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.)
Keep it the same.
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?
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:
Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.”
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.
Like i said in the other thread keep it the same, its not worth the ratification of the constitution
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.
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.
I agree with what Ryan said… i was about to post the same thing… 
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.
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.
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?
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!!
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?
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.
Wasn’t Dukakis the only nominee closest to breaking the mold of a typical president?
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.
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.
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:
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?
I agree with you Eugenia.
Making light of the assasination of ANY person is completely innapropriate.
As I have read more and more of these types of threads, the more I realize how useless they become. Somehow, a lot people are under the impression that they can change another person in an instant. By arguing on a thread like this, you are not going to be able to change the opinion of someone just as stubborn as you are, especially if it is done in an argumentative manner. People will be LESS open to another’s opinions if they are negative in tone or are directly attacking them on an issue. While I think intelligent discussion of a topic is useful, this type of discourse hardly ever occurs in a politically charged thread topic. Conversations often quickly go downhill. I wish that the CD community would take a step back and realize that political topics are just inviting another flame war. The FIRST community does not need this type of division amongst it’s members any more. Please close or at least moderate this thread.
Opposition and constructive criticism is healthy as long as somebody doesn’t say outlandish claim. I don’t remember where exactly it was, if it was in this thread or another, and who exactly said it (mostly because I’m too lazy to look it up. :] ), but I say that is good to have discussions like this. This organization that we are all part of, is a fraction of society. I think that it is good for us to discuss politics because WE are the future and WE will one day be the leaders, but only if we don’t have nuts out there who are also the kind that don’t think that man landed on the moon.
The moral of this story is that constructive criticism is good, but only as long as you don’t act like a complete idiot.
I completely agree with you. It IS important to contribute to society as our generation must be prepared to take leadership in the future. I just hate it when people take things out of control, context, and/or end up hurting people. Sometimes this happens on CD, and I just want people to chill out and think carefully before they take things in the wrong direction.
Soooo what about those requirements to be president - should they be changed?
A good point. However, the problem with doing it in this thread is that many people see political thread and go BLEH. I personally think that Political threads should have their own category in chitchat. A lot of things that are said on these threads do spur constructive criticism, so where shall we start?
I don’t think people will ever stop being cruel on political threads, but you’re right constructive criticism is important. shrug I learn things in political threads from people who know what they’re talking about or ask questions to learn.