George I never learned English, AFAIK, but George II could speak it haltingly. His son Frederick died within his lifetime, so he was succeeded by George III, who was Frederick’s eldest son.
George III, however, was born in England, spoke English fluently, and sought to be a king after the models of the Tudors and Stuarts – and, having had a taste of Cabinet government for the last sixty years, the English were not about to revert to a ruling king if they could help it. (And yes, during this time period Scotland was a part of the Kingdom of Great Britain – but the significance of the Scots during the reign of George III is more complex than is worth going into here.)
However, the key point was that within the memories of most of the F.F., their king had been a foreigner, and they were not about to put up with a president who was a recent immigrant not familiar with Anglo/American ways of self-governance. That seems to have been the main reason for the “natural born citizen” requirement.
You remove it by constitutional amendment if there’s any good reason to push for such. Generally, the American tendency is to amend only when there’s sound reason to pass an amendment, not to conduct a regular rewrite.
