Should non-US born to be eligible for prez?

[fooligan]

Reckon if someone is a naturalized citizen, and they have been a citizen for a certain arbitrary period of time-- maybe the same 35 years that a native citizen needs-- it wouldn't be a problem.

I can't think of too many immigrants that the American people would even dream of electing; it's not like Bin Laden could change his name, get his Social Security Number, and get his hands on the big red button.

Arnold.

Manchurian Candidate.

Yeah, too weird to even think about.

 

[Kandahar]

Arnold.

Do you really believe that Arnold would sell American secrets to Austria, if he was president? Do you think his being foreign-born would have the slightest impact on his presidency?

Manchurian Candidate.

Perhaps you aren't aware of this, but movies are movies, not reality.

 

[fooligan]

Perhaps you aren't aware of this

9 against
6 for
1 hmm?

 

[fooligan]

Do you really believe that Arnold would sell American secrets to Austria, if he was president? Do you think his being foreign-born would have the slightest impact on his presidency?

Just to entertain you:

Who knows? Why take the chance? Keep American-born patriots in charge.

 

[jfuh]

Just to entertain you:

Who knows? Why take the chance? Keep American-born patriots in charge.

Yes of course, no natively born american has ever commited treason.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

No, of course not.

This country has several hundred million native born losers to choose from for that job, why should we bother scraping the bottom of the world's barrel for the worst of the worst?

Also, an anchor baby is a US citizen, so it's not like we couldn't get an invader to run.

The use of the discriminator "born in the US of A" is clear, easily defined, and clears the decks for more important discussions. Most voters are concerned with which candidate will pay him the most from his neighbor's wallet, why confuse the issue with irrelevancies?

If anything, the requirements for elected office should be further restricted. Candidates for the presidency should:

1) Disclose full medical history, including psychiatric, if any.

2) Disclose full financial history, including spouse, parents, siblings, children, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and first cousins, also for in-laws.

3) Disclose the results of a full background investigation to demonstrate his suitability for handling national security sensitive secrets.

4) Agree to a full post-tenure finacial oversight with all sources of funding identified publicly.

5) Take a polygraph exam with questions, answers, and results available to the public. The questions would include both routine "are you a spy" questions and questions guided by his personal background investigation.

If we refine our criteria for eligibility, the accidental coincidence of geography and partruitiion will decline in importance.

 

[Stace]

No, of course not.

This country has several hundred million native born losers to choose from for that job, why should we bother scraping the bottom of the world's barrel for the worst of the worst?

Well, you know, seeing as how there's not quite 300 million people living in this country, I highly doubt the validity of that claim.

And what makes someone being born in America so much better than someone born elsewhere?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Well, you know, seeing as how there's not quite 300 million people living in this country, I highly doubt the validity of that claim.

And what makes someone being born in America so much better than someone born elsewhere?

Give it time, soon enough there'll be three hundred. We're up to what? 260, 270 now?

The fact of birth in the US itself tends to indicate that the candidate has roots and loyalties here.

BTW, I amended my earlier post.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

I am a naturalised Australian citizen, as I am Scottish/Brittish, by birth. If I want to become Prime Minister I can.

If you are a citizen, you should be awarded all freedom ands priviledges. Essentially naturalised Americans are being denied the full rights as citizens.

I don't see what the big deal is, especially when American born Presidents have been very good a B.S-ing the American public. LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I am a naturalised Australian citizen, as I am Scottish/Brittish, by birth. If I want to become Prime Minister I can.

If you are a citizen, you should be awarded all freedom ands priviledges. Essentially naturalised Americans are being denied the full rights as citizens.

I don't see what the big deal is, especially when American born Presidents have been very good a B.S-ing the American public. LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II.

Yeah, especially if you're a natural born citizen under the age of 35. I mean, all those kids under thirty five are like, you know, totally being denied the full rights of being a citizen.

Oh, wait. When did being president become a "right"? It's not a RIGHT, it's a privilege limited by the Constitution to a certain class of people.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

And in Australia, you can in theory become Prime Minister at the voting age of 18, as long as you are a citizen, naturalised, or native born.

May be the U.S could follow our lead?:mrgreen:

 

[jfuh]

Oh, wait. When did being president become a "right"? It's not a RIGHT, it's a privilege limited by the Constitution to a certain class of people.

What class of people are those?

 

[Kandahar]

Oh, wait. When did being president become a "right"? It's not a RIGHT, it's a privilege limited by the Constitution to a certain class of people.

Translation: "We shouldn't change the Constitution to allow this, because the Constitution doesn't currently allow this."

 

[Thorgasm]

No, we shouldn't. We have to think about this in the context of forever. Right now things are a certain way. It seems like a good idea now, while times are prosperous. What if something happened and we became a third world country. It is easy to be loyal when times are good. But if times are not good who is to say that someone who wasn't born here would be so loyal?

Yes american born citizens could sell us out, but it is one extra stipulation to insure against that. People not american born may have friends and family who could be imprisoned if this person doesn't respond to their demands. This could surely cloud judgement.

I may have an ethnocentric view on this one. But I do think that it could be more detrimental than it would be beneficial to our country.

 

[jamesrage]

Should a person that is *not* born in the united states be allowed to run for President?.

Only if that individual has been a U.S. citizen for a numder of years and other critiria has been met.I think a person has been a US citizen for thirty or forty years has severed all loyalty to his former country and he is just as much as a American as much as any American that was born.The reason why I think certian criteria should be met is that we do not want former enemy leaders,former terrorist, and anyone else like them running our country.

 

[americanwoman]

Only if that individual has been a U.S. citizen for a numder of years and other critiria has been met.I think a person has been a US citizen for thirty or forty years has severed all loyalty to his former country and he is just as much as a American as much as any American that was born.The reason why I think certian criteria should be met is that we do not want former enemy leaders,former terrorist, and anyone else like them running our country.

I totally agree with you.
My grandma came here when she was only 10 and has lived here over 60 years. She is a proud American now, and would never betray her country.
Most immigrants are hard working good people who come here to better their lives not to spy or damage our country. As long as they meet the criteria I think it would be perfectly fine for them to run and maybe be president.

 

[Goobieman]

All of the reasons this provision was written into the Constitution apply every bit as much today as they did back then. I vote no.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

What class of people are those?

The answer is evident from the context of my post.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Translation: "We shouldn't change the Constitution to allow this, because the Constitution doesn't currently allow this."

Don't quit your day job to become a translator for the UN. Translators have to be able to understand what's being said, and you clearly do not.

My post clearly outlines a recommendation for altering the selection process for presidential candidates that reflects the known corruption of candidate pool and our present ability to find things out. I'm not for simply changing the requirement for native candidates, that's just stupid, for reasons given above. But if we want to improve the process, we don't just make the office open to a wider but still polluted pond. We purify the raw material before making a choice, is all.

Maybe you should read the thread.

 

[Stace]

Alright Scarecrow...going back to address your edit from last night. :smile:

If anything, the requirements for elected office should be further restricted. Candidates for the presidency should:

1) Disclose full medical history, including psychiatric, if any.

This makes sense. We don't want crazy people, or someone that is at a high risk to kick the bucket early in their term.

2) Disclose full financial history, including spouse, parents, siblings, children, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and first cousins, also for in-laws.

Now, this one, I don't quite understand. Are you implying that they have to meet some sort of threshold to even be considered? And what do all of those extended family members have to do with anything? They're not the ones running for office.

3) Disclose the results of a full background investigation to demonstrate his suitability for handling national security sensitive secrets.

This also makes sense. The public does have a right to know those sorts of things.

4) Agree to a full post-tenure finacial oversight with all sources of funding identified publicly.

I'm not sure I completely understand this one. Could you explain it a little more?

5) Take a polygraph exam with questions, answers, and results available to the public. The questions would include both routine "are you a spy" questions and questions guided by his personal background investigation.

lol, you would think this one would be a no brainer! If our police force is subject to polygraph tests, why not the person in the most important office in the country?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Now, this one, I don't quite understand. Are you implying that they have to meet some sort of threshold to even be considered? And what do all of those extended family members have to do with anything? They're not the ones running for office.

Full financial disclosure of the candidate and his family is necessary to find out if anyone is paying him bribes, and to find out if anyone paid him bribes while in office. Hillary didn't make a hundred thousand dollars on cattle futures, she's not sure which end of the cow says moo and which says pfpfpfpt.

People can also be offered bribes, either by paying into a "legal defense fund", or paying for portions of a "presidential library", for example, in exchange for favors gained while the corrupt politician was in office. The post-departure financial reporting is simply an effort to track that.

lol, you would think this one would be a no brainer! If our police force is subject to polygraph tests, why not the person in the most important office in the country?

There ya go! If I can make Stace think this is sensible, we should be writing congress to introduce the Amendment tomorrow!

 

[Stace]

Full financial disclosure of the candidate and his family is necessary to find out if anyone is paying him bribes, and to find out if anyone paid him bribes while in office. Hillary didn't make a hundred thousand dollars on cattle futures, she's not sure which end of the cow says moo and which says pfpfpfpt.

People can also be offered bribes, either by paying into a "legal defense fund", or paying for portions of a "presidential library", for example, in exchange for favors gained while the corrupt politician was in office. The post-departure financial reporting is simply an effort to track that.

Alright, that makes sense for the most part.....but I don't think it has to extend that far out in the family. Me, for instance? I don't even know half of my first cousins.....I've only ever met two of them on my dad's side, and my mom's got 3 brothers and 2 sisters, most of whom have been married multiple times, and have produced multiple offspring from each marriage....yeah, my family is a veritable breeding ground! Heck, the first cousins I do know, I don't even keep in touch with most of them. Or most of the rest of my family, either. If I ever ran for office, most of my family wouldn't even be a source to consider bribing. But hey, that's just me.

There ya go! If I can make Stace think this is sensible, we should be writing congress to introduce the Amendment tomorrow!

Hey now....I'm not completely unreasonable!! :lol:

 

[Kandahar]

All of the reasons this provision was written into the Constitution apply every bit as much today as they did back then. I vote no.

Actually the only reason it was written into the Constitution is no longer an applicable reason, as Alexander Hamilton is dead and therefore cannot run for president.

 

[Kandahar]

Don't quit your day job to become a translator for the UN. Translators have to be able to understand what's being said, and you clearly do not.

My post clearly outlines a recommendation for altering the selection process for presidential candidates that reflects the known corruption of candidate pool and our present ability to find things out. I'm not for simply changing the requirement for native candidates, that's just stupid, for reasons given above. But if we want to improve the process, we don't just make the office open to a wider but still polluted pond. We purify the raw material before making a choice, is all.

Maybe you should read the thread.

It's up to the voters to "purify the raw material" by nominating and electing decent candidates. If they fail to do so, it's their own fault, not the fault of the presidential qualifications. This isn't about who you believe should be president, it's about granting the same rights to all adult American citizens (and don't you dare start equivocating about "rights," because you know damn well what I'm talking about). Surely the voters can decide whether a candidate's nationality is a liability, better than a blanket rule for all dem der furriners.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Hey now....I'm not completely unreasonable!! :lol:

But we don't agree on much. And yeah, I'm probably casting the net too far when first cousins are added in. I couldn't name all of mine, anyway.