• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Amendment for non-US born to be eligible for prez

Amendment for non-us born to be eligible for President of United States

  • Yes - We should amend the constitution

    Votes: 2 11.8%

  • No - We do not need an amendment to the constitution

    Votes: 15 88.2%
  • Total voters
    17

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
14,419
Reaction score
9,173
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
One of the buzz words we will hear after tonights speech by Arnold Schwarzenegger could be about an amendment to the constitution to allow for non-US born citizens to be elligable for President.

Are you for or against?
 
Absolutely not.

This is America. I understand that we are a melting pot, but should we really have foreign born individuals running for president? How do we know that there loyalties are pure enough to be CINC?
 
Inability to fulfill the 'birth' requirement kept the likes of Alexander Hamilton and Henry Kissinger from aspiring to the presidency. Arnold Schwarzenegger is nowhere the caliber of these men, and in all probability, many others who were similarly situated.

Proposing a Constitutional amendment for the benefit of a single individual, as the current discussions suggest, would be the height of lunacy. Yet, many folks can't seem to understand why other countries mock the US?

On the other hand, perhaps, after Jacques Chirac finishes up his 'tour of duty' in France, he could opt for US citizenship, get himself elected president, and solve all our problems.
 
The Constitution should be changed to allow naturalized citizens to become president. While some may view such a change as an accomodation for just one person (Arnold), I see it as opening the door for all citizens to be able to participate fully in our political system. Arnold is simply the trigger that has sparked the current debate.

Now before some of you start ranting about how foreigners are going to take over our country if we allow non-native-born citizens to become president, let me expound upon my assertion:

1. There should be a lengthy residency/citizenship requirement. For example, if a person meets all the other qualifications for the office of president and that person has been a naturalized citizen for, say, 20 years, that person should be able to run for president.
2. It is very difficult to become President of the United States. So difficult, in fact, that only 43 men have been able to do it in our 228-year history. A non-native-born person would have an extremely difficult time getting himself (or herself) elected president because he would have to overcome voters' bias toward native-born candidates.
 
If it is going to be as difficult as you describe, what's the point of bothering?

Perhaps when we begin to run out of qualified native born candidates it might then be time to open the gate. However, with a population approaching three hundred million, I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

In the meantime, naturalized citizens who may have their sights on the White House would be well advised to groom their children for the run. Then, with any luck, they could find themselves as permanent guests in the Lincoln bedroom with a direct connection to the president's ear.
 
Fantasea said:
If it is going to be as difficult as you describe, what's the point of bothering?
Click to expand...
The point is that each citizen should enjoy the same rights and priviledges of every other citizen. That includes the ability to seek the highest office in the land. Whether or not a naturalized citizen could actually become president is irrelevant. It should be open to all.
 
Negativo. Just because you are a citizen doesn't mean you have the country's best interest in mind. If I moved from Russia, wouldn't I be more sympathic to the Russians if I was president?
 
This discussion can be nothing more than an exchange of opinions. Once one expresses an opinion on the subject, what more can be said, except, "I disagree."
 
Definitely no. I would see no great advantage to be gained in ammending the Constitution (which is no easy thing) in order to allow a foreign born citizen to become president.
 
heyjoeo said:
Negativo. Just because you are a citizen doesn't mean you have the country's best interest in mind.
Click to expand...
Just because you are a "natural born citizen" doesn't mean you have the country's best interests in mind, either.

I'm not talking about making someone president who just got off the boat yesterday. I'm talking about opening the process so that perhaps someone who was, say, born in another country but moved here as a small child, grew up here, spent their life living as an American and wanted to make America a better place could, in theory at least, become the president.

You and I both know that the American people would not elect someone president who has only been here for a few years. Any presidential candidate would have to demonstrate a lifetime of dedication to America and American ideals before the voters would put him or her in the oval office.
 
i think its fine but that residency laws should be super strict like if u came here after being 12 yrs old u cant but if ur like born somewhere else and adopted out to a us family at infency ur loyalty to america should be strong
 
Um, I'm not sure exactly what you meant to say there, but I think you agreed with me. Thanks.
 
i personally think it sends a message that we dont trust our immagrants...... i thought we got over this during the immagration booms of the early 20th century? my last post basically said if they have been a citizen since they were a child.... then they should be able to run just have a longer citizenship requirment for those who are immagrants
 
Irrespective of what you say, I don't believe this will dampen the spirits of immigrants, world-wide, who struggle to get the US any which way they can. Do you?
 
you are denying them of something that is open to all other american citizens you are essentially denying them of their rights

can anyone really tell the big scare of having an immigrant in office? lets say that the guy hypotheticly was a sleeper for another country.... thats what checks and balences are for you could give the presidency to a full blown terrorist and they still wouldnt be able to accomplish anything against us because of the legislative and judicial branches does anyone remember checks and balences?

this is just my opinion i'd rather not see arnold as president by the way
 

Yes, we are denying them something that is IMO wrong to even consider. President is the highest office a person can hold in this country and natural born should be the only way to go. Irregardless of the time changes.

I agree, Arnold would not be a good President. He is too much of a democrat!
 
 
I think it should be amended. It comes down to their views and how they plan to run the country. Honestly, if they are that bad, then they wouldn't make it past the primaries anyway. Even if they DID, it would be up to the people.

What im trying to say is, if they have the ideas, and the views to help the country, why should their nationality make that much of a difference?
 
The position of president of the United States is supposed to go to the person most eligible for the position.

This eligibility is determined by a vote. Thus, not allowing a foreign candidate for presidency is telling us who we can and can't vote for. It's no different than forbidding women to vote.
 
The 'most eligible'? What does this mean? The only eligibility requirements for the office are to be at least 35 years of age and native born.

If you mean 'most qualified', that is another story. With rare exceptions, those most qualified never seek the presidency. The presidency is a political plum sought by political types.

Think of the candidates over the past twenty years, or so. Three vice presidents. The governors of California, Georgia, Arkansas, and Texas. Senators from Kansas, Missouri, and Massachusetts. A few congressmen and a CIA Director. Some of these held more than one of these offices. None had any international experience beyond junkets to countries around the world. Some didn't even have that.

The only candidate of note without political experience, but with business experience, was Ross Perot. His ideas on reforming the political system gained him about 20% of the vote in 1992.

Outside the political arena, are heads of major corporations who have a great deal of international economic experience and who, by implementing tried and true successful business practices could do a great deal to improve the efficiency of government, lower the costs of government, and improve international economic relations. One should remember that it has always been the failure of economic relations which has led to hostilities.

These people will never subject themselves to the horrors one encounters when caught between the members of two political parties, neither of which is particularly concerned about improving conditions except to the extent that their own political carreers are improved in the process. The way they scratch and claw at each other reminds me of a gang of alley cats fighting over the carcass of a dead bird.

The career politician is the worst disaster ever inflicted on the US. This is true, not only at the national level, but at state, county, and municipal levels, as well.

Who can truly believe that a politician who has served in the same office for 20, 30, or 40 years is doing the people's work at the level of fidelity required by their oath of office. They are bound to the party and dependent upon it for the support they need to be reelected time and again. Their fealty is not to the people.

I believe that the country would benefit greatly if every political office was filled for a single term of 10 years with no opportunity to be reelected. With the exception of the office of president, elections for all offices would be held biennially at which time 20% of the seats would be vacated by the incumbents and filled with first timers for that office. This would ensure new blood, open minds, new ideas, and no need to tow the party line in the 'tug of war' that has always existed.

Think of the freedom from the pressure of lobbyists; the need for the constant raising of campaign funds. Once elected, the new office holder could devote 100% of time and effort to the people's business. He wouldn't have to couch every decision in terms of how it would effect his chances for reelection.
 


Wow, you should totally join the libertarian party if you believe businesses know the key to true success. They know freedom accompanied with justice is the only obligation and responsibility of the government, and a free market benefits all. Please look into it. If you're tired of all the Republican and Democrat blockheads, then you should try another way out. We don't have to have a two party system forever. Only the people that think we have to are the ones that stop us from changing.
 

When I decide that anarchy is the best course, I'll think about joining the Libertarian Party.

In the meantime, you haven't disputed most of what I wrote. Does that mean that you agree?
 
By saying that government should regulate who can be in office, you are implying that the GENERAL PUBLIC is too stupid to decide for themselves.

And libertarianism isn't anarchy. All it does is reduce government to a state where it only protects our personal rights.

Anarchy is when the government fails to protect our rights.
 
Now you're starting to make sense. This is effectively what I hav been saying for a long time. My formulation of the terms might be a little different, but we agree that terms should be lengthened and limited. I mentioned this very thing in another thread in the Constitution section.
 
Last edited:

I'm simply saying that I see no valid reason for trashing a tradition as old as this nation.

As far as anarchy is concerned, I prefer the definition that goes: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government.

That sounds like 'libertarian' to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…