General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt's time to allow naturalised Americans to run for president
While being born to American parents or growing up in America is likely to foster affinity for the country, the notion that ones loyalty can presumptively be linked to the territory of ones birth is antiquated. There is a whole cottage-industry of birth tourism for pregnant women who want to travel to America to give birth so that their children can be American citizens. If someone can be eligible for the presidency on the basis of being serendipitously born on US soil an event which does not automatically instil loyalty to America why should there be any reason to deny the same right to those who become citizens by their own choice?
Besides being obsolete, some nativists today even use the natural born clause in a way unintended by the Constitutions framers. These nativists argue that naturalised citizens should be denied presidential eligibility because the majority of these current newcomers are from non-Western countries, with values that are inconsistent with the Western values that helped create America. Certainly, the Constitutions Framers were British subjects and European values did shape America. But the Framers were not concerned about protecting European culture and values. If anything, they were concerned about preserving their newly created democratic political order from people who were culturally much like themselves, save for their political loyalties to Europes rulers.
=========
In addition to striking a blow against prejudice and potentially increasing the number and variety of presidential candidates, it would further empower voters. By simply letting them decide whether their fellow citizens regardless of whether they are naturalised or natural born are worthy of becoming president, it would make America a more inclusive democracy, at a time when many feel it is not.
[link:https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2019/03/it-s-time-allow-naturalised-americans-run-president|
Thoughts? In the UK if you are a naturalised citizen you can run as the leader of your party and if the party wins you would be PM, equally if you are a Commonwealth citizen.... in effect you could be the PM and not be a British citizen. Unlikely to happen but the rules are clear on this. They do not limit democracy based on the country of your birth... would that work in the US?
hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)more pressing to see realized), I don't argue with the point, just the practicality and priority. Given WOMEN in this country represent more than half the population, but STILL do not have equal rights enshrined in the constitution, I sort of feel that to be about a billion times more important.
The Truth Is Here
(354 posts)sarisataka
(18,663 posts)That was the first thing I thought of
2naSalit
(86,647 posts)Not no way, not no how.
Fuck that.
Soph0571
(9,685 posts)Why?
If I was a kid who landed when I was 3 - am an American citizen, and am genius.... why not? Fucking hell, Trump is President, I am very sure that there are citizens that did not have America as the country of their birth who could do a better job. Hell, at this point, as someone who owns property in the US, and pays taxes o that income I should be President!!!!! I am not that great, but better than President Orange - quite frankly who wouldn't be!
2naSalit
(86,647 posts)first off:
US Constitution; Article II; Section 1: No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President...
Not gonna happen.
Squinch
(50,955 posts)TheRealNorth
(9,481 posts)So we can allow Putin and the GOP to install an actual Russian instead of the Russian agent that we have now?
2naSalit
(86,647 posts)Soph0571
(9,685 posts)..... who are a citizen as much as you are who are not allowed to have that dream. You go to Russians...why? That shit has already happened. Can you not rely on the electorate to have the wit and wisdom to actually spot that going forward. What you are suggesting is that any foreign born, mostly black or brown, person who could do a really good job as President should be ignored because of what Trump is doing right now? There are 2 things here, conflating one problem to blame all foreign born individuals, or there is a systemic institutionalised racism at the heart of governance in America? Which do you think it might be?
Codeine
(25,586 posts)at a time when virtually all (voluntary) immigration was from Europe its a bit silly to state that the natural-born requirement is racist in intent.
unblock
(52,253 posts)opening up the process to naturalized citizens is going to fix everything?
i don't particularly disagree in principle. my own mother often joked that that restriction was the only reason she wasn't president, and sure, it's silly in her case, having come here at the age of two.
but really, of all the things to fix in the constitution alone, why this?
marybourg
(12,633 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)There's no need for it, in the first place. We have no shortage of presidential cadidates.
still_one
(92,219 posts)standingtall
(2,785 posts)nearly impossible to get the type of support for that for any other issue for that matter.
Soph0571
(9,685 posts)Should actually dream.....
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)No thanks.
Soph0571
(9,685 posts)Everyone just wants to shut down the aspirations of dreamers.
I asked a question on this post and I am very disappointed with the answer. How many millions are progressives willing to disenfranchise cause it is difficult?
marybourg
(12,633 posts)so nobody can be DISenfranchising them. Given what we have now in the White House, nobody wants to face the possibility of a real mole, planted by an adversary, there. This is a silly idea whose time has most definitely NOT come
hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)equal rights in this country? No woman (nor female child)--whether born in this country or not, has equal rights enshrined by the constitution. Women face the ramifications of this every day in this country.
So, why is that less important than changing the US constitution specifically to grant Presidential eligibility to those not born in this country?
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Well, this is not one of them.
But if you want me to spend my time expounding why a really bad idea is a bad idea I will indulge you.
-It would take a constitutional amendment to do it which will never happen.
-most Americans, including me and I would guess 95% of Democrats believe that the Americans President should be, well, an American with a lifetime of experience being an American.
- most naturalized citizens still hold a lot of allegiance to their birth country. Not what we need in an American. Not to mention their families in their home country could be exploited to manipulate the president.
-any party even hinting this horrorible idea rightly deserves to lose the trust of the voters.
And can the disenfranchisement bullshit. It is insulting to those Americans who actually experience it.
liberal N proud
(60,336 posts)LisaL
(44,973 posts)liberal N proud
(60,336 posts)Just saying.
DavidDvorkin
(19,479 posts)rockfordfile
(8,704 posts)It needs to be awhile.
AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)the Constitution that are far more pressing and necessary than dealing with this rather insignificant perceived problem.
theophilus
(3,750 posts)Wounded Bear
(58,670 posts)He was born in Austria.
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)Mendocino
(7,495 posts)No thanks.
Thunderbeast
(3,417 posts)Samantha Power
(Born in Canada)
WheelWalker
(8,955 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)WillowTree
(5,325 posts)TeamPooka
(24,229 posts)nope
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)JI7
(89,252 posts)and after seeing the russian attack on the election and the right wing embracing it, NO