HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Now that it has nothing t...

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:40 AM

Now that it has nothing to do with current politics...

It's time to start the process of passing a constitutional amendment removing the requirement that a president of the U.S. be a U.S. citizen-by-birth.

Most countries don't have that kind of official insult to immigrants in their constitution...why should we?

It's not as though we still need to worry about an agent of the British crown or the Soviet Union coming to power, or anything remotely like that.

It's time to admit that naturalized citizens are just as much Real Americans as are any other American citizens.

(on edit)

There should, of course, be a ten-to-fifteen year residency requirement before a naturalized citizen can seek the presidency, in order to prevent international bazillionaires from seeing the U.S. presidency as just one possible path to personal global domination(so there wouldn't be, say, a Murdoch in '16 campaign).

59 replies, 3276 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 59 replies Author Time Post
Reply Now that it has nothing to do with current politics... (Original post)
Ken Burch Nov 2012 OP
kickysnana Nov 2012 #1
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #4
hay rick Nov 2012 #2
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #3
Angry Dragon Nov 2012 #5
dem4ward Nov 2012 #6
Agnosticsherbet Nov 2012 #7
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #8
GeorgeGist Nov 2012 #9
Comrade_McKenzie Nov 2012 #10
Brickbat Nov 2012 #43
pampango Nov 2012 #11
99Forever Nov 2012 #12
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #13
99Forever Nov 2012 #15
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #34
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #36
99Forever Nov 2012 #37
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #40
99Forever Nov 2012 #42
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #44
99Forever Nov 2012 #48
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #49
99Forever Nov 2012 #52
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #57
quinnox Nov 2012 #14
Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #18
quinnox Nov 2012 #20
surrealAmerican Nov 2012 #22
quinnox Nov 2012 #23
surrealAmerican Nov 2012 #38
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #26
Sgent Nov 2012 #29
calico1 Nov 2012 #31
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #33
Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #39
cherokeeprogressive Nov 2012 #46
pampango Nov 2012 #21
calico1 Nov 2012 #32
calico1 Nov 2012 #30
Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #16
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #41
MineralMan Nov 2012 #17
Agnosticsherbet Nov 2012 #25
MineralMan Nov 2012 #27
Agnosticsherbet Nov 2012 #28
LiberalAndProud Nov 2012 #54
gravity Nov 2012 #19
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #50
closeupready Nov 2012 #24
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #35
cherokeeprogressive Nov 2012 #45
liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #47
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #51
TheKentuckian Nov 2012 #53
LiberalAndProud Nov 2012 #55
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #59
Shankapotomus Nov 2012 #56
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #58

Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:54 AM

1. There are times when I miss the "unrec" button (sigh)

Because in the real world there are sleepers who are worse than the Republicans. I know, I knowm hard to believe but there are a hell of a lot of people who want what we've got, would like a short cut to get it and there are some that could fool the majority of us quite well.

Yeah it can happen with native born but it is harder to have a covert allegiance to someplace you have never been and devote your life to that without being found out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kickysnana (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:59 AM

4. The last thing a "sleeper" would do would be to seek the presidency.

Such people prefer to be as inconspicuous as possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:57 AM

2. Rec.

You seem to have misplaced your patriotic paranoia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hay rick (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:58 AM

3. There was more than enough of that in post#1

That post is almost an unintentional DUzy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:02 AM

5. NO!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:03 AM

6. Sorry I disagree. I like it the way it is thank you.

 

I like my Presidents "Made in USA".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:08 AM

7. This was actually suggested by Republicans...

Back when Arnold Schwartzenegger was the apple of Republican eyes, Republcans suggested laws that would define natural born as someone who had been a citizen for 20, 25, or 30 years.

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/immigration/arnold-schwarzenegger-president

The fight to change that, however, has already begun. Several legislators have proposed constitutional amendments, but ratifying them will be no easy task.

Amending the Constitution requires, first of all, that a bill be introduced in Congress. Senator Orin Hatch has introduced a bill that would allow immigrants who have been citizens for 20 years or more to run for president. In the House, Representative Rohrbacker proposed a similar bill, as did Representatives Sherman and Conyers. Additionally, Representatives Snyder, Frank, and Issa proposed an amendment that requires 35 years of citizenship for a naturalized citizen to run for president.

Any one of these proposed amendments could be adopted, but only after it passes both the House and the Senate by a two-thirds majority vote. After that, the bill would go to the state legislatures. If three-fourths (38) of the states vote to adopt the amendment, it would then become part of our Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:14 AM

8. I remember that.

Lucky for them that they didn't get their wish on that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:40 AM

9. word

Schwarzenegger

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:52 AM

10. Nope. A nation's leader should be bred in the nation. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 04:00 PM

43. So you want to dictate where the candidate's parents had sex?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 08:11 AM

11. Great idea though it will never happen. Way too much nativism in the US to expect that naturalized

citizens will ever be considered to be 'real' Americans. We may may have an immigrant-oriented, multicultural society on many levels, but there is still too much of the mentality - "one a 'them', always a 'them'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 08:20 AM

12. Yeah ... WTF, right?

We outsource everybody else's jobs, why not the Top Job too, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:20 PM

13. I said let naturalized citizens be president.

I didn't say "Move the White House to Bangalore".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #13)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:29 PM

15. Well golly gee Ken...

... that's much fucking better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #15)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:06 PM

34. It is, actually, since allowing naturalized citizens to be president

has nothing in common whatsoever with outsourcing.

Naturalized citizens are as American as native-born citizens. Why pretend otherwise? It's not as if there's something inherently suspicious or evil about moving TO this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #34)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:08 PM

36. Well, in point of fact, no, they are not. That's why we have a special term for the former.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #34)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:33 PM

37. That's your opinion.

From what I can see, you are outnumbered many times over and this isn't a rightie site.


Good luck with your tilting at windmills.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #37)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:42 PM

40. Why do you have an issue with immigrants?

The worst traitors in American history were old-stock Wasps, like Aldrich Ames.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #40)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:59 PM

42. Why do you have an issue with Americans..

... born in these United States?


Some of the worst tyrants, torturers, and genocidal maniacs were born in other parts of the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #42)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:40 PM

44. I have no issue at all with Americans who were born here(being one myself).

It's just that I don't accept the notion that we native-born citizens have any inherent claim to superiority on any level over anybody else.

Also, I trust people here to be able to suss out a potential tyrant, no matter what that tyrant's origins.

Oh, and what Andrew Jackson, a native-born citizen(IIRC)did to Native Americans and helped do to African Americans was as vile as the work of any foreign-born dictator. Jackson was the Hitler of this continent. And people such as Kit Carson and William Tecumseh Sherman were on the same level as any Gestapo or KGB agent.

You do realize that it's incredibly bizarre for someone whose icon is of John Lennon to be posting Millard Fillmore Know-Nothing Party-style rhetoric about immigrants, don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #44)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:47 PM

48. You don't quite get what ...

.. mocking someone else's silliness is all about, do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #48)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:12 PM

49. Are you just satirizing anti-immigrant talking points?

If so, that's a relief...you were close enough to the actual hate rhetoric to make it hard to tell.

(hint...the "sarcasm" smilie helps at times like that).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #49)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:32 PM

52. No..

.. I'm merely holding a mirror up to your arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #52)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 06:04 PM

57. Except for the fact that my arguments aren't silly and don't deserve to be treated as such

If you think I'm wrong, you have an obligation to make a serious effort to show why. Nothing I said in response to you was silly at all.

So that exchange on your part was all about condescension. How unworthy of you and how unworthy of John Lennon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:24 PM

14. not just no, but hell no

 

I don't want some foreigner coming here with a billion bucks and buying the presidency.

Also, to kill two birds with one stone, I am not in favor of admitting Puerto Rico as a state. Since you said only post in that thread if you supported it, this is a good place to post my opposition. No to statehood of Puerto Rico!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:35 PM

18. Why are you opposed to Puerto Rico statehood? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:44 PM

20. for a few reasons

 

One, and my main reason - I'm sick of the colonialism of the United States. I think we should even let Hawaii go back to being their own nation, if they want to.

That ship of acquiring new territory sailed a long, long time ago. No more imperial land expansion and land grabs. We have enough fucking land in North America already.

Two, I don't see any benefit we would gain of having them as a state. How would it benefit us? I can see how it would benefit them. Big time.

Three, I just don't like the idea of having Puerto Rico as a state. It just seems weird to think some island in the Caribbean would be part of the United States. I also think the same way about Hawaii. I think a country should be located on one continuous land mass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #20)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:51 PM

22. You do know, don't you ...

... that Puerto Rico is already part of the US, and has been so for rather a long time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to surrealAmerican (Reply #22)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:55 PM

23. I know they aren't a state

 

and that is what I'm against. Yea, we got territories like Guam, I knew that. But Guam isn't a state either. And I want to keep it that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #23)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 04:16 PM

38. Surely being a non-state is more like ...

... "colonialism" than being a state would be.


I find your position on this to be inconsistent with your stated objectives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #20)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:09 PM

26. Hmmm

Do we give California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico Texas Wyoming, Colorado, Oklahoma and Kansas back to Mexico?


And Alaska is not part of the continental United States. Do we give it back to Russia?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #20)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:46 PM

29. I don't see those as good reasons to deny statehood

I would certainly give Puerto Rico the right of self-determination, but if they choose to apply for statehood, I don't see refusing their request as reasonable. I would also support them forming their own country if they wanted. The imperialism argument sailed long ago, and adding them as a state or letting them form their own country doesn't change what the Spanish / US did 100's of years ago.

As for the benefits to us:
-- The most important IMHO is that we fulfill the spirit of our own country -- remember no taxation without representation. Puerto Rican's have no representation in their government except what congress / the president (which they vote for neither) chooses to give them. In fact, their individual citizenship can be revoked by congress at any time if it chooses.

Also, I'm not sure but its likely that our tax collections will go up. Due to the islands exemption from federal taxation for citizens and corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #20)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:58 PM

31. I find it rather odd.

Not connected to the mainland so that disqualifies them?

So we should get rid of Nantucket, Long Island, Block Island?

As for benefitting us, plenty of young men fought in wars dating back to the last century. A few of my relatives died, one has dealt with agent orange effects since he left Vietnam.

They aren't totally useless.



edited for typo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #20)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:04 PM

33. My thread wasn't anti-independence, it was pro-self determination.

If Puerto Rico develops a pro-independence majority(a stance that probably gets you beaten by the cops and put on lists of subversives at the moment, I suspect) I'd support that too.

Mainly, the commonwealth thing has to change, since it's the same thing as being a colony-no say in your destiny and all the wealth is stolen by the anglos on the mainland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #20)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 04:30 PM

39. Thanks for answering. I would agree with you except for the fact that being a territory

 

is horribly detrimental to them and the Puerto Ricans want to become a state. As it is they are perpetually victimized by American business while being the unwilling accomplice to corporate fraud.

Besides, look at how much cooler our flag would be.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #18)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:44 PM

46. I think Puerto Rican statehood, if it ever becomes a real issue, should be put to popular vote here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:47 PM

21. Puerto Ricans are already US citizens. Why should they not become a state if they so desire? It's

clear to me that they do.

"I don't want some foreigner coming here with a billion bucks and buying the presidency." - Good that you specified 'foreigner'. If you had instead posted:

"I don't want some Black coming here with a billion bucks and buying the presidency" OR "I don't want some woman coming here with a billion bucks and buying the presidency" OR "I don't want some gay coming here with a billion bucks and buying the presidency", you might get a different reception here. Just goes to show that nativism is still acceptable to many on the left, while we have, thankfully, moved beyond racism, misogyny and homophobia.

Somehow I don't think that a "foreigner coming here with a billion bucks" will have any more luck than romney had with his billion bucks.

"All men (and now women) are created equal." All citizens - whether native born or naturalized - should have the same rights. There are not and should not be different classes of citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #21)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:58 PM

32. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:50 PM

30. Why not?n/t



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:34 PM

16. As soon as we address the other 10,000 things that are more important. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #16)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:44 PM

41. I didn't say this was more important than everything else, for the record.

n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:35 PM

17. First, such an amendment would never be enacted.

Last edited Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Beyond that, there is no earthly reason to make that change whatsoever. This is one of your most scatterbrained propositions ever. Uff da!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #17)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:03 PM

25. That is the problem with all of these suggestions to amend the Constitution...

It is very difficult, and even where there appears to be a real public demand for such, there are always enough votes against the idea to stop it in its tracks.

The Equal Rights Amendment was passed in 1972 and has yet to ratified. And if the tenor of the past election is any indication, it won't be in the foreseeable future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #25)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:21 PM

27. Yes. Amending the Constitution is very

difficult, and should be. The process is extremely complex and requires an extraordinary amount of nationwide support. If any Amendment should have been ratified, it is the ERA. That it wasn't indicates just how difficult the process is.

The native born citizen requirement to be eligible to be President is one of the very fundamentals of the Constitution. There is absolutely zero chance that will ever be changed.

Why do we waste our time with such things, when there are real issues that actually can be dealt with? I've never understood that about DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #27)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:39 PM

28. It is because we are a large group of individuals, each with his or her own set issues.

DU does better than many at hearding cats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #27)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:49 PM

54. Discussing ideas is what we do on DU.

If this is wasting time, then all of our time here is wasted. Beyond that posit, I won't venture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:37 PM

19. Make it like the dream act.

If you become an American citizen at a young enough age, you should be eligible to be president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gravity (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:17 PM

50. Or simply with a requirement that you live in the country say, at least fifteen years first.

n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:58 PM

24. I would not support that. No need to change

that which is not broken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:07 PM

35. I'd wager a bet that it is decidedly NOT "time to start the process." WEIRD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:41 PM

45. Nnnnnnnnnope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:46 PM

47. where someone was born has just as little to do with loyalty as religion does

All these people who think there is a sleeper cell just waiting to become president sound as ridiculouse as people who said Kennedy couldn't be trusted because he was Catholic or Romney can't be trusted because he is Mormon or an atheist can't be trusted because they have no God and no moral compass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:19 PM

51. Arnold, is that you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:47 PM

53. What a jacked up priority in our present situation.

I just see such a thing as a complete distraction and culture war flotsam to gum up the works.

I'm sure the intent is good but I don't get the value to our people, how it cools the planet, or how it fixes a present problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:55 PM

55. If I really thought that any US ciitizen can grow up to be President,

I'd probably be on board with your initiative. However, I think the path is barred to most ordinary citizens, naturalized or otherwise. Before we take this issue on, I'd far rather see us tackle campaign finance reform, and especially the Citizens United travesty. Unbarring naturalized citizens from the post just isn't on my list of things to do right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #55)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:41 PM

59. Again, I never said this issue mattered more than all others...just wanted to get the ball rolling.

Getting rid of Citizens United is far more important, as is electoral reform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:58 PM

56. And what's to prevent power hungry wealthy people

from running in one country's election after another until they win? It seems your idea would invite those who love power with little to no loyalty to country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shankapotomus (Reply #56)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 06:06 PM

58. You'd have a residency requirement...say ten years or fifteen...

That would discourage such people.

Why assume that it would be RICH immigrants that would run? It's not as though poor immigrants aren't interested in being of service to the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread