Amendment allowing foreigners to be president

[slickpoppa]

The idea seems to be gaining a lot of popularity. Any thoughts?

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea seems to be gaining a lot of popularity. Any thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]
My first thought is that I don't see any reason to amend this rule. On the other hand, considering the low quality of candidates we have had in recent elections maybe we need to increase the pool of potential candidates. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[andyfox]

I like it a helluva lot better than the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage.

[ToledoTommy]

I agree with this amendment because the reasoning behind forcing the President to be a native-born citizen has gone out the door in the face of globalization. I just wished it wasn't being pushed for one particular candidate, i.e. Arnold.

[MMMMMM]

Bad idea. Someone could immigrate early as a double-agent, gain the Presidency, and betray the country as Commander-In-Chief.

Now before the Cyruses start complaining that anyone could do that sort of thing, it is obviously a more likely scenario for a foreign-born.

[nothumb]

I would be for this Ammendment so long as they just called it the Ahnold Ammendment and admitted that they're doing it because the GOP lacks a clear successor to GWB. I think a little espionage in the White House would spice things up anyway.

NT

[nothumb]

Oh yeah, and now that I actually think about your post, that is some absurd and xenophobic logic, dude. WTF?? Like any foreigner is going to get elected anyway. He would have to be under some absurdly deep cover and people would probably call him a double agent even if they had no idea he actually was.

NT

[mmbt0ne]

I like to believe that we Americans would not use this amendment by basically electing ex-President X from country Y for some reason or another. That is the one problem I have with it. The idea of a global politician just bothers me, there is no way you can dedicate yourself to the good of one country, and expect to know how best to run another.

[wacki]

We could have an amendment that you have to be a citizen for 25 years, that would clear Arnold and weed out a lot of possible double agents.

Arnold or no, 25 years is long enough IMO.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I just wished it wasn't being pushed for one particular candidate, i.e. Arnold.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why a California group is actively pursuing it.

But, I believe the Democratic Governor of Michigan is Canadian-born and well thought of in the Democratic party. So, the ammendment wouldn't be just for the benefit of Arnold or the Republicans.

[Cyrus]

Arnold would never make the cut.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[MMMMMM]

That is not xenophobic at all.

There is a huge pool of candidates under current rules. Why should we take the unnecessary risk of foreign intelligence being able to infiltrate the single most sensitive and critical position to our country's security, or of a President having conflicted loyalties when the chips are down?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
We could have an amendment that you have to be a citizen for 25 years, that would clear Arnold and weed out a lot of possible double agents.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't enough to weed out "a lot" of possible double-agents. Just one could be catastrophic as Commander-In-Chief, and though the chance is low, the devastation could be so great that there should be rules in place to keep the chance as close to ZERO as possible.

[The Dude]

There's no logical reason why such an ammendment should get passed. If someone is foreign born, but has been an U.S. citizen for x number of years, I can't see any reason why the American people shouldn't get to decide whether or not they want him/ her as their president.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Bad idea. Someone could immigrate early as a double-agent, gain the Presidency, and betray the country as Commander-In-Chief.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you've read too many Robert Ludlum novels or something.

The amount of scrutiny it takes to get anywhere near the presidency would make this double-agent scenario an impossibility. Especially since the scrutiny is likely to be tenfold for any candidate that is not a native-born American. Just think of all the things that some dude from Ecuador or something would have to do to prove how patriotic he was. Can you even imagine any non-Arnold, perhaps non-Canadian foreigner winning? I can't.

[MMMMMM]

Why take the risk? And what about a Prez perhaps having conflicted loyalties in time of great crisis?

[sam h]

I see your point, but I think the risk is pretty small and that there is an equality principle involved that is important. For instance, I was born in England, stayted there with my parents (both Americans) for about three years and have lived in the states since. I don't think I'm any less of a citizen than others. And though I don't have any desire to be president, I don't see why people in my shoes shouldn't have that opportunity.

Don't get the impression that this is personal, because I've actually never really cared until this whole Arnold thing came up and I started to think about it. I suppose it just seems wrong in the abstract to allow some citizens more rights than others.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

You may have read too many Ludlum novels. /images/graemlins/wink.gif Besides, the qualification that to be a candidate one must have been a citizen for at least 20 years really makes it less likely foreign chicanery would be involved.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no logical reason why such an ammendment should get passed. If someone is foreign born, but has been an U.S. citizen for x number of years, I can't see any reason why the American people shouldn't get to decide whether or not they want him/ her as their president.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your first sentence and the rest of the paragraph don't really make sense unless you meant "shouldn't" in the first sentence. The constitution currently only allows natural born citizens to become president.

[elwoodblues]

Madeline Albright wants it as well.

[MMMMMM]

I still see no reason to take the risk.

The conflicted argument in times of crisis is more likely than infiltration, but I see no good reason to allow the possibility of either.

What's 20 years to a committed ideologue, anyway? How long did some of the 9/11 hijackers live in US society before executing the attacks? Sleeper agents are NOT only in Ludlum novels.

[MMMMMM]

I can see what you are saying or feeling, but I don't think it really is a matter of "equality" or "rights". The number of people who get to be President is minuscule anyway, so I don't think being disqualified is an infringement on anyone's "rights", and nowhere in the Constitution/Bill of Rights is mentioned the "right" to become President.

You say the risk is "pretty small". I agree. Since the conseqeunces could be so dire, though, a small risk is not something to be dismissed.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I still see no reason to take the risk.


[/ QUOTE ]

Because the risk is so infinitesimally small that it really isn't a risk worth factoring in to the equation. The "risk" is no greater than two spies moving to the US having a natural born child and raising him/her to be a spy who will then become president...

[ QUOTE ]
Sleeper agents are NOT only in Ludlum novels

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but sleeper agents who become President are.

[andyfox]

Why does the possibility of a double agent depend upon where the person is born? Spiro Agnew was taking bribes in his vice presidential office. He was born in the USA. We've had a lot of people with bad character as president who were born, for example, in Whittier, California, or Hope, Arkansas. We still have checks and balances in our system.

[andyfox]

So would you also be against a Jew being president? How about a Korean-American? Might they not have conflicted loyalties in time of crisis?

[andyfox]

How did Bush make it? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Boris]

No other country of any consequence would ever allow a U.S born person to become president. Made in the USA baby! Let's keep it that way.

[Toro]

As a "melting pot" Nation, the Amendment should be given serious consideration. The argument that the planted double agent would become a naturalized citizen and then wait the required 20 years(or whatever) and then run for and win the Presidency and then sabotage the country is pretty ludicrous.

If you want to consider a scenario as far fetched as that as a threat, well, hell they could do it now under our current laws.

Two double agents emigrate to this country and then marry, become naturalized citizens and have a child and then nuture/endoctrinate their offspring to pull off what they legally couldn't do as foreign born citizens. Ridiculous, right?

[MMMMMM]

It doesn't depend on it, Andy; it's just a risk factor.

[MMMMMM]

No, why would I be against that? I said foreign-born.

I am rather amazed that you would even raise these questions.

[MMMMMM]

Risk factors.

Also there is the chance that in crisis, a foreign-born President could have conflicted loyalties of some sort.


It's just a bad idea overall, and totally unnecessary.

[andyfox]

But wouldn't a Jew have conflicting loyalties in a foreign policy issue involving Israel, or a Korean-American in a crisis involving Korea? Why would that be any different than a foreign-born person having conflicting loyalties in time of crisis involving the country in which he was born?

[MMMMMM]

Less likely though.

[andyfox]

Why? Most people who come here from other countries come because they love this country and the opportunties it gives to them and are less than satisfied with what the country they were born in can offer. The governor of California is an excellent example. They're likely to be much more patriotic and less prone to have conflicting loyalties than people who are born here and take our good fortune to be living here more lightly.

[Felix_Nietsche]

being president. He can become a congressman, senator, or even a federal judge....but president?

This could be a moot point because a 1st generation citizen being president would be very difficult to pull off. Although Arnold could probably do it...

I'm siding with the founders on this issue......

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea seems to be gaining a lot of popularity. Any thoughts?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not convinced an Austrian born president would be willing to completely anhilate Austria.

Stu

[bholdr]

neither would bush /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

The founders didn't seem to think so when they drafted the Constitution, and I don't either;-)

[MMMMMM]

Exactly.

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
The founders didn't seem to think so when they drafted the Constitution, and I don't either;-)

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it in the original Constitution or was it an Amendment because weren't some of the first Presidents from England? Don't know, asking.

[MMMMMM]

Good question; I don't know.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it in the original Constitution or was it an Amendment

[/ QUOTE ]

Original

[ QUOTE ]
weren't some of the first Presidents from England? Don't know, asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope unless you consider the original colonies part of England.

Here's the clause from the U.S. Constitution:

Clause 5: 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
But wouldn't a Jew have conflicting loyalties in a foreign policy issue involving Israel, or a Korean-American in a crisis involving Korea? Why would that be any different than a foreign-born person having conflicting loyalties in time of crisis involving the country in which he was born?

[/ QUOTE ]

In 1960, didn't some people raise similar concerns about John Kennedy because he was a Catholic? Weren't some people afraid that would give the Vatican considerable control over U.S. policy?

[andyfox]

Would a Jew be willing to completely annihilate Israel? Or a Korean-American Korea?

[andyfox]

They had their reasons, one would think. But that doesn't mean the reasons that made sense to them in the 18th still hold for us in the 21st. That's why they made the Constitution amendable. And they made mistakes too. They messed up the electoral college, and had to fix it up with the 12th amendment.

[andyfox]

Yes, indeed. Those concerns were as ridiculous then as the ones being raised here now.

[MMMMMM]

No, they're not AS ridiculous or unlikely. Degree my friend, degree. And again I ask why take the unecessary catastrophic risk (even if very low probability) when there is no necessity to do so?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Would a Jew be willing to completely annihilate Israel?

[/ QUOTE ]


I'd be a lot more confident in a jewish president knowing he or she was born here rather than in Isreal. I think its important for the president to have the public's confidence when faced with such decisions. Its also better for the president not to have to worry about being accused of conflicting loyalties when making suck decisions.

Stu

[wacki]

Stu Pidaso,

You make good points, my ideology side says you are right, but my pragmatic side says that Arnold is not a risk. I'm torn...... My vote switches the nuetral.

[lastchance]

What happens when there is a great candidate, a brilliant governor, who would quite obviously be one of the greatest Presidents ever, if he was not denied the chance to become a great leader because he first moved to the US when he was 4?

That's the downside, not being able to elect a great President simply because of a law written in a different world.

What you're saying is right out of the "Manchurian Candidate." This risk and the downside of this risk is so minute that the upside is far greater.

No one's going to get elected to this office anyway through this rule unless they are a great, great policitian and statesman, and that's really what you're missing out of when you don't include this rule.

Seriously, if this guy was ever found out, he'd be impeached like that. And I don't think it'd take much either.

[MMMMMM]

I think you are seriously overestimating the chances of electing a "great" President.

[MMMMMM]

Arnold is probably not a risk--but some other candidate might be. If Arnold and some other candidates are disqualified, big deal. Missing out on a potentially great President is not nearly as significant as getting a horrible one. In other words, the downside is much greater than the upside. A great President would be nice, but a traitorous President could be totally disastrous.

[lastchance]

Well, I was exaggerating a bit, but if you believe voters are capable enough to choose the best president, as our system assumes right now, then increasing their options has to be good, even if you lump of some of the good along with some of the bad.

And think about what you're saying. To me, it really is a paranoid delusion of foreigners. It is quite odd to me, that I cannot become a President while my sister can. I have lived here since I was 5, I am not part of some foreign Taiwanese conspiracy to take over the USA, and if I was, then my sister would probably be as well.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I still see no reason to take the risk.

I'm not sure what risk you're talking about. IMO, I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of someone who *chose* to become a citizen as opposed to someone on whom it was conferred by accident of birth.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
What happens when there is a great candidate, a brilliant governor, who would quite obviously be one of the greatest Presidents ever, if he was not denied the chance to become a great leader because he first moved to the US when he was 4?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have nothing to worry about LastChance. If he of she was really that great of a candidate who had the overwhelming support of the peoples, he'd also have the clout to get an admendment through so he could run. I don't think Arnuld has the clout to get an admendment through so this whole debate is kinda moot.

Stu

[lastchance]

It is very hard to have an amendment passed, though.

And yeah, you're right, we could pass it then, but I really think that it's +EV. The positive effect of having slightly better candidates to have slightly better Presidents is worth taking the miniscule risk of having a traitor infiltrate.

Though at the same time, you guys probably are correct in that this amendment won't change a thing. Every single President has been a white, Christian male. I don't think that's by chance.

[andyfox]

In the interest of what our Constitution supposedly stands for: treating all citizens with the same dignity and respect, making sure that all have equal rights. Regardless of where one is born.

As Dynasty pointed out, when John Kennedy ran for president, there were those who said he would subordinate his presidency to the interests of the Pope. One can always find a "maybe" in anyone's background if one looks hard enough. Alcoholics do bad things when they drink. President Bush is apparently a recovered alcoholic. John Kerry apparently lied about his service in Vietnam. Should we forbid alcoholics or liars from becoming presidents, or should we let them run and make decisions for ourselves?

[andyfox]

No candidate will hide his birthplace. The people will know that so-and-so was born in Austria or in Israel and can decide whether they want to take the "risk."

[andyfox]

The only point you've made in this thread with which I agree. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
That is not xenophobic at all.

There is a huge pool of candidates under current rules. Why should we take the unnecessary risk of foreign intelligence being able to infiltrate the single most sensitive and critical position to our country's security, or of a President having conflicted loyalties when the chips are down?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[MMMMMM]

Well, some countries have interests which are opposed to ours. China is an example to some extent, and the former USSR even more so.

If the USSR were still intact and the Cold War still going on, how would you feel about a Soviet citizen defecting to the USA and 20 years later trying to become President? Would you think there would be no reason to be suspicious of their motives, since though they chose to become a US citizen? I am asking this hypothetically, presuming that the Cold War never ended, and that they defected 20 years ago and were to run for President of the United States in 2008.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
No candidate will hide his birthplace. The people will know that so-and-so was born in Austria or in Israel and can decide whether they want to take the "risk."

[/ QUOTE ]

In 2004 we are at peace with Isreal in 2008 we may be on the verge of war with them. The people have no way of knowing just how future events may unfold so they have no way of making an accurate risk assessment. The founding fathers thought it so important that the President not have conflicting loyalties that they wrote this clause into the Constitution. I have to agree with the founding fathers on this one.

Stu

[MMMMMM]

I don't agree that it is paranoid. If the Cold War were still in effect and the USSR intact, what would you think about a former Soviet citizen running for office of the President of the United States? And just because there is no Cold War now, doesn't mean there won't be another of some sort in the future.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The positive effect of having slightly better candidates to have slightly better Presidents is worth taking the miniscule risk of having a traitor infiltrate.


[/ QUOTE ]


Allowing naturalized citizens to become presidential candidates is not going to give us slightly better candidates. For that to happen naturalized citizens would have to be better candidates than natural born citizens. The sad truth is it doesn't matter how many people you add, the candidate pool is always going to be shallow.

Stu

[MMMMMM]

These comparisons you propose range from somewhat different to greatly different than the issue under consideration.

Please take a look at my "Soviet citizen" hypothetical elsewhere in this thread. Would you really want a former Soviet running for U.S. President if the Cold War were still in effect? Or even today?

There is also a difference between someone running for Pres who might have mildly conflicted interests to some degree as you point out (such as Jew, Catholic, etc) and someone running for Pres who is originally from a country which was/is our enemy.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The people will know that so-and-so was born in Austria or in Israel and can decide whether they want to take the "risk."

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Stu's response, and will add this:

If you just leave all matters of judgment up to the voters in determining who is qualified to be President, then there is no reason to have a minimum age requirement either, besides the age of majority. Do you think 18 year olds should be allowed to be Presidential candidates?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The people will know that so-and-so was born in Austria or in Israel and can decide whether they want to take the "risk."

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Stu's response, and will add this:

If you just leave all matters of judgment up to the voters in determining who is qualified to be President, then there is no reason to have a minimum age requirement either, besides the age of majority. Do you think an 18-year-old should be allowed to be President? Hey, he might be a great guy and a brilliant President, and it would be contrary to our principles of equality to deny him the chance. What would you say to that?

[lastchance]

First of all, this Soviet person would never get elected.

Second of all, it is all a matter of degree, but there should be some caveats to this clause. Two American parents could have a baby in another country, and he wouldn't be President. A kid raised up American from immigrants who have worked their life should be able to be President. These are the kids living the American Dream, and they should get a shot.

Third, a Soviet who defects of his own will to America is very likely to be more patriotic to America than many people already there. That person understands the other side of things so well, the places that don't have "freedom" (as much as I hate to use that word), that if it's not one of those conspiracies, I would have a hard time questioning that person's Americanism.

Fourth, you know what the guy's thinking about going in. You know he's born from another country and may have sentimental attachments. It comes with the package, everyone knows it.

And yeah, the voting public is much more informed it was in the 1700's (amazing that is). I think 30 years would be fine, 35 is a tad old...

[MMMMMM]

Apparently the founders didn't want to take the chance of a traitor or foreign agent getting elected, and I agree with them. That the Soviet never would get elected is not the point.

Do you really think the Soviets wouldn't have tried something like that if they thought there was any chance they could have gotten away with it? Sure would be a lot cheaper and safer to win a war that way than in an all-out nuclear exchange (which the Soviets were built for, their land-based missile force being more geared to first-strike capability and less to retaliatory capability, than ours).

What if, during the Cuban missile crisis, we had had a Soviet pawn or Soviet sympathizer in the Oval office, instead of JFK?

[andyfox]

Absolutely. But that's beside the point. We're not talking about leaving all matters up to the voters, we're talking about leaving this matter up to the voters.

[MMMMMM]

So, you think there should be no age requirement to be President, that 18-year-olds are fine to entrust with our country's most sensitive and vital role, as long as the voters approve.

Well...why don't you just rewrite the whole Constitution while you're at it, then?

[andyfox]

The Bush family has been close with the Saudi royal family. The voters know this and those who think it is important factor into their voting decision. I'm sure there are people who wouldn't vote for Senator Leiberman because they feel he wouldn't be impartial if we were to be at war with Israel, or in dealing with the Middle East. But I wouldn't want to bar Senator Leiberman from running for president because I don't know how future events might unfold.

[andyfox]

So then I'll ask you too: Israel defines itself as a Jewish state. Many American Jews feel a deep affection for Israel. Senator Leiberman is orthodox. Wouldn't he have divided loyalties? Should we not allow him to be President because he's Jewish?

[andyfox]

I'd have no problem with it. But if you did, you'd be free to vote against him.

Since Israel is our ally, we could substitute an American muslim. Obviously, in today's climate, he would stand no chance of being elected. But if he was otherwise eligible, do you think this person should be forbidden to run?

We could still keep in place the law concerning length of residency/citizenship in this country.

What about a Chinese American? Would his ethnicity concern you?

[andyfox]

No, I would never vote for an 18-year old. Or at least none that I've ever known /images/graemlins/smile.gif. But I can see an argument as to why an 18-year old should be allowed to run.

Anyway, getting late. Have a good night.

Andy

[MMMMMM]

I think you are very wrong to be willing to entrust our entire country's security to a person who originally hails from an enemy country. It's needless and courts disaster even if the chance of that diaster may be low.

In short, I think this is pure liberal foolhardiness.

[MMMMMM]

Well go ahead and ask him, but you are now ignoring my point that someone from an enemy country is a different risk factor than someone whose loyalties may be slightly divided betweeen us and our allies. You are making no distinction whatsoever between the two, and that's conceptually wrong, and impacts the argument significantly.

[MMMMMM]

Andy are you capable of evaluating difference in category or degree, or is it somehow all one fuzzy blob to you? I ask because you have not yet demonstrated in this thread that you perceive any differences.

Relations with a friend are one thing. Relations with an ally are another (and sometimes ovelap).

Religious considerations are something else.

Hailing from an enemy country is something else yet again.

I hope you can see that these are not all the same thing, nor equally of concern with regards to security.

[MMMMMM]

Don't go to sleep yet, Andy, you have a great deal of writing yet to do tonight.

I should guess you will have the whole thing re-written in a fortnight if you set your mind to it.

[jokerswild]

Arnold grew up as a Nazi. He was Hitler Youth. He's on record as using wogga like pejoratives for Blacks. He defines the new Reich.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Hypothetically, had the Cold War not ended, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

However, the risk is so small as to be irrelevant

1) Getting elected will be tough enough for someone born outside the US

2) If said deep cover assets would be willing to wait 20+ years to implement their plan, they'd be willing to wait a generation for their asset's child to run.

3) probability-wise, the investment in such a project would be prohibitive. Better to infiltrate banks and military contractors and influence the government that way.

4) Best we concern ourselves with more subtle ways we lose our freedom, e.g., the fact that most Americans have little knowledge of the Constitution thus can elect officials just as dangerous as a deep-cover agent.

[MMMMMM]

I agree the risk is low, but I don't see why we should amend the Constitution in such a way as to increase that risk.

Also, shouldn't amendments be saved for more important things? If for instance the protection of marriage act is out of place as an amendment, then this proposed amendment is downright frivolous.

[elwoodblues]

So then we don't elect Arnold. David Duke was a member of the KKK. We didn't elect him (even though he was eligible to run for president)

[elwoodblues]

Having someone run for office does NO damage whatsoever to anyone. A soviet citizen during the cold war would not win. Having him/her on the ballot causes no harm to anyone.

[elwoodblues]

To answer the question more directly, the founders specifically exempted themselves from this rule by including the clause "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"

[elwoodblues]

And you are ignoring the practical reality that nobody from an enemy country would ever be elected president.

[andyfox]

You're putting far too much weight on where somebody was born. I'm telling you that I know hundreds of people who were born in the USA who would take Israel's side against the U.S. if push came to shove, and have done so, on every policy issue where we and Israel have a disagreement. You take a person's total life experience, you listen to what they say and analyze what they have done, and you make a judgment and vote for or against them accordingly. Mr. X is from an "enemy" country. Fine. I'll decide then, when he runs, if I want a person from such a country to be the president.

[andyfox]

Many of the people who are supporting an amendment are pure conservatives. It's not a liberal/conservative issue.

It's not needless. It's an issue of fairness.

I think you're very wrong to be willing to entrust our entire country's security to a person who was an alcoholic, who admits he doesn't read, whose family has been close to the Saudi royal family, who thinks a person making $200,000 a year deserves the same percentage tax cut as a person making $20,000, and who took us into a war that had nothing to do with 9/11, despite his claims to the contrary. But that's what America is about. A person can run for president and the people decide whether they want him or not. What if Bush was born in Korea or Iraq because his father had been in the diplomatic corp, and moved to the United States at age six months? Should he not be eligible to run for president?

[andyfox]

I'm trying to get you to see the folly of your thinking. You say it's dangerous to allow somebody born in a foreign country to be president because they could either be a sleeper agent or because they will have divided loyalties because of their country of birth. I'm comparing this to somebody born here who could just as easily be a sleeper agent (owing to political beliefs or bribery) or could have divided loyalties because of, for example, religious considerations or ethnicity. When we interned the Japanese Americans in World War II, rightly or wrongly, we felt that their ethnicity would effect their loyalty to our country.

Where someone was born has no more relevance to the "danger" it would entail it they were president than a host of other factors. There is a very good argument to be made that it is of less importance since most immigrants to our country came here, as was pointed out before, because of their desire to be here rather than the country in which they were born. These people often have exaggerated feelings of patriotism and love for their country than those who, having been born here, take their good fortune for granted. I would feel no differently about our California governor were he born in Austria, Israel, Vietnam, Korea, Sacramento, Iraq, or Mars.

[andyfox]

Jokeswild is on your side on this one. Egads! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[andyfox]

Exactly the point. You don't like something about somebody, DON'T VOTE FOR HIM. But don't prohibit him from running because he decided to come out of his mother's womb in a country you don't like.

[andyfox]

This proposed amendment concerns something that is already in the Constitution. That is, the issue of country of birth for a presidential candidate is a governmental issue already addressed in the Constitution, whereas marriage is not.

[CORed]

I think the (very remote IMO) double agent hazard could be minimized, if not eliminated, by having a long (15 or 20 years) residency requirement as well as requiring (obviously) that the foreign-born candidate be a naturalized citizen.

[MMMMMM]

The founders ignored that too when they wrote the Constitution.

[MMMMMM]

I'm not putting too much weight on it; I'm saying that having a bias or personal attachment towards an ally is a lot different than having a bias or personal attachment towards an enemy.

[MMMMMM]

The founders didn't believe in taking any such chances with our country's ultimate security, and neither do I.

[MMMMMM]

The potential security of our country (or disastrous lack theeof) is so vital that it trumps fairness. That is why the Founders wrote that part of the Constitution as they did.

Special cases are one thing; there is no guarantee that any elected President will be good for our national security. But we can, and wisely do, weed out some that wouldn't be, via the eligibility requirements.

[MMMMMM]

Just because a filter is rarely used and rarely important, does not mean that it has no value.

Ecxeptions exist in nearly everything, but exceptions don't completely nullify the value of filters. Even if the filter is meant to stop only the rarest of things, does not mean that it has no value, if that lightning would prove totally catastrophic.

Just because it can't filter out all bad Presidents, does not mean it can't filter out any.

An enemy country is different than an ally.

[andyfox]

Sometimes it works the other way. Nixon claimed, probably with some merit, that only he could have reopened relations with China, since he had such strong credentials as an anti-Communist, whereas a Democrat would have been seen as soft on Communism had he attempted to do what Nixon did. Sometimes someone seen as suspect in regard to having sympathies, for whatever reason, for X goes out of his way to be tough on X in order to convince people not to worry.

[andyfox]

You're assuming somebody born in a foreign country wouldn't be good for our national security because of his place of birth. I'm saying that's hogwash. My father was born out of the country and came here at the age of six months. He's been here since 1920. Not that he's running for president, but why not let the people decide if he should be president or not?

[andyfox]

But todya's enemy may be tomorrow's ally. Japan is today an ally, but a person running for president may have been born when Japan was an enemy.

Bottom line for me is it's ridiculous to worry about where a person was born in deciding whether or not they can run for president. Everyone is free to decide the person is worthy or not when and if that person runs.

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
The founders didn't believe in taking any such chances with our country's ultimate security, and neither do I.

[/ QUOTE ]

The founders also realized that times change so they allowed for a mechanism where the Constitution may be amended. To argue that this is what the founders thought was best for the country is not a good argument. If it were, we would still have slavery and women wouldn't be allowed to vote.

And Clinton would still be Pres.

[MMMMMM]

Sometimes it can indeed work the other way, but that does not rebut relative risk factors.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The founders also realized that times change so they allowed for a mechanism where the Constitution may be amended.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. Arnold however is no compelling reason for this proposed Amendment. Nor would I think it is such a major issue as to call for an amendment, even if I held the opposite view on what is best.

[wacki]

MMMMMMM what would you say to an amendment that required 25 years citizenship and a nomination by Congress (decided by simple majority vote) to run?

[MMMMMM]

Safer than Andy's requirements, but I still don't see much value in it and there is yet some small risk.

Why are so many people jumping on this bandwagon anyway? Because of Arnold, right? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif I don't think amending this issue was a pressing matter before Arnold and I don't think it is a pressing matter now.

We should not start getting into the habit of amending every little thing we would like to see adjusted about the Constitution. Save Amendments for the really big stuff.

[elwoodblues]

I agree --- I don't think it is that much of an issue. Certainly not something that I care much about. That being said, I can understand and appreciate the argument that the qualifications for being president would fall into the category of "really big stuff." Ensuring that our constitution is facially fair and represents the fundamental values of our country would also be "really big stuff."

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
You're assuming somebody born in a foreign country wouldn't be good for our national security because of his place of birth. I'm saying that's hogwash.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am most certainly not saying that. I'm saying it is an additional risk factor, that's all; and that the downside could be catastrophic.

[ QUOTE ]
My father was born out of the country and came here at the age of six months. He's been here since 1920. Not that he's running for president, but why not let the people decide if he should be president or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's a good rule, and because if your father can't run, it doesn't matter much anyway. If Arnold can't run so what. If Gandhi couldn't run so what. If Einstein couldn't run so what. There are still PLENTY of eligible, and potentially great, candidates. But all it would take is one mega-disaster by the Commander-in-Chief and America might no longer exist. Therefore exclusion by certain eligibility requirements is not a bad thing overall. Similarly, it is a good rule that 18-year-olds cannot be President. Even if the chances of an 18-year-old getting elected are near nil, the downside could be so great that it is a good idea for an exclusionary eligibility requirement.

And finally, there is simply no compelling reason for such an Amendment. I think we should save the Amendment process for the really big stuff.

[MMMMMM]

I see your point, but I think that the country's ultimate security must trump fairness. Nobody is born with a right to run for President. It is certainly not one of our "inalienable rights".

[JDalla]

Arnold could never win a primary, he is not conservative enough- his own party would destroy him like they did McCain in 2000.

[Stu Pidasso]

Andy,

Your argument is that the people should be able to elect anyone they want as President of the United States and that the people are perfectly capable of assessing the risk in electing certian candidates.

The logical conclusion of your argument is that an admendment to the constitution is needed to allow anyone to run for President of the United States. An admendment is need because in order to allow the people to elect whoever they want as president no one can be excluded from running. If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion people like Osama Bin Laden would allowed to run for President of the United States.

I don't like your argument Andy. I'm happy the founding fathers put in certian minimum qualifications for the President of the United States.

Stu

[lastchance]

Is Osama going to win? No. So what is the harm in him running?

The real harm is when a President is popular and good enough to win, but has something pretty big negative attached to him because of where he comes from.

Someone like a double agent, which I will eliminate due to unplausibility, but more realistically someone who cannot do what he knows he should do for the US because of relations to another country, personal biases.

People are going to err on the side of caution when they do pick someone born out of this country, however. That is why I seriously doubt anyone is going to have a heavy attachment to another country that would affect their decision making when they are elected.

[wacki]

Interesting article from USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-11-22-turley_x.htm


From that dubious beginning, the provision became even more curious as it denied the nation some of our best and brightest. Consider a brief list of citizens barred:

• More than 700 immigrants who received the Congressional Medal of Honor for outstanding bravery in war, or any of the 60,000 immigrants currently serving in our military in Iraq and elsewhere.

• U.S. business and intellectual giants such as industrialist Andrew Carnegie (Scotland) and economist John Kenneth Galbraith (Canada).

• Past Cabinet members, including three secretaries of State: Christian Herter (France), Henry Kissinger (Germany) and Madeleine Albright (Czech Republic).

• Leading politicians, including the governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm (Canada) and Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif. (Hungary).

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The real harm is when a President is popular and good enough to win, but has something pretty big negative attached to him because of where he comes from.


[/ QUOTE ]


You are being results orientated. Allowing naturalized citizens to join the pool of presidential candidates would not increase the quality of the pool of presidential candidates.

However, amending the constitution would increase our risk(albiet by only a small amount).

Since there is no advantaged gained by amending the constitution, yet by doing so we would be increasing our risk, it appears that amending the constitution becomes a negative EV play for the country.

Stu

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I agree with Andy on this one. If anything is frivolous, it's amending the Constitution to define what is essentially a private contract between two consenting adults.

On the other hand, how we define "American" with regards to who can serve as the Chief Executive is totally within the purview of the amendment process.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I know hundreds of people who were born in the USA who would take Israel's side against the U.S. ...on every policy issue where we and Israel have a disagreement.

Some of us aren't even Jewish. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[lastchance]

I think your first statement is a bit off.

The key is to improve the pool of "viable" presidential candidates. It would not matter if Saddam Hussein could run for the US presidency or not, because he would never be elected.

We should focus on presidential candidates who have a shot of being elected when making this judgment. I think it is a pretty big supposition to say that this amendment would not increase the quality of the pool of viable presidential candidates.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is a pretty big supposition to say that this amendment would not increase the quality of the pool of viable presidential candidates.


[/ QUOTE ]

LastChance,

Its a big supposition on your part to assert that as a rule naturalized citizen candidates are superior in quality to natural born candidates. You have to accept that supposition to logically conclude that the quality in the overall pool of candidates would be increased by expanding it to naturalized citizens.

If you accept that naturalized citizen candidates are equal in quality to natural born candidates then expanding the pool to include naturalized citizen candidates does not improve the overall quality of the pool. The quality of the pool would remain constant.

For every Madaline Albright there is a Condi Rice, For every Arnold there is a Rudy. For every LastChance there is a Stu Pidasso.

Stu

[MMMMMM]

I think "out of place" is worse than "frivolous", which is why I put it that way.

[Toro]

William Saffire weighs in on the topic.

The 28th Amendment
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Published: November 22, 2004

Like a cloud no bigger than a man's hand, the 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution is gathering on the political horizon.

No, it's not the anti-same-sex amendment that President Bush supports. Only if the Supreme Court strikes down the federal Defense of Marriage Act - or if it overturns the changes in state constitutions adopted to block recognition of same-sex marriages legal elsewhere - will that proposed amendment have a remote chance of gaining support of two-thirds of the Congress and 38 states.

The founders made it hard to amend the Constitution, but since the Bill of Rights, it's been done on the average of once every 12 years. It's time to end discrimination based on place of birth that denies the equal right of every citizen to run for president.

Article II of the Constitution directed that in the future only "natural born" citizens would be eligible for the nation's highest office. There may have been reason for suspicion of the foreign-born as the nation was in formation, but that nativist bias has no place in a nation proud of its "golden door."

When an immigrant is naturalized, his or her citizenship becomes as natural as "natural born." The oath taken and the pledge of allegiance given make the immigrant 100 percent American, with all the rights, privileges and obligations appertaining thereto. All except one - the right to the greatest political success.

That makes all naturalized citizens - including taxpayers, voters, servicemembers - slightly less than all-American. Even children born abroad of U.S. citizens have fallen under the shadow of Article II; this has caused pregnant women to race back to our shores to make certain their children's political potential is not somehow beclouded.

The unequalizer in our Constitution cries out for fixing. Some of us have been muttering about this for decades, but it's always been academic - a theoretical exercise in excising a discriminatory phrase whose purpose has long since atrophied.

Comes now Arnold Schwarzenegger, an immigrant from Austria who by a fluke of recall was able to circumvent the centrist-blocking primaries and get himself elected governor of California. Four of the last ten presidential elections have been won by former officeholders of that largest state in the Union.

Suddenly the theoretical possibility has taken human shape. If we cannot change Schwarzenegger into "natural born" (lay on, Macduff!), we can change the law to give "naturalized" its complete meaning.

He's a libertarian conservative, a man of the right whose popularity is rising on the Left Coast. Under the tutelage of former Secretary of State George Shultz and former Gov. Pete Wilson, he is using his celebrity, charisma and political moxie to break up the logrolling logjam that put this state into the hands of easily rolled legislators and budget-busting initiative rule.

Would he make a good national campaigner? No doubt. Would he make a good president? Much too soon to tell. He picks the best advisers and has been acting on their advice, but I get the impression Ah-nold is too full of himself. He would do well with the humility gained by a setback and a comeback.

He has been traveling to Israel and Japan, ostensibly for California's economy while burnishing his image as a potential world leader. Though modesty does not come easily to him, he professes to demur at the "Amend for Arnold" buttons that some supporters have been sporting to push for the 28th Amendment: Equal Rights for Immigrants.

My guess is that most liberals will be conflicted as this issue develops; antidiscrimination is an article of faith, but they don't want a yodeling Republican cowboy in the White House. Contrariwise, some right-wingers who look askance at a pro-choice candidate who is comfortable with gays are also closet nativists.

Yet both camps know that Hispanics make up the swingiest ethnic vote, growing each year, and could be influenced mightily by an issue like equal rights for immigrants.

One step up at a time. After ratification of the 28th Amendment in 2007, I envision a G.O.P. ticket the next year with Rudy Giuliani or John McCain on top and Schwarzenegger as running-mate. For Democrats, Evan Bayh or Hillary Clinton for president, Peter Jennings (Canadian-born) for v.p.

Chew that one over.

Edit: I may have to re-consider my position. Can't be agreeing with Saffire. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[CountDuckula]

[ QUOTE ]
One step up at a time. After ratification of the 28th Amendment in 2007, I envision a G.O.P. ticket the next year with Rudy Giuliani or John McCain on top and Schwarzenegger as running-mate. For Democrats, Evan Bayh or Hillary Clinton for president, Peter Jennings (Canadian-born) for v.p.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's an awfully optimistic prediction. First, Congress has to debate and approve the proposed amendment. The Senate is still sufficiently divided that I forsee a filibuster there (and I'm doubting that the cloture rules will change soon; I think that there are enough moderate Republicans who will join the Democrats to shoot that down). Once it gets out of Congress (if it ever does), it will require the approval of 38 states to pass the amendment. I'm doubtful that this will happen at all, much less within 3 years.

-Mike

[Bubbagump]

Personally, I don't think this is something we are going to have to worry about for a while. I think we will see both a black and a woman president long before we ever see a foreign born citizen elected.

I doubt I'll see it in my life time.

Bubbagump

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it is a pretty big supposition to say that this amendment would not increase the quality of the pool of viable presidential candidates.


[/ QUOTE ]
If you accept that naturalized citizen candidates are equal in quality to natural born candidates then expanding the pool to include naturalized citizen candidates does not improve the overall quality of the pool. The quality of the pool would remain constant.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I'm going to focus on the part of your post that won't result in a flame war.

Increasing an overall pool of viable candidates should increase the overall quality of presidents.

Saying that naturalized citizens cannot run for President is the same as saying women or minorites cannot run for President.

Ok, imagine this:
You have to hire one person.
How many candidates for the job do you want, 10, or 15, assuming that the average quality of both pools per candidate is the same?

You want 15, because that gives you a higher chance of having a candidate that fits all your needs. You generally don't care how many horrible candidates are added to the job, because you're never going to hire them anyway.

I hope this makes sense.