If we make our natural born citizens wait 35 years to run for president, then we should make our naturalized citizens wait the long, as well.
They will have to wait just as long anyway. The first 35 years of their lives, they won’t be eligible to be the U.S. president.
I can agree with you that far. And I do agree that in common speech, ‘natural born citizen’ probably means that the person has citizenship by the simple virtue of the circumstances (parents, location) of his birth.
But the question asked in the OP is a legal one - would you support an amendment to remove specific language from the Constitution? - and we must perforce consider the question from a legal perspective since the Constitution is a major basis of our laws.
There are lots of other questions about Constitutional language that are under constant debate and legal scrutiny - perhaps the most famous being the bit about a well-regulated militia and the right to bear arms not being infringed. That one doesn’t seem close to being settled, so I’m not sure where the idea that the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ should have a self-evident legal meaning comes from.
“Provably”? How are we supposed to “prove” this? Are we to invent a time machine, rewind it with a foreign-born president, and “prove” that America is better off?
The German-born Carl Schurz–writer, editor, General, Senator, ambassador and cabinet member during the Civil War era–would have been a very plausible presidential candidate were it not for the immigrant exclusion. He couldn’t have been much worse, and probably would have been lots better, than Grant, Hayes, or Arthur.
But more to the point, the immigrant exclusion should be deleted because it’s wrong. We didn’t amend the Constitution to mandate the 18-year-old vote because we thought 18-year-olds would elect better candidates. We did it because to draft people who couldn’t vote was wrong.
I chose the option “It should be removed entirely and let anyone run no matter birth country or residence.” meaning, to me, that anyone who is a US citizen and has the right to vote in a federal election should be able to run for president (the age limit should be removed as well.)
I disagree with Martin Hyde’s list of exceptions - the only exception I could see adding would be that a US president cannot be a simultaneous member of the executive branch of another country (e.g. a federal councillor of Switzerland could not be President in the US unless s/he abdicates from the federal council in Switzerland.)
I don’t see anything to justify the exclusion.
I see the natural born citizen requirement as a safety valve. There’s too much risk in allowing someone from a foreign country to rule as President. There’s always the possibility of a hidden agenda. We’ve only had 44 presidents. I think it’s reasonable to restrict it to natural born citizens.
I don’t see any Reason to believe that a naturalized citizen is any more likely to have a hidden agenda than a natural born citizen. That’s plain xenophobia, which is ironic for a nation of immigrants. Given our history, it’s just as logical to restrict the presidency to only foreign born citizens.
Even if they have lived here as a citizen for 35+ years? And why is it reasonable to restrict it to natural born citizens?