Who would you nominate?

[SueC]

My issue with Ahnold running is that I don't believe we need to change the Constitution. I think the reasoning behind requiring one be a natural born citizen is still sound. There are fabulous immigrants with wonderful leadership skills and such but the logic behind this important presidential requirement shouldn't be cast aside so quickly in exuberance for a potential candidate.

I totally agree with you Rapunzel--even if it means my dh will never be president...

I think that I would go for an amendment to allow for a foreign born president, although more stringent than (what I believe) has been about. I think that if a person under a certain age, maybe 18 or younger was born outside the US, and then was a US citizen for, hmmm, at least 25 years after age 18....I would be ok with it. I am thinking specifically of friends who have adopted very young children from foreign countries.

This issue was bound to come up with Arnold or someone else and I think it will be interesting how it plays out. And I don't think it's just about looking for a Republican candidate. Democrats might benefit as well. The governor of Michigan comes to mind. (Can't remember her name!! ).

re: Mitt Romney. I freely admit that I know nothing more of him than his being governor of Mass and that he's Republican. This struck me as a little funny today given the way that GWB talks about Massachusetts. Wonder what Mr. Romney thinks of all that.

[SueC]

I hadn't thought about how that would affect those who were adopted from abroad--it would seem unfair to discriminate in that way.

I believe that the "Natural Born" clause is an inappropriate boundary...after all, we are a nation built by immigrants, aren't we? It's an antiquated, purposeless, and un-American limit on the American dream. Why is it ok for Schwarzenegger's children to run for president, but he can't? After living in this country for nearly 40 years, being a US citizen for 20 years, and serving as Governor of California, I think Arnold has proved his patriotism.

Immigrants, for the most part, are people who have chosen this country because they love it and they often take it for granted much less than many natural born citizens. They pay taxes, they vote, they fight and die in our wars. The "Natural Born" clause may have served its purpose back in 1787 when it was created with the fear that a foreign earl or duke would cross the Atlantic and buy power with his European riches that no American could match, but all it does now is waste political talent (Kissinger, Albright, Schwarzenegger, Granholm) and prevent potentially great leaders from ever having the chance to lead.

Erica

[Rapunzel]

OK, I'll have to look up the "official" reasons in the Federalist Papers later on.... But, I do know that the general reason why only natural born citizens may run for president is because there really did exist the possibility of an English-born citizen secretly loyal to their "mother country" becoming the leader of the nation and selling the country out (so to speak).

Does this possibility exist today? Yes. Every nation on earth is HIGHLY interested in our political situation regarding presidents. It IS possible to have a brilliant, charismatic immigrant "planted" within the U.S. with the express purpose of attempting to become President.... Far fetched? Well, in our present climate YES! However, our culture would be much different had the natural born citizen portion not been included in the Constitution. We actually could face that situation now (or, more likely, in the past) otherwise. If we were to remove that portion of the Constitution today I don't think we'd have foreign tinkering in our election process immediately. But, in a decade or two? Definitely. We already have nations (such as China) attempting to contribute campaign funds for presidential elections. And, that is a direct attempt to influence a president.

Aside from the cloak-and-dagger scenario, there is the possibility of endangering the President's ability to make serious decisions. How? If an immigrant was elected to the presidency it is quite possible (in fact, probable) that the immigrant would have family in his home nation. The U.S. Secret Service would not have jurisdiction over the protection of those family members leaving those relatives at the mercy of intense protection by their home nation. I am sure some nations would provide this - and I'll bet some would not.

Additionally, if a President's close relatives (ie such as mother and father, siblings, etc) reside within a nation where the U.S. has some difficult dealings it is within reason to believe that the President's family's circumstances within that nation might influence his decision making (a big no-no). A natural-born citizen will most likely have at least their mother in the United States and probably much of their immediate family. This lends a personal reason for putting the needs of the United States as a whole ahead of other nations when having to make more difficult decisions. If the nation in question is hostile to the U.S. there does exist the possibility of harm to the immigrant's family members. Even the threat of harm to family members can undermine the President's ability to make good decisions - a huge reason we have the Secret Service for those family members in the U.S. There is also the question of kidnapping of those relatives if the nation does not provide serious protection of the immediate relatives of the immigrant.

What about adopted "immigrants"? There does still exist the ability of adopted immigrants to locate their parents and/or siblings in their birth countries. In those instances the above problems with loyalty to family members mentioned above apply. In fact, I'd venture to say that MOST adopted immigrants come from nations where the above could occur (ie kidnappings or harm threatened to an immigrant President's immediate birth relatives) such as China and Russia. In cases where an adopted immigrant is absolutely positive their birth family no longer lives (even siblings) this would not apply obviously. However, I would give an educated guess that those cases are few and far between. And, if our U.S. Constitution had an ammendment to cover every few and far between case such as that we would have a constitution that was as unwieldly as the Texas Constitution (which has HUNDREDS of ammendments and is very difficult to figure out - even contradictory at times).

I see the emotional argument behind removing that part of the Constitution. But, actually it is emotions (ie those between immediate family members to be exact) that are the current, primary reason we should only allow natural born citizens of the U.S. to become President. Additionally, there is the problem mentioned in the beginning of my post involving the possibility of a nation planting someone for the express purpose of running for the Presidency.

A couple of other things to consider: Some nations allow U.S. immigrants to keep their status as citizens of their "home" nation even after becoming American citizens. In that case you have a conflict right there. Is the President an American citizen first and foremost? Secondly, opening up the Constitution for major changes such as the natural born citizen portion opens up the possibility of changing more "minor" things which govern foreign nations' involvement in our election process. It starts down the slippery slope that can lead to allowing foreign governments to contribute to presidential campaigns with monetary funds. Can you imagine if we allowed other nations to have these 527 ads (did I get the # right? I usually mess it up ). Americans have historically found such ideas distasteful. But, it being a chicken and egg argument, we can't be sure that the hard and fast Constitutional rule of natural born citizenship is what helps drive that rightful distaste of foreign meddling in U.S. presidential races.

These are really good, solid reasons behind not allowing immigrants the ability to have the Chief Executive office. I'll post more if I can think of any while I'm up tonight....

Jennifer

[Rapunzel]

Of course, I have to add that I know this on a personal level because my mother-in-law is an immigrant. Her entire immediate family immigrated to the U.S., in fact - except for her father. I do not see it as wrong or bad that she and her immigrant family members cannot run for president. They are all hard workers and good U.S. citizens. However, that subjective evaluation does not preclude the potential threats to national security posed by an immigrant winning the presidency.

Jennifer

I do believe that natural born citizens also can pose a potential threat to the national security of our country as well because of their poor judgment and own personal vendettas. For instance, Bush's rush to link Iraq with Al Queda ultimately let Bin Laden slip through our fingers at Tora Bora. If letting Bin Laden slip away is not a threat to our national security, I don't know what is.

As far as no Secret Service protection of family members living abroad, I think that is a personal risk and the decision should be left up to the individual candidate.

If foreign born people are more likely to sympathize with their home country than the US because they have family there, then wouldn't the same likely be true of the US chilldren of immigrants? After all, they may still have grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, brothers or sisters still living in their home country. This is an unfair assumption.

There are a lot of "what if" scenarios that you can come up with to argue that having a foreign born citizen as president would taint our government. I'm sure the founding fathers had a lot of "what ifs" in mind when they drew up a constitution that only allowed white men over the age of 21 to vote...."What if" we let women vote? "What if" we give Black Americans equal rights? You know, the slippery slope argument that if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile... I don't think the slippery slope argument is valid.

The founding fathers knew that the Constitution would likely go through changes to reflect the times and that is why they drafted the amendment process. The Constitution is a living document.

[Rapunzel]

Well, you're confusing your opinions of Bush with the issue at hand: foreign-born immigrants being able to run for President. Quite frankly whether you agree with Bush's actions regarding terrorists or not it doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. I have a feeling you're mixing issues here out of the overload of emotions from the current presidential election....

Of course natural born citizens can pose a threat to national security - there are those who try to assasinate presidents, those who are employed by foreign governments as "spies", and those who jump ship in the middle of a war to fight with the enemy. The fact that there are many, many other national security risks does not negate the security risks I mentioned.

Regarding Secret Service protection of family members: It goes beyond a "personal risk" when we are discussing the President of the United States. A President's family is at increased risk for kidnapping and threats of violence simply because they are close to the President. Because of that we have Secret Service agents automatically assigned to immediate family of the President for the purpose of protection against these very real threats. It is not a personal decision because it involves the President's ability to make decisions without undue duress or overly emotional influence such as is involved in the case of a loved one being hurt or taken or having the threat of such action.

You stated: "If foreign born people are more likely to sympathize with their home country than the US because they have family there, then wouldn't the same likely be true of the US chilldren of immigrants? After all, they may still have grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, brothers or sisters still living in their home country."

Here you have a "what if" argument. I thought you didn't like "what if" arguments? Well, let's examine your "what if":

It may very well be that in some instances you find the American children of immigrants more loyal to their parents' native land than to their own native land (America). But, with that degree of seperation from their parents' country of origin there is a decreased possibility of holding the parents' native land in higher esteem than their own. Additionally, if you examine the reality of the situation you often have American children who have never seen their immigrant parents' native land and thus do not even have an experience to which they can attach an emotion for that place. The basic psychology of it is that you have children who have been raised physically remote from these other nations and their relatives in those nations and thus have no opportunity to form independant emotional bonds to that nation and these relatives (ie any emotional bonds they have will be based upon their parents' views should they choose to agree with their parents). You have to draw a line somewhere - that is the line and that is the logic behind it. If you are dealing with an immigrant you have a dramatically increased liklihood they will have formed close emotional bonds with their relatives in these foreign nations independent of their parents' own feelings. If you are dealing with American-born children you are more likely to find that they do not have a personal relationship with these foreign relatives and a foreign nation. As I said: You have to draw a line somewhere and that is where it is and should be.

To compare this to allowing people to vote based upon the color of their skin or their gender is completely without logic. This isn't a matter of genetics - it's a matter of psychology and international politics. If you want to change a nation's policies, you attempt to install leaders in that nation who are sympathetic to your own desires. Other nations do this as often as they can. The natural-born citizen portion of the Constitution was one of those protections against such common actions. Additionally, the Constitution itself never actually specified anything about African-Americans or women. The Amendments that deal with those issues were necessary because of this lack of final say within the Constitution. Foreign-born Americans running for President are specifically spoken of. So, what you are talking about is actually an entirely different approach to the Constitution than those other legal arguments. Rather than fine-tuning the Constitution you are deciding you just don't like a portion of it so it should be "gotten rid of" - now THAT is a slippery slope to take us all down.


The Constitution is most certainly a document that can be subjected to change - but not on an emotionally-charged, illogical idea that runs counter to national security. I'm actually pretty surprised that you would argue it is a matter of "personal risk" that family members of a President may be subject to harm or death because their loved one is the President of the U.S. It directly affects the potential for policy making and decisions regarding the lives of millions of Americans thus it is a national security issue.

Many of my best friends are not native to this nation and about 2/3 of my in-laws are not native to America either. I deeply love and respect all of them - this part of the Constitution has nothing to do with disrespect and everything to do with logic. If there is any "unfairness" in this it is that other nations can and will take advantage of the situation should the US have an immigrant President and that is the reason we cannot allow them to run for the office. You want to point fingers? Look at the rest of the world and how it operates - look at history and see how nations have historically influenced one another and attempted, in particular, to have profound influence over who ends up leading another nation. This will be a matter of national security until we no longer have nations in the world that would readily attempt to have undue influence over who our elected leaders are.

You pointed back to your emotional argument, Edwife, but you didn't really hit on most of my reasons for a natural-born citizen as the President. They are valid reasons - especially due to the fact that they deal not just with the President but with an entire nation of millions. I see that you are deeply concerned with how a hypothetical presidential candidate might "feel" about this part of the Constitution - but what I am concerned about is how this affects the safety and best interests of millions of Americans as a nation.

Jennifer

[Rapunzel]

Here is some information I found concerning what legally constitutes a "citizen at birth" of the United States:

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.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Many parts of the world have law to provide them with special status, to allow children born in those places to be considered natural-born. This allows families with a long history of working in these areas without ever returning to the U.S. to be considered natural-born. For example, the Panama Canal Zone had been in U.S. possession for a full century, and some families lived there for generations. 8 USC 1403 handles the Zone specifically, stating that anyone born in the Zone on or after 2/26/1904, to at least one citizen-parent, is a natural-born citizen. Similar law is in place to handle the acquisition of territories, such as Puerto Rico, Alaska, and Hawaii.

This is quite a broad definition, actually, and already allows for many scenarios and "what ifs".

Additionally, I might point out we have age requirements governing who may run for the presidency. Should we do away with those requirements as well should someone who is younger than the set limit desire to run? After all, I am sure that there are 33 year olds out there who would find the limit "unfair" without appreciating the reasons as to why the age limit was instituted.... When you get down to it, should there be any limitations on the ability to run for president because some might view these rules as "unfair"? Think about it really hard before anyone answers that particular question....

Jennifer

Well, Jennifer, I didn't think really hard about this, but will you still let me answer?

I think rules are fine. Even if they appear unfair (even my example of adopted children). Life isn't always fair. It is the president, after all, and we should have high expectations. Age and birth requirements can have a place. Birth requirements in particular at the time of the Constitution. But do they have a place now? And accomplish the same? I think the age requirement could be higher (given that we now have better life expectancies).


btw, of anyone I know who adopted children from overseas, the chances of finding birth parents are beyond slim. In some cases, parents and immediate family are dead (genocide) and in other cases babies abandoned (standard practice in China as I understand it b/c it's illegal to give babies up for adoption: no records).

Actually, I don't think my opinions of Bush have anything to do with your argument that a foreign born president would be a threat to national security. What I am trying to get across is that natural born citizens can also pose this threat, so to deprive a foreign born citizen of this right based on this assumption would be unfair.

[Auspicious]

I would give serious consideration to eliminating the natural-born requirement and expanding the residency requirement beyond 14 years. I think it's far more important that a president be a "product of the U.S.A." than than that he or she be born under particular circumstances.

Any connection between one's ability to meet the natural-born requirement and one's foreign vs. American loyalties are giant extrapolations and don't even come close to justifying the discrimination that comes with this rule. The natural-born requirement also does nothing to actually prevent a "foreign plant" since it still allows a candidate to have been raised and have spent the majority of his or her life in a foreign country.

I am loathe to tinker with the Constitution, but sometimes it necessary and I'd probably support it in this case.

[Rapunzel]

Well, I won't beat a dead horse - I've stated my case fairly extensively I believe. But, I appreciate the responses on the subject - even if I beg to disagree.

Jennifer

[HeartRN]

Jennifer---

I agree completely. Very well put.

I would nominate- my Grandpa, because he kicks ass!