Getting rid of 'natural-born' President rule??

[Guest MikeSC]

That's not what he saying. He's saying that if someone is born in another country and comes to the United States at a very young age, before they can be strongly influenced by their home country and develop political opinions, then they should be eligible to run for President. I can certainly see that as being a reasonable idea, moreso than a full lifting of the rule.

Thank God you have enough of sense to understand what I meant. I just don't see any reason why so many people should instantly be kept from running, because of something so much beyond their control.

 

What are the rules on this for other various countries?

 

Just think about what might have been had various presidents throughout history had been born in another country, for whatever reason.

 

As the rule stands, isn't it still possible that someone with greater ties to another nation could become president of the USA? Someone could have been born here at a very early age, moved to another country, and over their life could have only lived here a total of 14 years or so.

DH, I'll say almost all of us get what you're saying. We're simply trying to demonstrate both the problems that changing the law will cause and, quite honestly, the lack of a real need to change it.

 

As for other countries, good luck becoming CITIZENS of other countries if you aren't native, much less an elected official.

 

The law doesn't need to be changed. Having seen officials in other countries, I'll take our government over theirs.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

I believe Mike pointed out in the other thread on this topic, how great this worked out for Germany and France when they allowed foreign born men to rule their countries...

[Dr. Tom 0]

I just don't see any reason why so many people should instantly be kept from running, because of something so much beyond their control.

Because the President has a sworn duty to the country, its Constitution, and its people. He cannot have even the appearance of divided loyalties. Because the President has access to a wealth of very sensitive information, the barest threat he could somehow use it to benefit his native country is too much of a threat.

 

What are the rules on this for other various countries?

I imagine they're similar, but I honestly don't care.

 

Just think about what might have been had various presidents throughout history had been born in another country

Sorry, I don't want spineless shitheads like Jacques Chirac and Kofi Annan polluting the White House.

 

As the rule stands, isn't it still possible that someone with greater ties to another nation could become president of the USA? Someone could have been born here at a very early age, moved to another country, and over their life could have only lived here a total of 14 years or so.

The election process would weed such a person out. Too many people would be skeptical, and you know the other party would just HAMMER such a candidate on something like this.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Is the President still elected by the public in the U.S.?

[pappajacks 0]

For someone to become President, he would have to be crowned by the Democratics or Republicans as their leader and then have to win the election where Americans have a right to vote (unless the President passes away). Thus, the "foreign" candidate wouldn't be a nobody freshly arrived from Irak like a previous poster mentioned. I say if someone (no matter where he's born) can win the Democratic/Republican presidential race and then win the general election, then he deserves to be President.

[Downhome 0]

The election process would weed such a person out. Too many people would be skeptical, and you know the other party would just HAMMER such a candidate on something like this.

Since it weeds out such people now, why wouldn't it do the same if the rule was partially lifted?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

If it got lifted, I could run for President!

This right here is the reason to keep the rule in place.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Obviously when people think of this issue, the first scenario that comes to their mind is some foreigner comes to the U.S and immediately runs for President. If you're worried about someone from the Saudi family coming over and running and WINNING, then you're an uber retard.

 

The issue is most serious (I think) when we're dealing with people who have been in the U.S for a long time and thus are under the radar. My father for instance was born in Canada, moved to the U.S and got his citizenship before he finished high school in 1960(!). Certainly he should be eligible for the Presidency right? Wrong! Because he STILL has some attachment to Canada and STILL follows Canadian news. There's still that sliver of attachment and bias that will probably never go away.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've had a lot of people enter into corrupt deals with other nations that weren't born there. I can see the concern that Joe Immigrant might put his home country on Easy Street or secretly give them arms or whatever, but that's happening anyway.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

What's the difference between a "sliver of attachment and bias" to a country than say, an industry? A corporation? Or better yet, a multi-national corporation? If there were any "national pride" in a candidate, doncha think the opposition would run it into the ground if it were an issue? Which means it would be up to the voters to decide whether or not this "foreign" statesman would be fit to be their leader.

 

This rule doesn't even allow all American Citizens _the chance_ at becoming President. Where is the "Freedom" in that? Where is the democracy? It's ridiculous that someone could be a perfect fit to be president of the U.S.A. and can't because of a technicality.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

What's the difference between a "sliver of attachment and bias" to a country than say, an industry? A corporation? Or better yet, a multi-national corporation? If there were any "national pride" in a candidate, doncha think the opposition would run it into the ground if it were an issue? Which means it would be up to the voters to decide whether or not this "foreign" statesman would be fit to be their leader.

I'll agree with you that there are a lot of corportations that would sell out the U.S if profits were better under other scenarios or in other locations. But corporations aren't elected to carry out the duties of serving and possibly protecting the American people. The President is a very symbolic and important role that is exclusive to serving ONLY the American people. Not Iraqis, not Austrians, not Mexicans, not Slovaks or Canadians. They should have only one nation on their mind at one time.

[Guest MikeSC]

Is the President still elected by the public in the U.S.?

The President was never elected by the public.

This rule doesn't even allow all American Citizens _the chance_ at becoming President. Where is the "Freedom" in that? Where is the democracy? It's ridiculous that someone could be a perfect fit to be president of the U.S.A. and can't because of a technicality.

This is what the world calls "tough shit".

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'll ask again: Doesn't this bias already exist? I mean, it seems money is compensating for heritage anymore.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

I'll ask again: Doesn't this bias already exist? I mean, it seems money is compensating for heritage anymore.

Yeah, so why add more biases? Do you want to take steps toward globalism or away from globalism?

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Obviously when people think of this issue, the first scenario that comes to their mind is some foreigner comes to the U.S and immediately runs for President. If you're worried about someone from the Saudi family coming over and running and WINNING, then you're an uber retard.

 

The issue is most serious (I think) when we're dealing with people who have been in the U.S for a long time and thus are under the radar. My father for instance was born in Canada, moved to the U.S and got his citizenship before he finished high school in 1960(!). Certainly he should be eligible for the Presidency right? Wrong! Because he STILL has some attachment to Canada and STILL follows Canadian news. There's still that sliver of attachment and bias that will probably never go away.

Actually I don't think that situation should qualify for some sort of exemption at all. I'm thinking more along the lines of something like "kid is born to two military parents serving on a base in Germany, and moves back to the US when they are one year old" would be the type of situation where one could allow for exceptions. Someone who has had schooling in another country is too far along in their "intellectual development" to not be affected by biases and affinities.

[Downhome 0]

I thought if you were born on a US military base in another country it was considered US soil in the first place though.

[Dr. Tom 0]

I thought if you were born on a US military base in another country it was considered US soil in the first place though.

American embassies in foreign countries are considered American soil. I'm not certain about military bases, but it makes sense that they would be. Regardless, anyone born anywhere in the world to two Americans is an American citizen. However, if you're born in a London hospital to two American parents, you're going to end up a citizen of both the US and Great Britain. Dual citizenships are very taboo when it comes to things like security clearances because of the nature of the information a cleared person has access to. One person I know had to renounce his dual citizenship (Israel, one of our allies) to get his clearance. Another declined, and had to forfeit his job. The President would have a better clearance than anyone else, so the concern about allegiances to foreign governments is well-founded.

 

The point is not to allow everyone to run, not even all American citizens to run. We live in a republic, not a pure democracy. To run for President, a person has to meet certain criteria, which were setup for the protection of this nation and its people. To loosen those criteria would be dangerous and potentially very stupid.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

To run for President, a person has to meet certain criteria, which were setup for the protection of this nation and its people. To loosen those criteria would be dangerous and potentially very stupid.

 

*Big Laugh* I think "Not born in America" is less dangerous than, say, "has ties with big corporations which can create conflicts of interest" (and this is in general, not just related to Bush - it applies to Clinton as well).

[Guest MikeSC]

To run for President, a person has to meet certain criteria, which were setup for the protection of this nation and its people. To loosen those criteria would be dangerous and potentially very stupid.

 

*Big Laugh* I think "Not born in America" is less dangerous than, say, "has ties with big corporations which can create conflicts of interest" (and this is in general, not just related to Bush - it applies to Clinton as well).

Well, gee, care to name a candidate in the last --- hell, EVER --- who didn't have these conflicts of interest?

-=Mike

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

So how come one is permitted and the other isn't? So much for this "protection".

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well, gee, care to name a candidate in the last --- hell, EVER --- who didn't have these conflicts of interest?

-=Mike

Truman?

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, gee, care to name a candidate in the last --- hell, EVER --- who didn't have these conflicts of interest?

          -=Mike

Truman?

In bed with the MO political machine. VERY much in bed with them.

So how come one is permitted and the other isn't? So much for this "protection".

Because we have a right to make rules about who is President and who is not.

-=Mike