Favor constitutional amendment allowing foreign citizens to become pres?

[truhavoc]

This is in response to the admendment suggested by Orrin Hatch to expand the ability to become president to foreign born citizens who have been citizens for at least twenty years. Tell me what you think any why.

[arcos]

1. shouldn't this be in GD? n/t

[PROGRESSIVE1]

2. No, No, No, No, No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do not touch the Constitution!!!!!!!!!!!

[MAlibdem]

3. NO

NO PRESIDENT ARNOLD

[LearnedHand]

4. NO-O-O-O-O-O!

We'll end up with Asshole Schwartzeneggar in the WH. This is stupid, stupid, stupid!!!!! No way, ever!

If American babies are born in foreign lands, the parents can always get Embassy dirt for the birth so the children are born on "American soil." That's all the provision we need to make.

Oh, and I didn't see Hatch ginning up this discussion when Madeline Albright was Secretary of State, and thus in the presidential line of succession.

[Lars39]

5. No.

What would keep somebody from being president of several countries simultaneously? Isn't that another way to build an empire? Or to legitimize one in the making?

[aquart]

6. Never.

Not ever. It was specifically put into the constitution to prevent the presidency from being taken over by someone whose loyalty is elsewhere.

Do you have ANY idea how many people are becoming American citizens and returning HOME to retire or work or whatever? I worked with Europeans whose whole plan is to become eligible for American benefits, while retaining EU benefits. Very smart for them, not really useful for us.

[Liberal Christian]

7. So my friends . . .

. . . who have two children to whom they gave birth and a third that they adopted as an infant from China have to tell their son, "Sorry, honey, your siblings can be president one day, but you can't"?

This is about more than Ahnold getting to be president. I think it's something we need to think about. Maybe we need to say they need to have been US citizens for 30 years before they can be president, but I think there should be an option.

The constitutional age for the Presidency is 35. If we required 30 years of citizenship, a 35 year old who came here as a small child could still be in the running. That would also give us time to check people out to make sure they weren't seditious.

[peaches2003]

8. No

The third child born outside the U.S. will just have to get over it. That's life. I'd like to be a lot of things that I can't be.

[Liberal Christian]

9. Why?

So far I've not seen any cogent argument in this thread as to why this shouldn't happen.

[LearnedHand]

10. Because it's written into the Constitution...

...by people FAR wiser about these issues than any of us. They had first-hand knowledge about the problems foreign-born presidents could cause us. This is definitely NOT about being a "proud 'Murikan." It's about protecting the office of the presidency from foreign interests.

[Yupster]

11. Yes, allow it

It seems basic democratic principles should be that a citizen should be just as much a citizen whether she was born in Florida or St Kitts.

Arnold doesn't have anything to do with it. It's just basic fairness to me.

[Columbia]

12. Are people actually answering this question

Based on principles or merely because they don't want Arnold to be President?

[longtimedem25]

14. Because foreigners should not become US President...

It doesn't matter if it is Arnold, or Madeline Albright, or any other political party. We should not open the door to foreigners to become President. Our founding fathers knew this well.

It would create too much of a conflict of interest. Let's say the Chinese adopted boy/girl becomes President. Then, we have a situation of national interest with China. What does the President do? Recuse himself? Allow the media and the motor-mouths to scream his potential conflict? It just wouldn't work...

Orrin Hatch is doing this because of the possiblity of Arnold's popularity rocketing, like Reagan did (an actor becoming California governor). Arnold is all suits and sound bites. Hatch should be ashamed... nothing like a GOP'er trying to take any political advantage while they can. Deplorable.

[Columbia]

17. Why don't we let the voters decide?

Slamming the door on a person who may have spent their whole life here as an American citizen save a year or two as an infant, time that they don't even remember, seems to be a tad bit unfair. We, as a nation of immigrants, seem to extol our values of tolerance and acceptance, yet restrict our highest symbolic office so tightly.

If an American citizen who just happened to be born in a different country decades upon decades ago were to submit their candidacy for President, I am quite sure that the American voters would take this into account. Any person whose loyalty can be questioned even the slightest bit would never be elected.

With these thoughts in mind, I cannot see how anybody, especially a Progressive, would deny a fellow American citizen their chance to hold this office with honor.

[fujiyama]

26. WTF?

Your situation about the adopted Chinese person is about the most insulting thing I've read toward those who came here from other places.

It's posts like that which make people always feel like they are a "foreigner". It reminds me of the questions regarding Kennedy's loyalty -- whether it was to the US or toward the Vatican. I came here at the age of 1. I'm not whining because I wouldn't run even if I could, and I also know that the country is too damn racist to elect brown people for such high office...I'm also weary of amending the consitution for somewhat unecessary means...but I would still wouldn't call all those that weren't born here a foreigner.

[Kenneth ken]

13. other

I'm very very wary of constitutional amendments; am also philosophically opposed to anything Cons support; however, I could probably accept the idea of letting foreign-borns who had been citizens and permanent residents for at least 35 years be allowed to run.

35 years is the age requirement for natural born citizens, so I don't see why foreign-borns should have a lower threshold. Using 35 years permanent resident and citizen would keep the bar slightly raised foreign-born v natural-born.

It's pretty clear to me that natural-born USers don't necessarily have a greater loyalty to their land of birth than immigrants; look at the US born CEOs who happily export jobs and undermine the ability of their fellow citizens to make a living.

[Mattforclark]

15. Yes

As a minimum, it should be changed to all citizens who have been citizens since the day they were born. I was born in London, for example, but my father is American, and I came to America when I was one week old. It doesn't seem particularly fair or rational that I am ineligible to become President. My mother wanted me to be born in England - mostly because in the Brit healthcare system you aren't booted out after 2 hours. Therefore I cannot be President.

:wtf:

In principle, the American electorate should be able to elect anyone it wants - except it is probably stupid enough to end up electing Vladimir Putin.

[_Jumper_]

16. Equal rights for all Americans

n/t

[Vernunft II]

18. If you can´t even be bothered to become a citizen you shouldn´t

be able to run for office in that place. My 2 cents...

[Columbia]

22. No one has advocated allowing non-citizens to run

[T_i_B]

19. VOTE THANKFULLY_IN_BRITAIN!!!!

:evilgrin:

Seriously though, it is only sensible that somebody who is born and bred in America is American president. That way you should get leaders who know about the country they are leading.

In the meantime, about the best I can do is endorse John Kerry. :-)

[_Jumper_]

27. Reagan and Bush????????

n/t

[icymist]

20. Not a good idea.

A foreigner would not understand what it's like to be born and raised within this country. How then, could they understand what's it's like to be a natural born, common citizen of this country. Then again, George W. Bush don't know what's it like to be a common citizen of this country. Hmmmm. I have mixed emotions about this now..... I must retire and think! ;)

[_Jumper_]

28. Common background

Would you not vote for someone of another race because they wouldn't know how it is to be born and raised as a (fill in the name of your race) in America?

[Hekate]

21. If this wasn't about Schwartzenegger, I might think about it

But it IS about my guv, and it IS being floated by the Neocons, so I am very very suspicious.

In another thread I pointed out that a lot of people voted for him because they wanted a strong leader who would not be encumbered by a lot of silly laws. There's something about the way they put that, plus some of his younger interviews in which he talks about strength and domination, and most of all the fact that the Neocons are behind this -- it really makes me want to say they should leave my Constitution the hell alone. No gay marriage amendment, no immigrant-president amendment, just leave the Constitution alone.

Hekate

[xxqqqzme]

23. no, no, no

The framers put that in the Constitution 4 a reason. Let it B!

If the rabid, radical rethugs R so hell bent on changing the Constitution let us begin the dialogue on the 2nd amendment!

[Piperay]

24. NO...

could led to conflicted loyalties.

[Leilani]

25. Agreed

No conflicts of interest.