# Would you support an amendment to remove the Natural Born Citizen clause? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 9, 2011, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785 "2011-04-09T17:10:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/81 "2011-04-12T16:58:59Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Get rid of it but under these conditions: > > 1. The individual must be fourteen years a _citizen_. Since one must live here as a permanent resident for a considerable time prior to obtaining citizenship, this would effectively mean any “plants” would have to be planted some 17-20 years prior (making it even more ludicrous a prospect than it already is.) So you’d basically be raising the age requirement? > [@](#): > > 1. Any candidate for President who is not a natural born citizen must have formally renounced any other citizenship he/she holds. The only exception to this rule will be if the candidate holds citizenship in a country that does not have a procedure or allow official renunciation. In such circumstances it must be shown that the candidate has not _exercised_ any irrevocable citizenship they may hold for a period of 14 years prior to election. Fair enough. But don’t people who get elected President have to have some “experience” first? Where is that gonna come from? I can’t be mayor of a town in Poland, immigrate, become naturalized, and then run for President? How long do you want me to wait so you know I’m “loyal”? The President swears to uphold the Constitution. What more do you need? > [@](#): > > 2.a. Any person elected President who was not natural born but satisfied the above two requirements, and possessed any citizenship that they were not able to renounce must, upon leaving office, swear an oath that they shall never exercise any right of citizenship for any country other than the United States. If they violate this oath they immediately forfeit any benefits or privileges that former U.S. Presidents receive. When you are finished with public office, you are finished with public office. No other elected official has been asked to do that. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/82 "2011-04-12T17:00:23Z")
Funny how people who have no shot at the Presidency in the U.S. can go and become leaders of powerful nations. Thinking of Golda Meir here. ---
**Author:** ![Marc\_Xenos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9a140/32.png) [@Marc\_Xenos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marc_Xenos)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/83 "2011-04-12T17:41:01Z")
All the theories and reasons may well be valid. But the Constitution isn’t just an exercise in theory. There is the law of unintended consequences. Every fix creates two new problems. There may be a name for it; somebody mentioned “Dialectic Theory” to me one time, that change is ever constant. The Supreme Law of the Land should remain static until changed for a compelling reason, not just to tinker daily with it. The reasons for such an exclusion may have been entirely valid in the days of the Founding Fathers, and less so today. But to address it simply for the sake of tinkering yields no benefit. Is America somehow deprived by reducing the campaign pool? Not theoretically, but in reality? Where have we provably suffered by the exclusion of someone who wanted to lead but was denied? I’ve seen an incredible plethora of worthless Presidents. There are only a few who are considered Great Statesmen, and even those are still subject to some controversy. If the worst Presidents in history were unable to destroy America, how can someone be the greatest President to save America, if only he were natural-born, not naturalized? Possible? Sure. When it happens, deal with it. Not tinker with the Greatest Document of America just for the rhetoric of it. Personally, I don’t see what the necessity of the 22nd Amendment was. After all, in a democracy, it potentially blocks the will of the people, doesn’t it? And it has no effect on any other federal office for some very good reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/84 "2011-04-12T17:56:30Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > but there is always a clear distinction between birthright citizenship and naturalized citizens. You say this as if it is some kind of inevitable natural law or something. The distinction is created by law and can just as easily be uncreated. > [@](#): > > Natural born citizens are not only eligible for the Presidency, they are also not required to pass the citizenship test That’s not relevant to the discussion, because it is a requirement to _become_ a citizen. It does not create different classes of citizens. > [@](#): > > , and retain their right to immediate restoration of citizenship if they renounce it. Any such distinction should be eliminated as well. The rights of citizenship should be absolutely uniform regardless of the manner it was acquired. > [@](#): > > Naturalized citizens don’t have any of those benefits. It’s not just about being President. Is it unfair? Arguably, but not really. It’s just how the world works (not just the US). Arguably, but not really? That statement approaches nonsense. It’s a classification that is unjust. > [@](#): > > Bear in mind that immigrants have a right that those born in the US may not- to become heads of government/state of the states they emigrated from. Uh, who cares? What other governments might or might not do is irrelevant to the rights of U.S. citizenship. > [@Marc\_Xenos](#): > > All the theories and reasons may well be valid. But the Constitution isn’t just an exercise in theory. There is the law of unintended consequences. Every fix creates two new problems. There may be a name for it; somebody mentioned “Dialectic Theory” to me one time, that change is ever constant. This also approaches nonsense. Tell me what possible harmful consequence can be conceived. > [@](#): > > The Supreme Law of the Land should remain static until changed for a compelling reason, not just to tinker daily with it. I’ve already given a reason that is compelling – there should not be classes of citizenship. It’s fundamentally unjust. Not only is it compelling, I can’t conceive of any more compelling a reason for any proposed change in the constitution. Is America somehow deprived by reducing the campaign pool? Not theoretically, but in reality? Where have we provably suffered by the exclusion of someone who wanted to lead but was denied? > [@](#): > > Not tinker with the Greatest Document of America just for the rhetoric of it. This is drivel. The constitution is an establishment of principles, not a divine tome to be revered. It has always been flawed, in some cases fundamentally flawed, and some of those flaws have been corrected, most of them far later than they should have been. > [@](#): > > Personally, I don’t see what the necessity of the 22nd Amendment was. I see no particular need for that amendment either, but it does nothing to support your argument. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/85 "2011-04-12T18:59:26Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Amending the Constitution should not be done without a compelling reason. No such compelling reason has been offered here. This is my view too. This is effectively a non-issue. No reason to go through the expensive, time consuming and arduous process of amending the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/86 "2011-04-12T20:59:20Z")
I don’t see any compelling upside to changing the Constitution to benefit a handful of people, so I vote leave it as-is. > [@Randy\_Seltzer](#): > > Which of the nine justices are you? I’m betting you’re Breyer – he always stuck me as a Sparky kind of guy. This would make an awesome basis for a personality quiz. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/87 "2011-04-12T21:29:49Z")
I don’t see it as “benefiting a handful of people.” I see it as benefiting all of us by eliminating classes of citizenship, the same way that the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments benefited all of us by specifying that black people and women had the same status under the constitution as white men did. Having a class of second-class citizens introduces a fundamental poison in the heart of our democracy, the same way that slavery and denial of full citizenship rights on the basis of race or gender did. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/88 "2011-04-12T23:18:14Z")
I am personally thankful that Arnold Schwarzenegger will never be president. Love his movies though! ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/89 "2011-04-12T23:34:01Z")
Do any of you who oppose removing the rule actually think an outsider could get elected President? Do any of you actually think someone who just got off the boat could network and politick their way into that office? Given how acrimonious and adversarial the nomination process is, let alone the actual campaign, do you think someone who still has definable ties to a foreign country’s policy could get into office? The process already errs on the side of over-caution. Look how long it took us to elect a Catholic, let alone someone whose skin is a bit darker than the median. There is no reason for the rule, and rules without reason need to be removed. (Also, the product of a c-section technically isn’t _natural_-born, so we’d have to filter for that as well.) ---
**Author:** ![BrassyPhrase](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ea666f/32.png) [@BrassyPhrase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrassyPhrase)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/90 "2011-04-12T23:36:56Z")
If you were born in the United States, you’re a citizen. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/91 "2011-04-13T00:10:14Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > (Also, the product of a c-section technically isn’t _natural_-born, so we’d have to filter for that as well.) I assume that’s a joke, but maybe it needs repeating: the “natural” in question doesn’t refer to the _manner_ of birth, but to the citizen status. Citizenship is “natural” to the newborn–inherent by the fact of birth. No process is necessary to invest the child with citizenship, to _naturalize_ him. ---
**Author:** ![Randy\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee7513/32.png) [@Randy\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/92 "2011-04-13T00:15:02Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > I assume that’s a joke, but maybe it needs repeating: the “natural” in question doesn’t refer to the _manner_ of birth, but to the citizen status. Citizenship is “natural” to the newborn–inherent by the fact of birth. No process is necessary to invest the child with citizenship, to _naturalize_ him. Apparently you didn’t get the memo the first time so maybe it needs repeating. You don’t know that “born a citizen” is the same thing the constitution refers to with regard to presidential eligibility. You will provide no cite that says so, because there is none; the matter has never been settled. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/93 "2011-04-13T02:23:47Z")
> [@What\_Exit](#): > > This is my view too. This is effectively a non-issue. No reason to go through the expensive, time consuming and arduous process of amending the Constitution. It is an issue to people who have been citizen for many years(35+) and don’t have the right to run. > [@BrassyPhrase](#): > > If you were born in the United States, you’re a citizen. > > Period. What? What are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/94 "2011-04-13T02:34:10Z")
**spark240** : Justice Macduff might disagree with you there. **Randy Seltzer** : In common law systems, there generally _aren’t_ cites for things that the courts don’t have to decide on, or haven’t had to decide on yet, unless someone can drag up possibly-relevant blackletter law. In fact, this might well be outside of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction as it is a political question and therefore up to Congress to decide by way of impeachment hearings. (I mean, if anyone actually challenged the legitimacy of a President who was from his mother’s womb untimely ripp’d and actually got people to go along with the notion.) More seriously, even if we never actually have to decide precisely what ‘natural-born’ means, it’s still a silly restriction that cannot possibly prevent harm better than the electoral system itself could. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/95 "2011-04-13T02:36:26Z")
> [@Mahaloth](#): > > It is an issue to people who have been citizen for many years(35+) and don’t have the right to run. Not really, not being eligible for President and Vice President is a pretty minor issue. This is not something I would like to see elected officials worry about. We have so many real issues to deal with that have real consequences. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/96 "2011-04-13T02:58:24Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Do any of you who oppose removing the rule actually think an outsider could get elected President? Do any of you actually think someone who just got off the boat could network and politick their way into that office? Given how acrimonious and adversarial the nomination process is, let alone the actual campaign, do you think someone who still has definable ties to a foreign country’s policy could get into office? I don’t think anyone who’s posted in this thread opposes removing the rule. We just don’t think there’s a compelling reason to do so, which is kind of the _sine qua non_ of constitutional amendments. I can’t speak for everyone, but I don’t think any of us would actually be _upset_ if the rule was changed. ---
**Author:** ![Randy\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee7513/32.png) [@Randy\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/97 "2011-04-13T05:55:56Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > **spark240** : Justice Macduff might disagree with you there. > > **Randy Seltzer** : In common law systems, there generally _aren’t_ cites for things that the courts don’t have to decide on, or haven’t had to decide on yet, unless someone can drag up possibly-relevant blackletter law. In fact, this might well be outside of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction as it is a political question and therefore up to Congress to decide by way of impeachment hearings. > > (I mean, if anyone actually challenged the legitimacy of a President who was from his mother’s womb untimely ripp’d and actually got people to go along with the notion.) > > More seriously, even if we never actually have to decide precisely what ‘natural-born’ means, it’s still a silly restriction that cannot possibly prevent harm better than the electoral system itself could. (underlining mine) This is exactly what I’m saying – it has not yet been decided. **spark240** keeps giving a definition as if an authoritative one existed. In threads like these (see my short list above) people conflate the definitions of “natural-born citizen” and “citizen who was born as such” all the time. But we won’t know whether such definitions can be accurately conflated until a court with appropriate jurisdiction defines the constitutional term for us. Which, I’ll repeat again, has not happened. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/98 "2011-04-13T10:30:11Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Natural born citizens are already _de facto_ segregated into those who could become president and those who couldn’t. > > ETA: I do agree with **appleciders** , though. But it’s not de facto, it’s de iure. The question is about removing a de iure limitation which many other countries don’t have. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/99 "2011-04-13T11:26:48Z")
I should point out that **Randy** ’s view is exactly the one the State Department has as well. When my daughter was born in the UK to two US citizen parents, she was a US citizen from birth - but part of the documentation we got from the Embassy stated that her status as a “natural-born citizen” had yet to be established because definition of the term had not yet been fully decided in a court of law. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/100 "2011-04-13T15:59:55Z")
> [@Randy\_Seltzer](#): > > You don’t know that “born a citizen” is the same thing the constitution refers to with regard to presidential eligibility. You will provide no cite that says so, because there is none; the matter has never been settled. I’m going by what I take to be a plain-language (contemporary to its writing) understanding of the text. That the meaning of the words hasn’t been decided yet in court shouldn’t disable our ability to comprehend our language. That it sometimes does, or that people sometimes pretend it does, is why the courts sometimes end up deciding (and sometimes “finding” things in the words beyond all previous imaginings). The note about the State Department reflects our litigious nature not our literate. I am saying: that in the absence of a Supreme ruling to “settle”–reasonably or unreasonably, but officially–the meaning of words in the Constitution, the best we can do is to talk about plain meanings. So with the understanding of the historical meaning of “natural,” and the unhyphenated phrase “natural born” in common law, I see no other reasonable understanding of what the phrase could mean except _Citizens by birth_. What is the counter-argument but _we’re not sure_? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785.md?page=6)