Should the requirements for President be changed?
 

Alright, this question came up in another thread, and I figured it was a fair question.

Should the requirements for the office of President of the United States be changed to allow foreign-born citizens to be elected?

(For the purposes of the poll question, we'll assume the other requirements (being 35 and living in the US for the past 14 years) remain the same.)

Re: Should the requirements for President be changed?
 

Keep it the same.

Re: Should the requirements for President be changed?
 

As soon as I said in the other thread that this is an issue that I'll discuss at another time, in another thread, I was waiting how long it would take for it to show up.

What exactly does the natural born citizen definition consist of?

With so many nuances, natural born citizenship to me seems like such a technicality. In my opinion, where you were born is as arbitrary as your skin color or gender. Besides Native Americans, don't we all really come from lineage that is of immigrants. Our nation's motto is "E Pluribus Unum," which means out of one, many. I think if we want to fully embrace this, then it's time for change.

What is to say that I'm more equipped to lead our country than my parents who moved here when they were teenagers? Imagine if Bill Clinton (if you're a dem) or Ronald Reagan (if you're a republican) were born "at the wrong place at the wrong time." You'd have great leaders who would have never gotten the chance to be President. I believe that if you do indeed become a citizen, and we'll throw in a residency requirement (to prevent another nation from throwing in a candidate into our election in an attempt to usurp our sovereignty, which is probably one of the main fears and why this requirement came to be originally), it should be up to the people to decide in an election if that person is fit for the job.

I think it's almost important to remember that this should be an issue based on principle, not which politician or political party this might benefit. I come from California and I don't care much for Governor Schwarzenegger. That's not enough reason however for him not to be able to run for President. I say let the man run and I'll not vote for him based on his economic & educational policies, not the fact that he was born in Austria.

As Joan Allen said in the movie "The Contender": Principles only mean something if you stick by them when they're inconvenient.

Re: Should the requirements for President be changed?
 

Like i said in the other thread keep it the same, its not worth the ratification of the constitution

Re: Should the requirements for President be changed?
 

The constitution has already been ratified. The Amendment needs to be passed by a 2/3’s majority in congress, and then ratified by 3/4’s of the states. It shouldn’t be about whether or not you think it’s easy or not, it’s about whether or not you think the effect of the change would be a positive step for our country.

Re: Should the requirements for President be changed?
 

More important than political experience, a president should have experience as a citizen of the country he is goign to govern. Perhaps, the requirement should be changed to certain number of years as a citizen in the US (or perhaps even better, as a voting-aged citizen in the US), but I definitley think some requirement should be made that a president knows what being a citizen in the US is like.

In reality, though, I don't think this requirement is neccesary at all. I really doubt an immigrant who came to the country after entering adulthood, would be elected.

Re: Should the requirements for President be changed?
 

I agree with what Ryan said... i was about to post the same thing... :)

Re: Should the requirements for President be changed?
 

Actually, this discussion was spawned after discussion of Arnold Swarchzenneger running for president if this could be changed. I wouldn't doubt the possibility of a campaign for Arnold, whether I like it or not.

Re: Should the requirements for President be changed?
 

Honestly, what's the big deal?

Sure, it's nice to say that anyone who leads America was born here, it's a psychological thing, it's one more thing in common between us and the president. That being said, it'd be fairly hard for anyone who wasn't a white, Christian, naturalized American to be elected into office in any case, but even so, what's the big deal? Due to the way most Americans will vote, I don't think this is even an issue, and neither will it be an issue for some time to come.

Re: Should the requirements for President be changed?
 

But still, better to cross the bridge now than when we get to it and it becomes a problem.

Even if there's no chance that a law change will have any effect on the presidential elections for some time to come, shouldn't America always be striving to promote equal opportunity?

Re: Should the requirements for President be changed?
 

The problem isn't so much about eligibility as it is not electing a person who can't run the country if their life depended on it. It's unfortunate that Bush hasn't had more attempts on his life yet. Actually, to tell ya the truth, they are just covering them up. Just like they did 9/11. Sure, most of it was true, I guess. But a Boeing 747 DID NOT fly into the Pentagon. No wreckage, intact windows at the "crash site", concentric circular holes (planes don't do that!!), and there is no way it could be 2 feet off the ground right before it hit, when it would have just had to clear I-395. And of course this is hard to prove because the FBI confiscated all of the video from the surrounding gas stations and other places.

You got a rant, whether you wanted it or not!!

Re: Should the requirements for President be changed?
 

I beleive the reason no one has changed it yet is because it is trying to keep "americans" in office to preserve "culture." I find this ironic seeing the only american traditions are those of native americans, the rest was imported. So if we continue with that tradition of imported cultures, shouldn't we let imported people run for president? Arn't they showing the truth about our culture?

Re: Should the requirements for President be changed?
 

Wasn't Dukakis the only nominee closest to breaking the mold of a typical president?
Why is it that whenever we try and have a discussion on this somone tries to make it horribly off topic or tries to inject a conspiracy theory.

Re: Should the requirements for President be changed?
 

WHAT IN THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!?!?!?! When somebody says "It's unfortunate that Bush hasn't had more attempts on his life yet." about ANYBODY and especially the President of the United States, they should be shamed. You are ridiculous, get a life. :mad:

Re: Should the requirements for President be changed?
 

David Kelly and I agree on something.

An attempt on a life, no matter who you are directing it to, is immensely serious and not the appropriate topic for a mild rant here or elsewhere. While everyone has their opinion, I don't think this is the place to take a dislike for one particular candidate to that level.

No intention of starting a fighting match over this suggestion...

I don't think this thread is going anywhere. And it's just going to be another shouting match, and I've been in enough of them recently to realize how stupid they are. Can we lock or at least moderate this thread before it really starts becoming an issue?