[macintologist]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

Call me a bigot or whatever but I don't think that president of the United States and commander in chief is a place for foreign-born citizens.

[voodoo]

BIGOT

(you asked for it )

[macvillage.net]

I think it just opens the door to much.

Just to much external influence. I want a president who as much as possible knows, and sides with US interests, as they relate to a world as a whole. Not someone who only remembers recent US history.

Not to mention, how an amendment like that would have changed the cold war. The solviets get a guy to pass off as an American, change his name...

think about the possibilities.

I do believe they should be able to make Senate, Congress, Mayor, Govenor, Cabinet Seats, etc.

I don't think people who spent 20 years overseas as an American (except military) should be allowed.

My point extends from the belief that the President should not be so influenced from the outside, they should of course be aware, and cooperating with the outside world. But someone running for office shouldn't have the bias of being born and raised outside the US.


Again, don't think any country should allow it. A leader of a people, should be one who has been always with the people. Not someone stepping in.


I'd change the age minimum before this.


It's not something I feel strongly about, just a personal opinion since the topic comes up. Either way, it's only a political position.

[Lerkfish]

A natural born citizen can still be controlled/influenced by outside or foreign parties.

[phoenixboy]

how is he doing as gov. of california? has he done anything substantial(positive?)? you haven't heared a lot about him over here since the election...

[OldManMac]

I agree with The Governator. I was born in Germany, but have lived here for 51 years. It's discrimination, I tell ya.

[Lerkfish]

This issue of requiring the president to be natural born has always struck me as bizarre, first: considering there's no way our first presidents could have qualified, and second: why then have we had no native american presidents? they've all been of white european lineage as far as I know..

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
This issue of requiring the president to be natural born has always struck me as bizarre, first: considering there's no way our first presidents could have qualified

How's that? Exactly which of our Presidents wasn't native born?

and second: why then have we had no native american presidents? they've all been of white european lineage as far as I know..

Asside from the issue of obvious racism... has one ever run?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
How's that? Exactly which of our Presidents wasn't native born?

Its early...I've not drunken my morning coffee yet. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Asside from the issue of obvious racism... has one ever run?

I certainly hope you're not accusing me of being racist here.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
This issue of requiring the president to be natural born has always struck me as bizarre, first: considering there's no way our first presidents could have qualified...

They qualified under an exception made for people who were citizens at the time of the Constitution's ratification.

I do agree that the natural-born requirement is bizarre. The fourteen-year residence would be enough, if one clarification were added: fourteen consecutive years of residence immediately preceding the election year. This will preserve the spirit of the set of restrictions -ensuring that an 'outsider' cannot simply waltz in and run- while removing the now-meaningless restriction on where you were born.

and second: why then have we had no native american presidents? they've all been of white european lineage as far as I know.

Name some of those who have run, what party (if any) they've affiliated themselves with, and what their platforms were.

Honest question. There has to have been at least one out there, but I have never heard of him (or her, as the case may be). Before we can analyze why these people have not run, we must first know who they were. The fact that we don't immediately know does tell us something, but that's not enough to base something on; we need more data.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
A natural born citizen can still be controlled/influenced by outside or foreign parties.

I agree. But less likely.

It could have it's positives (non-Americans tend to actually know what war is, and how international politics work). But it could also have it's negatives.

For example, the last thing we need to have started, is someone losing a political race in country, X, then start in country Y, then coming here.

It's no longer who is going to lead our country, but who is willing to deal with other countries issues. I personally don't think any country should allow it.

For an extreme example: Hitler loses in Germany then flies to England to take another shot at getting an Army. Then decides to go to the US and try.

At least if he's only eledgeable in 1 country, he's only got so many chances.

There's no law saying how many times you can change citizenship. Or under what terms you can do so.


At least when we only allow natural born, we have some limitations on how far people can take it.


For example. Our "extremists", going overseas where elections are easy to pull (there many countries like that). It's not something Americans may agree with... but it's going to appear as the Americans taking over.

If we do it, others will. It paves the way for a lot of problems. Each nation should retain enough independance to be able to think/act on it's own. Or else, collaboration is fundimentally flawed. The US doesn't "partner" with the US. The US partners with other countries.

This creeps me out slightly during times of war, and hostility (cold war?). This fundimentally flaws the built in protection nations have just by being nations during this period.


Granted it could all be avoided by a borderless world. But the rich and powerful won't even allow talk of that.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I certainly hope you're not accusing me of being racist here. [/B]

Wow. You do need that coffee!

I fail to even remotely see how you could interpret that this way! (But hey, it's early for me too, perhaps I mis-typed.) Okay, I'll clarify (if indeed that's needed) you wondered why no Native American has ever been elected president, as opposed to whites of European lineage.

Well- it seems to me that there's an obvious issue of racism involved (with the historic attitudes of the nation in general) as to why no Native American would have ever been elected president during most of this nation's history. I dunno, it seems pretty cut and dry to me. I’d venture it’s safe to say that before say, 1970 -maybe even later than that- it probably just would not have ever been possible.

As for the second part of my question, in all seriousness- has a Native American ever run or even been a possible contender? If not, it kind of negates the whole 'issue'.

[PookJP]

Of course Swartznegger should be allowed to run for President. Why shouldn't he? This idea that foreign born spies will infiltrate the government and undermine the strength of the nation was relevant in 1776, but holds little merit any more. If anything, I think this law only encourages xenophobia.

As was said earlier, native born Americans are subject to influence by foreign bodies, just as foreign born Americans are. We don't seem to complain about our candidates' being influenced by lobbying groups because we leave it up to their moral discretion to decide which money to accept. Why should we think that foreign born Americans have a weaker moral code and would be willing to sabotage America for foreign interests?

[Lerkfish]

I think there are valid points on either side of the issue...and just valid points that aren't categorized that easily.

Like: The underlying concern of not allowing the president to be influenced by outside parties or foreign interests is an interesting one, especially when we have done so much of that historically from the other direction, where WE were the foreign interest and influencing THEIR leader. We don't seem to find that treasonous for them whatsoever, though I certainly think that is a matter in which their perspective might disagree.

regardless: the intent, I think, is to better insure against an enemy taking over the country through subterfuge and running this country into the ground, ruining it financially through unsound fiscal policy and forcing it into unwise military actions that simultaneously spread across multiple theatres so that our defense resources are spread so thin we are ripe for invasion......hey! wait a minute!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Just to much external influence. I want a president who as much as possible knows, and sides with US interests, as they relate to a world as a whole. Not someone who only remembers recent US history.

Aside from your other points, which are all very good, this one interested me. Aren't immigrants required to pass a test on US history and government processes? I wouldn't be surprised if the average recent US citizen knows more about US history and government processes than the average 'natural born' US citizen.

[daimoni]

I wonder what other countries have such a law?

[BRussell]

I saw the Russert interview, and to be fair to Arnie, he was asked the question and responded in a joking "oh yes definitely haha" way. He may have been serious, but it was a response to a question rather than him coming out and calling for the change.

I don't know. Maybe it's a little unfair, and there are other like this Jennifer Granholm from Canada that would be included. But come on, there are probably 300 million eligible Americans. Is it really a pressing issue to expand the number of eligible presidents?

[ghost_flash]

They should remove the born from the phrase and leave it as Natural Citizen.
(i.e., Steroid Free), or at least for 14 years.





Actually, I think it would be cool if he ran in 2008 against Hillarity.

Also, isn't Ralph (vomit) Nadar from Mars? And, he's like 80 years old, ok 70, but that is pretty old to become president. Who is his VP?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Aside from your other points, which are all very good, this one interested me. Aren't immigrants required to pass a test on US history and government processes? I wouldn't be surprised if the average recent US citizen knows more about US history and government processes than the average 'natural born' US citizen.

Well, trivia and actually living are two different things.

Living in the US during some modern history, and learning who the first president was, or how many senators per state is quite different.

Trivia is a worthless. Lets face it. If the president didn't know how many senators per state... what harm does that really do. Personally I'm more concerned about him going AWOL during Vietnam, and possibily calling in family favors to be in the Texas national guard rather than joining the army. But that's a digression to make a point (lets not go off topic).

I'd rather someone who was here and felt the dynamics of Vietnam, rather than someone who knows what year the Constitution was written.

Knowing facts are fun, and they do get people to learn a bit. But seriously. What value do these facts hold for a president?

That's not to say an immigrant can't learn. I'm not saying that either. They indeed can. Arnold didn't become Govenor by only knowing where the Statue Of Liberty is.


I just think someone who is president should have at least lived the American life. I'm personally not a fan of presidents who grow up rich either (like Bush). I'd much rather someone who grew up in the ghetto, and rose to the top. At least they know what it's like to live as many American do. Rather than think the elete top 1% of our our economy represent american life.

Every individual grows up with certain values they got from their life. No matter what background, ethnicity, religion, location, time, whatever. You learned something, and your surroundings molded you. I don't think anyone would argue that.

My point is, that someone who will lead this nation, should at least have been molded in the place that they will lead.

IMHO a presidential candidate should live a year on the streets, and be required to do hard labor. And if they have done that already. Make them work in an office for a year and learn how business ethics and the workplace really interact. That way they understand how America truly is. Presidents are already out of touch.

IMHO Arnold would be great heading up the Department of Immegration. A department with many problems and issues. He's got enough of a voice to make a real difference. To many people slip through that mess of a system. And to many suffer due to the system being a mess. It takes years for some to legally get in, ruining a whole chunk of their lives. And others cheat and get in with no questions asked.

Someone with experience as an immigrant would really be a great person to put in charge. And I think he's got the right stuff for the job. A big mouth, first hand experience, and the ability to make quick changes and surround himself with the people who can make change happen.

[Demonhood]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Also, isn't Ralph (vomit) Nadar from Mars? And, he's like 80 years old, ok 70, but that is pretty old to become president. Who is his VP?

In his previous runs for pres it was Winona_LaDuke, a native american woman, btw.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Well- it seems to me that there's an obvious issue of racism involved (with the historic attitudes of the nation in general) as to why no Native American would have ever been elected president during most of this nation's history. I dunno, it seems pretty cut and dry to me. I’d venture it’s safe to say that before say, 1970 -maybe even later than that- it probably just would not have ever been possible.

Evidence, please? These are very serious accusations you're making; you had better be able to back them up.

[Gee-Man]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
how is he doing as gov. of california? has he done anything substantial(positive?)? you haven't heared a lot about him over here since the election...

Slightly OT, but I'll bite.

As a Cali resident who was quite opposed to the idea him as governor, I'll freely admit that hasn't done anything seriously negative so far, as I feared. It's annoying that he immediately backed off some of the more outrageous claims during his campaign upon taking office, like being able to balance the budget solely by "getting rid of fraud" and without cutting a dime of education (which is around 50% of the budget!), which nobody in their right mind actually took seriously. He could have avoided pandering with claims like that from the get-go, which would have made me less suspicious of him and made him appear less like a typical say-anything-to-get-elected politician.

As far as the budget, that's another area that he made noises about "cleaning house", but turned out to be more difficult to solve than he let everyone believe. Which is exactly what his detractors were saying all along, but it's only AFTER the recall when we hear the truth, away from the celebrity fog he created in order to get elected. But that's water under the bridge, now that he's there, I'm looking for results, no use dwelling on the past much more at this point.

As for doing what he promised, Schwarzenegger's repeal of the automatic "car tax" increase pulled another 4 billion or so out of California's pockets, making it that much harder to try to balance the budget. FWIW, another myth spread around about California during the recall - this "car tax" (actually the required registration fees) wasn't a Davis-created brand-new tax at all, as many tried to imply, the registration fees were temporarily REDUCED during the boom era, but the law had a clause in it that if the economy were to stagnate or cash became tight, the fees would automatically increase back up to what they before. This law was passed during Republican Pete Wilson's term PRIOR to Davis. People got used to paying low car registration fees during the past few years, so when the automatic increase kicked in, the guy sitting in the office at the time (Davis) took the hit. Arnold is attempting to balance the budget by borrowing, of course, and by making some so-far vague references to further cuts. He won't fully commit, tho, because he appears to be afraid of pissing off anybody, so nobody really knows what is going to be cut yet. He's also working to pass a balanced budget amendment, which sounds like a good idea right now, but as is usually the case with these things, is a bad idea when times are good (it handcuffs budgetary decisions).

Back on topic: While I don't feel that letting foreign-born citizens run for President is a bad thing, it's hardly a pressing issue for the nation, either. We have hundreds of millions of citizens, it would seem like a waste of time to have to go through the process of a constitutional amendment for a small handful who "might" want to be president. Other than Arnold, are there lots of foreign-born citizens out there just waiting for their turn? I would NOT support this if it were an attempt to get Arnold into office, but if there's a legitimate number of people who are being blocked, then maybe.

[swrate]

Jesse Jackson from Chicago run in 84

In Switzerland, you need the right to vote to be eligible, in other words, the swiss nationality.

What about a US cititizen who was only born in the US and lived abroad?
He/she would have the right to become President without being familiar with American life.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

So the fact that there was a racist attitude in the US toward Native Americans (as well as a lot of other races) is now debatable?

What, they were just confined to reservations and such out of kindness?


I'm sorry, I think it's a safe bet to say America wasn't about to elect a Native American President in 1800. Or 1900. And probably not even by say, 1968 for that matter. Ditto a black President, ditto a woman President, and ditto a lot of other folks other than white males.


Were Native Americans even allowed to VOTE for much of America's history? Were they even considered citizens? It's undenable that other groups weren't- and even women not allowed to vote until 1920. Let alone RUN the freakin' show from the very pinacle power position.


It's nothing to be proud of to be certain, but I somehow doubt it's debatable.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Well, trivia and actually living are two different things.

Living in the US during some modern history, and learning who the first president was, or how many senators per state is quite different
...

I'd rather someone who was here and felt the dynamics of Vietnam, rather than someone who knows what year the Constitution was written ...

Excellent points, but what of someone who immigrated to the US when they were a child, obtained US citizenship and lived most of their life in the US, experiencing the same major events as 'natural born' citizens?

[Lerkfish]

meh. I think its such an arbitrary restriction in general, but then again, so is the 45 years old limit. heck, I'm 45, but I feel no less or more qualified to do my job than I did at 35, or 30 for that matter.

It's an attempt to guarantee fealty from the candidate, but its a poor method for insuring that. As I've said, a natural born citizen could also be a traitor, and a non-naturalized citizen could be the best thing to happen to the country in terms of leadership.

It really should come down to who is the best man for the job....but we are so far removed from being able to determine that these days, if you can discern that through the smoke and mirrors of their entourage and spin doctors, you're clairvoyant.

[jonn804]

Arnie, you gotta walk before you can run.

[itai195]

Native American suffrage was granted in 1924, fyi.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
meh. I think its such an arbitrary restriction in general, but then again, so is the 45 years old limit. heck, I'm 45, but I feel no less or more qualified to do my job than I did at 35, or 30 for that matter.

I think knowing that you're not qualified for the position makes one more qualified than someone who thinks they are qualified.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
It really should come down to who is the best man for the job....but we are so far removed from being able to determine that these days, if you can discern that through the smoke and mirrors of their entourage and spin doctors, you're clairvoyant.

The problem is that the "best man/woman" for the job seldom has the ability, or the desire, to get to the top of the political ladder (climbing the political ladder being a far different job than holding a political position)

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by jonn804:
... you out of gotta walk before you can run.

That's a load of crap foisted upon us by those who wish to keep non-career politicians out of politics. I think the problem is that there are too many runners in politics and not enough walkers.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
That's a load of crap foisted upon us by those who wish to keep non-career politicians out of politics. I think the problem is that there are too many runners in politics and not enough walkers.

dunno...Reagan almost qualified for a walker. I think Dole was on the verge of needing a walker, and cheney has had some heart problems.

[macvillage.net]

Can we make a requirement to stretch before running?

Or wait 1 hour after eating?

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by itai195:
Native American suffrage was granted in 1924, fyi.

Native Americans were granted citizenship in 1924, but state laws prevented them from voting until 1948, iirc.

[Myriad]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
meh. I think its such an arbitrary restriction in general, but then again, so is the 45 years old limit. heck, I'm 45, but I feel no less or more qualified to do my job than I did at 35, or 30 for that matter.

The minimum age to run for presidential office is 35.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Myriad:
The minimum age to run for presidential office is 35.

really? I was always under the impression it was 45.

I stand corrected.

[Myriad]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
really? I was always under the impression it was 45.

I stand corrected.

If that were the case, John F. Kennedy could never have been elected. Lucky guy, eh?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
really? I was always under the impression it was 45.

I stand corrected.

Yep:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut....html#section1

[dtriska]

I always thought this requirement was quite funny. Sure, it made sense in 1776, but nowadays, some immigrants are more American than those born on the territory.

I also think the US, and a lot of other countries, could do with a bit of overhauling of its constitution. 200+ years is a long time, and laws that made sense back then may not make sense now.

As far as what other countries allow foreigners to hold the highest offices, Canada's Governor General is an immigrant. While she holds no real political power, she is Canada's head of state in place of the Queen.

[Truepop]

I don't have a problem with the rules and hope our tradition doesn't change. But I would like to say I have met a lot of americans that know more about our roots and our present than most natural born americans.