Currently, the United States Constitution prohibits any person originally born on foreign soil from ever becoming President. Is this policy necessary or outdated?
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution states that, "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."
So, even naturalized citizens such as myself (born over seas on a United States military base) can run for president once they have spent at least 14 years in the United States and are at least 35 years old. But, someone having been born overseas and moved to the United States, gained citizenship through all legal means (classes, pledge, etc.) can never run no matter the amount of time they've spent in the United States as a tax-paying legal citizen.
For most of the past 230 years this article of the US Constitution has been unargued and remained out of the controversial spotlight, although it has been criticized for cutting against the idea that anybody can come to America and remake themselves as a US-citizen, with no limits to what they might achieve. In the past couple of years, however, the emergence of Arnold Schwarzenegger as a major political force (not just as Governor of California but throughout the United States) has sparked a debate about whether this Austrian-born citizen should be allowed to run for President. Others point to popular Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (born in Canada), as another plausible Presidential candidate of the future; should the constitution ever be amended to allow foreign-born citizens to run?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I love what you have written here. I do not necessarily think we should amend the Constitution on this, but if the correct channels were taken, and an amendment was passed I would have no problem with it. Keep up the good work.
Thank you very much for your encouragement. That's truly appreciated.
Why do you think that we shouldn't make an amendment to this if you don't see a problem happening with this?
------------
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/fanaile-drupal-org
If the Constitution were amended with safeguards in place (i.e. having to be a citizen for X amount of years, etc), then yes, foreign born U.S. citizens should be afforded the same right to run for President as are those of us born on U.S. soil. It's a tad silly that where one is born (a fact of which they have no control whatsoever over) keeps one from being eligible to hold office as President. With all of the terrorist scare going on though, I'm not sure how well said amendment would go over with the rest of the nation. The fear of a terrorist becoming able to run and gain office would loom large in the minds of many.
"We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us." -Marcel Proust
Very true, we would need some stipulation that said they were legal citizens with at least, say, 15 years of residency or more. My best guess would be to say maybe even 20 years.
At any rate, I do think the amount of time should be longer than that of a naturalized citizen. Not because I don't think they could do a good job, but a naturalized citizen is born to American parents; it's reasonable to assume that said parents would at some point educate their child on the goings-on of their country's government (especially military parents). And with the amount of information, laws, stipulations, and ammendments - it takes a while to figure out what's going on.
Hell, in five years I could run for President and some things still have me confused.
-------------
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/fanaile-drupal-org
I think I need to play a little bit of the Devil's Advocate here, just to put out the other side of the story:
This Constitutional prohibition of "foreign presidents" was meant to be put in place so that people don't just come to the US to gain the ultimate national seat of power. If someone from another country with a foreign agenda decides to live in the United States for the required amount of years, and, during that time, builds a popular base under a false facade, then that could turn out disastrous. The reason we stick with "jus soli" (rights of the soil, or native birthright) because the child doesn't have a choice of where it is born, weeding out those who come to America for a hidden agenda.
I understand that viewpoint, and yes it does make sense.
However, the chances of someone coming over under false pretenses with the ulterior motive of running this country and gaining Presidential power are pretty slim *if* certain criteria are met.
For example, going through legal immigration and staying a legal resident for a minimum of 20-30 years. This would cut back on those compulsive thoughts of "hey, if I go and legally immigrate, I can run for President next year and then I will be in control." Immigrants that are already over a certain age will more than likely not be able to run just because of the amount of time, leaving the most eligible to be those people who immigrate here with their parents while still very young.
-----------
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/fanaile-drupal-org
i think an immigrant should be allowed to run, and the people will decide whether he is capable. most likely he will be rejected because the maajority of voters don't like new things
I don't think we should remove the citizen clause. The naturalized part, perhaps. I mean, who would want to rule a country they aren't even a citizen of anyway?
Still, I'm not so sure we should remove the naturalized part. Someone could lie and still have allegiance to another country while they become US citizens, and that might not prove so good as the ruler of our nation.
I think we need to get over the whole tradition of a white Christian man holding the presidency before we can move on to other things, though.
~C
Read the news: www.progressiveu.org/news
Nominate a featured blogger: http://www.progressiveu.org/node/27612
> Currently, the United States Constitution prohibits
> any person originally born on foreign soil from ever
> becoming President. Is this policy necessary or outdated?
I am a firm supporter of the idea behind this presidential requirement. While this is certainly not the case for all non-native citizens, I think it is reasonable to expect that a person who was born a non-citizen would have ties that could present a conflict of interests that could interfere with their ability to make the difficult sorts of decisions that Presidents are expected to make for the benefit of the United States and its citizens.
For example, most naturalized citizens have ties with family and friends who live in their native countries. Lets say that a non-native President is faced with the possibility of going to war with thier native country. Do you really think that a person like that would be able to "push the button" and initiate an attack that could very well destroy their childhood friends and extended family?
For a less extreme example, what if a non-native President who left their original country due to conditions of extreme poverty was faced with a very unfavorable (to the U.S.) piece of legislation that had a rider that sent money to their poverty-stricken homeland? Do you think that their personal experience as a native of that country would effect their decision on whether or not to veto that legislation?
All in all, I think the idea of allowing non-native citizens to become President is a very, very bad idea.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.