Poll: Should foreign-born citizens be eligible to run for President?

[dolstein]

Poll question: Poll: Should foreign-born citizens be eligible to run for President?

[kixot]

1. Sorry, I'm all for immigration, but the presidency is a special post.

I think it's right to keep the qualificaiton as "natural-born".

[Castilleja]

2. Agreed, on this particular point

N/T

[dolstein]

4. A simple question

Why should someone who was born in the United States but spent much of their life living abroad be eligible to run for president, while someone who was born outside the United States, but moved here at a very young age (say, three months) and lived almost their entire life in the United States be prevented from running for president. How is that fair?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

17. agreed, but

You're right, in that situation, in my opinion I'd rather have the immigrant. But I'm not concerned with it frankly, it's a simple rule that works as well as any. No way I'd spend any time on a Constitutional amendment for this.

[Elidor]

3. Not just no, but HELL NO

Sorry to sound like a nationalist, but this seems like a no-brainer to me. We already have enough homegrown rich men with no regard for our democracy without importing more. I would make an exception for Chretien. But let's not open the Ahh-nuld Door.

[Sephirstein]

30. Here's what's ironic...

Chrétien is viewed as the most corrupt modern PM next to Mulroney.

I bet he's not even as corrupt as Carter.

[dutchdemocrat]

195. Canada

Eighteen percent of Canada's population is foreign born. I don't think they can hold that rule.

[realFedUp]

5. no, and especially not those who have dual citizenship

Bet a lot of Californians don't know that about Arnold.

[JackSwift]

6. No. Four words

Henry Kissinger. Arnold Schwarzenegger.




This rule eliminate some war criminals and bozos right out of the box.

[dolstein]

9. Four words

Richard Nixon. George Bush.

Sorry, but there are plenty of natural born citizens who'd make terrible presidents.

[JackSwift]

39. Yeah, if you finish the thought

I have to worry about Richard Nixon and George Bush, not HK or AS. That saves me a lot of work. You've committed the fallacy of assuming that if one rule does not solve all your problems there is no point to the rule. Well poppy-cock. Or tricky-dick, as the case may be.

[Jack Rabbit]

88. I believe, Mr. Swift, that it is your case that is fallacious

Arnold Schwarzenegger and Henry Kissinger are but two examples of immigrants among many. Would you exclude all immigrants from the White House simply because you can name one who is a war criminal and another who is a creep?

I wouldn't. I'll trust the people to either keep these guys out of of office or minimize the damage if they get in. Meanwhile, there perhaps many good people you would exclude along with these two.

[beyurslf]

230. How about 4 more words?

Jennifer Granholm. Madeline Albright.

Why should these fine women be ineligible for the job of the President?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. Not until Sun Myung Moon takes a nice long dirt nap

[rasputin1952]

55. But Moon says...

he is Christ re-incarnate. So he takes a 3day nap, and he's back. Perish the thought.

[ButterflyBlood]

109. you honestly think he could win?

sheesh.

[dolstein]

8. Wow, I had no idea DU'ers were so emphatically anti-immigrant

Honestly, apparently DU'ers aren't the least bit bothered by the fact that someone who was born outside the United States but has been a U.S. citizen for almost their entire lives is constitutionally barred from being President of the United States. Apparently DU'ers believe that the voters aren't capable of deciding on their own whether or not an immigrant is capable of representing the interests of the country.

[bhunt70]

11. not necessarily

It's not necessarily anti-immigrant, I actually think it would be a huge security risk.

[dolstein]

22. Why?

Why is someone who came to the United States, became a citizen at a very young age (say, six months) and has lived in the country, as a citizen, for sixty years any more of a security risk than a natural born citizen who has spent most of their life abroad?

[bhunt70]

34. I'll be honest

I can't tell you. I just have a feeling that it would open up the doors for an international intelligence agency to plant someone.

It's very far fetched I acknowledge, but if I thought of it then I would think people much smarter than I would also have that notion.

[dolstein]

40. I hate to point out the obvious

But internatioal intelligence agencies could also plant a couple in the United States, have them become U.S. citizens, and then have them give birth to a fifth columnist who will be raised to be President.

So are you ready to prohibit all U.S. born children of immigrants from running for president?

[bhunt70]

41. slippery slope much?

...

[BattyDem]

93. That's exactly what I was thinking.

It would be too easy to plant someone in our country. Yes, I know - they can recruit a "natural-born" citizen, but somehow it just seems like it would be easier if they were able to "train" a person from childhood to come to the US and eventually take over.

Ok ... so I've seen too many spy movies, but you never know! :tinfoilhat:

[Cheswick2.0]

186. Where would you draw the line?

Would there be a number of years they would have to have been a citizen? If not, how about someone like Ah-nold?

No thanks, there are plenty of us who will never be president for many reasons. I will worry about he poor immigrants rights when we have had a Black Jewish Woman president.

[blkgrl]

199. A person like that would never be elected

Seriously, all his opponents would have to do is bring up the fact that he/she lived abroad longer than they lived in the United States.

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. They are just spooked about Arnold

And they are not aware that MI Governor Jennifer Granholm, a woman who would be a great candidate for VP or President in a few years, was born in Canada.

[dolstein]

15. It's pretty sad that people would support a constitutional provision

that condemns an entire class of people to second class status just to keep one person out of the White House.

Can you imagine what it must be like for, say, a four year old immigrant to be told "In America, anyone can grow up to be president -- except you."

Geez, thank god Lyndon Johnson decided his civil rights policy based on principle and not political considerations.

[bhunt70]

19. it doesnt condemn anyone.

especially not to second class citizen...I am willing to bet that national security is one of the main reasons that citizens that were born in another country are not permitted.

[dolstein]

27. Like hell it doesn't

Someone who became a citizen as the age of three months, graduated at the top of their class, served with honor in the armed forces, and devoted their entire life to public service, holding the office of governor and senator, is, according to the Constitution, unqualified to be president of the United States. But someone who was born in the United States, never graduated from college, and never contributed to society in any meaningful way is presumed to be qualified to hold the office of president simply be reaching the ripe old age of 35. Please explain to me how this is not a double standard.

[Classical_Liberal]

31. What's the likelyhood such a person would become President

even if they ran. There are also some teens and adolescents that are more informed then most eligible voters. So what?

[dolstein]

35. So why not let the voters decide?

Why should the Constitution, and not the voters, decide whether or not a foreign-born citizen is fit to be president?

If a private employer decided to prohibit all foreign-born citizens from applying for a job, they'd be breaking the law. Why is it acceptable for the Constitution to make a sweeping judgement that ALL foreign born citizens, no mater how long they have been U.S. citizens, no matter how much they've contributed to society, are per se unfit to be president? How can you not find this provision obnoxious?

[NormanConquest]

36. But the voters don't decide...

the Electoral College decides.

[dolstein]

54. They decide who gets nominated

And the voters in each state (except, it appears, Florida), decide who gets the electoral votes from that state.

[Classical_Liberal]

44. Why do we discriminate against people under 18 with the right

to vote?

[MISSDem]

218. Because the framers of the constitution were amarter than

you and me and all of the other voters.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

20. Oh please Dolstein...second class status my ass

They were turned into second class status when NAFTA was agreed to...if you aren't in the top half of the top one percent you are second class status.

Can an Arab be Prime Minister of Israel?

[dolstein]

32. Yes, an Arab can be Prime Minister of Israel

Sorry to disappoint you.

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/azmi.htm

Arab Plans to Run for Prime Minister of Israel

By JOEL GREENBERG

ERUSALEM -- In the ever-shifting chess game of the Israeli election campaign, Azmi Bishara has put a new piece on the board.

An Israeli Arab member of Parliament and political philosopher, Bishara said he will join the race for prime minister, becoming the first Arab to do so.

. . .

Part of a new breed of Israeli Arab politicians, Bishara, 42, a Christian from Nazareth, asserts that the Arabs in Israel, one out of six Israelis, should be recognized as a national minority in a "state of all its citizens" that would grant genuine equality to Jews and non-Jews alike.

. . . .

To that end, Bishara is well on the way to collecting the required 50,000 signatures to submit his candidacy, and he is planning to throw his hat in the ring at a news conference Thursday.

Encouraged by surveys showing that many Israeli Arabs would vote for an Arab candidate for prime minister, Bishara optimistically predicts that he will win at least half of the Arab turnout, or more than 150,000 votes.

. . .

[Kenneth ken]

185. nsma & Dolstein

this is a bad argument. The question, can an Arab be PM of Israel is responded to as a yes.

However, the question would have been better phrased as 'Can a Syrian (or other non-Israel-born person) be PM of Israel?'


The answer referencing Azmi Bishara, overlooks the fact that he was born in Nazareth, which is an Israeli city.

The original context of this thread dealt with foreign-born people being allowed (or not) to become president of the US.

[Lurking Dem]

212. If they are an Israeli citizen

and at least 30 years old then, yes, they can be PM of Israel.

[Classical_Liberal]

23. It isn't just one person actually

Governerships are fine, but the President does foriegn policy, and a person with Dual Citizenship can be very conflicted. The Right Wingers in the Cuban community, and the Likudniks in the PNAC have really put me off to this idea. Sorry.

[ButterflyBlood]

110. I find it pretty amazing

you are pretty far to the left of most DU'ers on this issue. oh well, but we are agreeing for once.

[sangh0]

207. Dolstein, that's just ridiculous

Calling people who can't become President "second class status" is just hysterics, and LBJ never did anything without considering the political ramifications and his own ambitions. That's why LBJ is single-handedly responsible for the fact that not one civil rights bill passed in the Senate for over a decade.

[w4rma]

16. I want my President to have ties to America that are as strong as possible

I don't want to see folks, who have stronger ties to another country, take over our country's government or our country's resources.

This is one aspect of "liberalism" that the Republican Party can keep as their own, IMHO. I don't see how it helps regular Americans, so I don't see it as "progressive".

[shepard]

28. Very American

Tkele-Cho-Gi

[stevedeshazer]

33. dolstein, it's about the Constitution

Our current Department of "Justice" has already tried to alter it.

It has nothing to do with anti-immigrant stuff. I come from a family of immigrants, as do all save Native Americans, and if you go back far enough, well....

Two more words: Alberto Fujimori.

Okay, maybe that's hysterical. But changing the Constitution invites more changing of the Constitution.

If we couldn't get the Equal Rights Amendment passed, how can we justify this?

[ButterflyBlood]

133. so we shouldn't get rid of the Electoral College?

I'm pretty sure every DUer has at least one amendment they wouldn't mind passed. I think removing this discriminatory provision is worth an amendment.

[Book Lover]

164. I dream of the day when we directly elect the President

The Electoral College is an obsolete farce.

[stevedeshazer]

211. No

I live in a small state. My vote won't mean squat without it.

Presidential candidates would never go any where but California, New ¥ork, and Texas. Much of the West, Midwest, and Northeast would be ignored even more than they are now.

[Book Lover]

214. Bulldinky!

I live in California. Every single bingle person who voted for the current officeholder had their votes *thrown out* because the state went to Gore. Is that right? Their votes meant absolutely nothing.

[gristy]

43. Wow, I had no idea some DU'ers were so emphatically stupid

Wow, I had no idea DU'ers were so emphatically anti-immigrant

You are misequating the position that only a U.S. born citizen should be allowed to be president with a general anti-immigrant bias. Perhaps you said this in a fit of pique. They are obviously not the same. Not by a country mile.

[blkgrl]

196. No matter what, its a conflict of interest

Now please don't get me wrong and try to paint me as xenophobic, MY OWN MOTHER is an immigrant (she moved to the states at 19). But if someone has to choose between an action that will harm the United States and benefit their home country or vice versa, I'm not sure that all immigrants would put Americans first.

[hayu_lol]

203. The founders had good reason for the 'natural born' requirement...

in the Constitution. That reason is as valid today as it was then. An immigrant's child, born here, can be the president in the family. All of us in the US come from Immigrant Stock.

During the revolutionary war, the Irish were not allowed to join the continental army unless they married a native born wife.

[ButterflyBlood]

204. the reason

was that they were worried about some Brit coming over, winning and instating a monarchy.

valid today?

[bloom]

well - look at California, today

RE:
"the voters aren't capable of deciding on their own whether or not an immigrant is capable of representing the interests of the country"


Actually - I have more of a problem with celebrities - esp. of the acting/bodybuilding/fake wrestling variety. It would be nice to be able to exclude them. The voters seem to be all about name recognition and who the hell cares what their qualifications are.

[Northwind]

10. Ah, I see we have 33 fascist bigots already making their presence known.

Shameful.

[bhunt70]

13. no reason for name calling.

...

[dolstein]

18. How about xenophobic diletantes?

Is that more to your liking?

[bhunt70]

21. sounds just like

bullshit to me.

[Classical_Liberal]

24. I guess the guys at the constitutional convention were fascists

.

[Syrinx]

25. What bullshit.

Someone disagrees with you, so they are fascist bigots?

[shepard]

45. fascist bigots

One word for that.Yil-Doi

[IranianDemocrat]

56. I love it when extremists use the word "fascist" to anyone...

...who disagrees with them. When doing that is fascism itself.

[Brian Sweat]

139. Actually, you're all throwing around the "F" word a bit too much.

It takes more than a little jingoism or name calling to make someone a fascists.

[roguevalley]

14. the constitution is sacred

if a nutjob like Hatch wants to change it, then NO!!!!!!!

[dolstein]

42. Was the 3/5 clause sacred?

Are you opposed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments?

[Classical_Liberal]

47. No they weren't but there are bigger injustices

than this. I think the electoral college is a bigger problem, because it discriminates against blue state voters in favor of acreage. So is campaign financing. These are much bigger obsticles to good candidates than the native born clause.

[shepard]

26. No

That office should be reserved for U.S. born only.Too much at stake there.

[Lefty_the_Right]

29. Haven't enough jobs been sent overseas?

Let's keep this one at home.

[rasputin1952]

59. ROFLMAO ! ...

you hit it on the head!

:bounce: :kick:

[guajira]

37. I Lived in Miami - And I Say, No Way Jose

Six words - Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart,
Mario Diaz-Balart

They left Cuba when they were too young to remember it, and have never been back - but they don't give a shit about Americans rights or the rights of Cubans on the island.

They represent "exiles" to the detriment of everyone else!!!

[inthecorneroverhere]

38. absolutely not!!!!

As the daughter of a WWII vet whose family came over from Germany circa 1840s, absolutely not!

The Presidency is the one office with the power to declare war. There must be not one shred of loyalty to a foreign country of birth.

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. Actually, only Congress has the power to declare war

Article I, Section 8:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1

[Classical_Liberal]

51. He is the commander and chief

He doesn't have the power to declare war, though this rule certainly hasn't been followed since Korea.

[Forkboy]

46. Voted yes

and extremely saddened to see so many NO votes.

[dolstein]

49. We finally found something about which DU'ers and Freepers can agree

Now THAT's sad.

[Art_from_Ark]

72. Oh, brother

There is absolutely no compelling reason to change the Constitution in this manner. Absolutely none. No major country in the world has a foreign-born leader.

As for the American-born, living overseas argument, I seriously doubt that Americans would be willing to vote for someone (like me) who has spent half their life overseas, unless, perhaps, that person had been in the foreign service or in the US military. The longer one spends overseas, the harder it is to cultivate the network of supporters, financers, advisors, etc., necessary to run a campaign, much less attract the public's attention.

This proposed amendment is nothing more than an attempt to let someone like Schwartzenegger in through the back door. Repubs need stupid candidates with a wide appeal. Schwartzenegger fits that bill perfectly. You should know enough about Repubs by now to know that NOTHING they have proposed or supported since 2000 has been for the good of the country.

[dolstein]

77. "No major country in the world has a foreign-born leader."

Call me a starry-eyed idealist, but I believe the U.S. should hold itself to a higher standard than the rest of the world. If we truly believe that all of our citizens are equal, then the Constitution should any citizen, regardless of where they were born, to seek the highest office in the land. Discrimination based on national origin is illegal - EXCEPT when it comes to running for president. Why should we allow this vestige of discrimination to remain in our Constitution?

[dsc]

81. I am pretty sure you are wrong on this

I know more than a few Central American countries have had leaders born elsewhere (I admit to not knowing if one does now) and Isreal has had numerous leaders born abroad (have they had any native born leaders?).

[Art_from_Ark]

91. Do any Central American countries qualify as "major"?

I think not.

As for Israel, it is an exception in that it has been an independent nation for only 55 years.

[dsc]

92. I will grant you that

but I also think that places like England and Italy also had foreign born leaders fairly recently. Germany did but that example is bad (Hitler was Austrian born).

[NewJerseyDem]

50. Yes, after awhile

I think they would have to be citizens for a long time, maybe 20 years to prove their loyalty. However, I don't know if I would change the constitution. It just doesn't seem that important and I'm generally reluctant to amend the constitution. I don't think a foreigner would ever win anyway so it doesn't really matter if you amend it.

[the_real_38]

52. No, or we'll end up....

... with an Israeli president.

[dolstein]

57. Is there any way to create a "Hall of Shame" for posts like this?

NT

[mitchum]

60. You could just pin them up on the same wall where you keep all of your...

strawmen

[bhunt70]

62. Why? So we can all remember your name calling?

sounds like a plan.

[dsc]

67. Good lord

I am trying to imagine what would happen to your post if it had been against any other ethnic group. Somehow I bet it would have name deleted by now.

[the_real_38]

74. What ethnic group is that?

My claim was about a country , not a religion -> must have been on the back of your mind.

[dsc]

75. Since we are talking about foreign born citizens

then the conclusion I drew was the only logical one to be drawn.

[dolstein]

78. Why does this surprise you, dsc?

This post is hardly unique.

[Darranar]

53. YES!

Of course! Why not?

[teknomanzer]

58. Come on people this isn't real debate its name calling...

Is anyone even going to take into account the historical perspective of the framers of the constitution?

I don't believe that these men were terribly xenophobic. After all the constitution does not disallow non-native citizens from any other position of government. The only position denied is head of state, commander and chief, the president...why?

Remember that the tyrant of the time was George II, who was definitely not a native born British citizen. The elite of the kingdom had decided to fill the vacancy of the head of state, the British throne, with a German... His only link to England... his blood relation to royalty there.

Is it possible that the framers of the constitution put in that provision simply to eliminate a similar situation from happening in the newly formed nation? Wasn't it to avoid anyone with royalist sentiment left in the new country from bringing the Crown back into power? And if this is the case is such a provision still necessary today? Isn't it possible for the American aristocracy to bring in their foreign born chosen son if the native born candidates differ on policy?

I base my answer on this set of arguments. I voted no.

[bhunt70]

61. good post.

...

[dolstein]

66. Sorry, but you completely lost me here

<<Isn't it possible for the American aristocracy to bring in their foreign born chosen son if the native born candidates differ on policy?>>

I believe the "American aristocracy" you refer to has demonstrated that it need not look overseas to find candidates who are willing to do their bidding.

Again, unless your willing to assume that (a) foreign born citizens, as a class, are less loyal to the United States than native born citizens and (b) voters are simply incapable of weeding out "disloyal" foreign born citizens, I simply find no justification for this provision. It's antidemocratic. It's flagrantly discriminatory. In short, it's un-American. It's a stain upon our Constitution, and it ought to go.

[teknomanzer]

76. Well summed up...

But then I have to ask you why a Republican is proposing such an amendment just as a certain right wing Hitler loving Austrian is running for the office of one of the largest states in the country?

One of those things that make you say hmmmm...

And yes the American Aristocracy has found a native born puppet in Bush. But what happens IF... I say IF no native born citizen qualified to be President decides not to play ball with them.

Also, you seem to have a problem with only the last item. Have you no opinions on the rest?

[Jack Rabbit]

85. That seems to be a red herring

This is the right message, but Hatch is definitely the wrong messenger and Arnold is definitely as bad as you say he is.

However, this is about more than Arnold. This is about whether a nation that boasts of being a land of opportunity for immigrants should make available its highest office to any eligible immigrant who seeks it.

I have stated on these boards the last several weeks that I believe Arnold Schwarzenegger is woefully unqualified to be governor of California. However, it is not being an immigrant that makes him so. It is my judgment that he simply doesn't have a clue what it takes to be governor of a large state. It is a judgment I came to before last weekend's flurry of revelations about his disrespect for women, which certainly didn't help his cause with me.

Okay, so you want to keep things as they are because to do so would exclude one sleazy scumbag from the White House. Well, we have plenty of native-born sleazy scumbags who can live there. Witness the present sitution. However, the real question is whether along with Arnold we also exclude worthy people from office by maintaining the status quo.

[dolstein]

89. Why shouldn't Arnold be able to run for President?

I can think of many reasons why he shouldn't BE president, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was born in Austria. And many of these reasons are equally applicable to native born Republicans.

In short, I fail to see any reason why foreign born citizens, AS A CLASS, should be barred from seeking the highest office in the land. I simply can't accept the argument that in order to prevent Arnold from being president, we should continue to prohibit ALL immigrants (including, Jennifer Granholm, the Democratic governor of Michigan) from seeking the office.

[teknomanzer]

104. again I state my argument I think it is solid.

1. The provision is but one barrier to prevent foreign rule and devolution to monarchy. Now you may believe to your very core that monarchy is dead, but I don't, America may someday have its Caesar.

2. The provision does not discriminate against the sons or daughters of immigrants, it is not xenophobic.

3. On a practical and strictly political level, I can't place any trust in such a change based on who has presented the modification. The reasons for it are transparent.

[LeahMira]

208. Tradition has a vote, but not a veto.

1. The provision is but one barrier to prevent foreign rule and devolution to monarchy. Now you may believe to your very core that monarchy is dead, but I don't, America may someday have its Caesar.

Perhaps it has already a native born individual who would like to be its Caesar?


2. The provision does not discriminate against the sons or daughters of immigrants, it is not xenophobic.

OK, my mom was born in Italy and came to this country with her parents when she was twelve. She is seventy-three now. She can't be President?


3. On a practical and strictly political level, I can't place any trust in such a change based on who has presented the modification. The reasons for it are transparent.

I think you need to look at the idea and evaluate it on its own merits, and not on the merits of who is proposing it. After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

[dsc]

80. In fariness to the founders

it did make sense at the time. Europe was replete with examples of foreign born leaders taking over countries for other country's benefit. But it is out moded now. This isn't like slavery or denying women the right to vote which were manifestly bad ideas no matter the era.

[Classical_Liberal]

102. Look Max Boot(exRussian) is running around promoting empire

Canadian Imperialist Charles Krauthammer has dismissed people upset about the fact that Bush stole the election as being petty zealots. exRussian Ayn Rand(supporter of the czar) wanted to replace voting completely with corporatocracy. There is still a danger that some immigrants don't share American values.

[dsc]

215. then we wouldn't vote for them

It was the combination of foreign intrigue and less informed electorates that was the problem. Also the problem with the people you cite is that they have idiotic ideas not that they favor foreign governments. We have many home grown idiots.

[rasputin1952]

68. But if the bush cabal tries to keep power...

it is some form of "democratic republic royalist" gov't?

[teknomanzer]

82. You all seem to ignore the fact...

That the constitution has several barriers to prevent the office of the president from becoming the position of a monarch. Perhaps at this time in our history there is no threat of aristocratic rule through a network of interelated families spanning several nations, but the possibility always lingers.

I think it is a good idea to have the provision there, and I don't believe its reason for being is xenophobic.

[Art_from_Ark]

100. A little historical clarification

The tyrant of the time was George III, who was born in England. His grandfather, George I (born Georg of Hanover), was the one who was brought to England from Germany after Queen Anne died without leaving a successor in 1714. All three King Georges of America (I, II, III) married German noblewomen (perhaps one reason why German mercenaries were used in the Revolutionary War?).

But you are correct that the intermarrying of royalty and rule by foreign kings did play a large role in the framers' decision to limit the qualifications for President to natural born citizens.

[teknomanzer]

115. Thank you for the clarification...

I feel a bit of a doltish now.

However, I do maintain that such is the circumstances the framers of the constitution were attemting to avoid.

At least I had the concept down... sheesh :+

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rasputin1952]

64. Seems to me, the real question to be asked is...

WHY is this an issue?

What possible reason could there be for expending energy in an amendment that is ure to fail. Even if Congrees passed this, it would have to get through 33 state legislatures, and that isn't going to happen.

WHY, would this even be contemplated? There has to be an answer why this was even brought up in the Senate.

We have 400 million people in this country, and some idiot comes up with this gem. I am disgusted!

:kick:

[dolstein]

69. Because it's the right thing to do?

Because all U.S. citizens ought to have the same rights and the same opportunities regardless of where they were born?

Because people should be selected for the highest office based on merit, not on where they were born?

Because foreign born citizens have distinguished themselves at all levels of government in which they have been permitted to serve?

[Classical_Liberal]

70. The electoral college prevents more candidates of merit

from running than this does, by biasing in favor of rural voters. So does the lack of public financing of our campaigns.

[Jack Rabbit]

71. I wish I could agree with you on that

Yes, I think it's the right thing to do.

However, I don't think that it is the right thing to do is what is motivating Senator Hatch.

[rasputin1952]

79. But WHY did Hatch bring this up?...

Is this a smoke screen?

What is coming in under the radar?

Are you trying to tell me that Hatch is suddenly thinking this is the best thing since sliced bread?

I don't think so...WHY would a RWnut push for this?

It makes no sense to me.

[Jack Rabbit]

99. We both know why Hatch is bringing this up

Hatch is bringing it up for the worst of reasons.

Apart from that, is there anything to be said in favor of the idea? I think there is. Dolstein thinks there is. In case you haven't noticed, he and I don't usually agree.

[rasputin1952]

117. Not trying to be facecious but...

it is a proposition that has NO chance of passing through the Congrees, and if it ever did, 33 of the state legislatures would NEVER pass this thing. It is a waste of time and effort.

Hatch is a buffoon, and this may well tick off enough people to oust him next time around.

As for the 'you and I' innuendo, I haven't a clue why he would bring it up. There is not one Senator that wouldn't sell his or her soul to be preident, to add the possibility of a foreign born candidate running against them is just slightly above ludicrous.

You can support this, but I can't.

[salin]

111. expending energy and tons of dollars on this (to get it through the

process) is more important than an amendment to the constitution on something like... equal opportunity (the once almost radified ERA amendment?). Though I came of age at the tail end of that (NEEDED more than just "fairness" movement) I learned that the cost of new amendments to the constitution is enormous - and unlikely to succeed. I am not voting in the poll - because it really seems irrelevant and unimportant in the grand scheme of things given the costs and the things that seem more central that we are willing to overlook (and not push) in terms of constitutional amendments.

[Jack Rabbit]

65. I voted for the Hatch proposal

That's the one that says 20 years as a citizen will make one eligible to be president.

However, I am really steamed at the way Hatch brought it up and made it all about that hunk of a scumbag. As I mentioned on the other thread, I was once married to a Korean lady who became a naturalized citizen. I'd still vote for her before I'd vote for Arnold. She's far more worthy to hold public office than he.

Of course, she didn't come here as a millionaire and I can assure you she didn't marry a wealthy or glamorous man. She worked hard for what she has now. I am proud to have helped her get to where she is, even if she'll never make $35 million in a year.

My way of stopping Arnold from being President will be voting for somebody else tomorrow. I trust the American people to see through that pompous ass long before he becomes President. However, that does not mean others are unworthy.

Hatch's proposal may not have been presetned well. However, it is, at least in principle, a good idea. Perhaps we can take it up at a better time for rational disourse than now.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Uzybone]

225. Arnold didnt become rich

by marrying a Kennedy. He made most of his money himself. Not defending him but your example is lame.

[Jack Rabbit]

243. My defense

I didn't say he got rich by marrying a Kennedy.

The fact is that Arnold laid the foundation of his wealth in body building competitions in Europe. He was a millionaire before he immigrated to America. I said that is not the case with my ex-wfie.

A further fact is that he augmented his wealth by marrying a woman from a wealthy family who also made a handsome salary as a television personality. My ex-wife married a man from a working/middle-class family that benefited from the New Deal. The man she married was just getting out of the army at the time and beginning a career as a computer programmer.

[fla nocount]

73. No. The same goes for those with dual citizenship as well as those

eligible for it. Conflict of interest should always be ruled out in this particular position of trust and authority.

Flame away, you know whose throat I'm going for.

[MrPrax]

83. LOL...Good to see all the Progressives hang at DU

Yeah...all out to support 'dual' class citizenship

Why worry about whether British monarchists will takeover? I mean we got consitutionally protected automatic weapons...

Open minded lot...

[0rganism]

84. Maybe we should revisit the world scene from 1780 and see why....

Article II: "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."

This prevents the sort of "foreign exchange" rulers that had plagued Europe for so long, up to that time. Sometimes, a family could have members in the royalty of several countries, complicating matters of state due to prior allegiance, or blood feuds with other families. So in the case of the Presidency and Vice Presidency, there is a restriction, but that's pretty much it. James Madison appears to say as much in notes concerning the convention of 1787.

"Limited as the powers of the Executive are, it will be an object of great moment with the great rival powers of Europe who have American possessions, to have at the head of our Governmt a man attached to their respective politics and interests... Germany & Poland are witnesses of this danger. In the former, the election of the Head of Empire, till it became in a manner hereditary, interested all Europe, and was much influenced by foreign interference. In the latter, altho' the elected Magistrate has very little real power, his election has at all times produced the most eager interference of foreign princes, and has at length slid entirely into foreign hands."
(James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787)

Ammendment XII: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

This indicates a specific prohibition concerning the Vice-Presidency, but not so for others in line of succession, e.g., the Speaker of the House, President Pro Tem of the Senate, then the members of the Cabinet. If the restriction on native birth were to prevent an otherwise qualified person from occupying any of these positions, THEN there would be trouble, IMHO, because the line of succession beyond VP is a matter of US Federal Law, rather than Constitutional declaration.

As a minor point, almost unrelated, we have not yet had a Woman, a Black, a Jew, a Hispanic, an Eskimo (whose tribal affiliation doesn't interfere with initial citizenship), or any other sort of person other than White Christian Male elected to the job, so it comes as no surprise to me that issues concerning a possible ammendment in this respect would surface at a time when a non-natural-born citizen fitting the White Christian Male profile is poised to ascend to political prominence. If Arnold were a Black Hindu Woman, I'd wager we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[dsc]

86. This was brought up well before Arnold

and was for many brought up due to the female governor of Michigan who was born in Canada.

[0rganism]

107. Really? I don't recall seeing it discussed on this board before the recall

Doesn't mean it wasn't, though. I'm sure you can find the thread to prove me wrong.

[The Zanti Regent]

87. GEORGE SOROS FOR PRESIDENT

Those four words should scare the shit out of Grover Norquist!

[Classical_Liberal]

90. You realize that if we had public financing of campaigns

we wouldn't have rely on the rare rich liberal to get a progressive president. Thus Soros would be unecessary and the pool of candidates with his views would be so much bigger.

[Jack Rabbit]

94. I agree, but . . .

. . . this thread isn't about public financing of campaigns. It is about simply extending the franchize. Should a naturalized citizen be eligible to run for President? What makes a natural-born citizen superior to a natualized citizen?

I haven't seen a good answer on this thread. I am as aware as most here that there is in our midst a naturalized citizen who is giving immigrants a bad name at the moment. After all, I live in California. However, that does not seem a good reason to visit Arnold's sins on all immigrants. Let each rise and fall on his own merits and character.

[Classical_Liberal]

95. It isn't just Arnold actually

It is the right wing element of the Cuban Exiles and the many Canadians and Israelis in the PNAC. Frankly except for those illegals given amnesty immigrants have had a right wing bent since they started screening them for certain job skills, and since we used immigration policy to fight the cold war. Given the other problems limiting the type of candidates we can have it is just plain low priority for me. It is way down the list, and I don't consider it workable until we work out the other issues. If it weren't for the way we presently finance campaigns and the power of certain foriegn lobbies, I wouldn't be so cautious about this. There are immigrants who would be wonderful presidents, and really do get the American experiment, but there are immigrants who don't. Were you disturbed at all last year when Jeb named the son of Batista a member of the Florida Supreme Court. I sure was.

[Jack Rabbit]

101. More red herrings

As you say, there are many immigrants who would make wonderful Presidents. There are many who would not. If this is a democracy, then they should be able to run and the citizens at large should determine if any one of them is or is not more worthy to hold the office than someone else.

As for the case you make about the Florida Supreme Court, I can only imagine what kind of jackass Jeb Bush would appoint. The solution to that is to get Jeb out of office and into some other form of government housing more suitable to his ilk.

ON EDIT

Of course, public financing of campaigns might help keep the likes of Jeb out of office. I'll believe this is a true democracy when a welfare mother can win public office instead of proven unworthies like Jeb Bush, Jeb's useless brother and Newt Gingrich.

That is for what we should aim: expanding the franchise, not narrowing it. That's democracy.

[Classical_Liberal]

105. not red herrings. Legimate fears

. If it were enacted with public financing maybe, but noway, not now.

[Booberdawg]

96. HELL NO!!

No reason to amend the Constitution on this. Cripes!

[TXDemocrat2004]

97. You choose where you are born?

A lot of you seem really fucking bigoted.

[Book Lover]

103. My choice isn't listed

If you are brought here by your parents or guardians before the age of, say, three, I think you should be eligible. However, there is the fact that human beings will have an irrantional attachment to the land of their birth, no matter where they were raised. Hell, as the child of an Italian immigrant, *I* have an irrational attachment to Italy that might interfere with my duties as President. You know, whenever I might get elected :-)

On the other hand, this law keeps M. Albright from our highest federal administrative office, and that's a shame. I can't imagine the person who would doubt her loyalty.

[stickdog]

106. Poll: Should we change the Constitution so that Clinton can run again?

Wow, I didn't know so many here were anti-Clinton!

Poll: Should we change the Constitution so 30-year-olds can become President?

Wow, I didn't know so many here were ageists!

[ButterflyBlood]

108. I voted for 20 years, but it'd really be 18

so far it appears the only arguments against this are:

1-pointing out people who are foreign born who'd be really horrible presidents. By that logic we should ban Connecticut WASPs because that would've stopped * and would keep Ann Coulter out.

2-Saying that immigrants aren't full American or are loyal to their old country firsthand which basically sounds like something just out of Pat Buchanan's book.

Give me a good progressive reason other than "ARNOLD COULD RUN!". There over a million people born in the US who are eligible and would far worse than Arnold (or someone like Syung Moon, although he could never win anyway so I don't see why that's even an issue)

[Classical_Liberal]

114. I am not enthused about enlarging the pool of rich corporatist

that can run for President. I want campaign financing first, and am not interested in this proposal without it. So shoot me.

[ButterflyBlood]

122. basically boils down to the bad candidates argument

there are people born here who'd be bad and who'd be good. there are people born elsewhere who'd be bad and who'd be good.

[Classical_Liberal]

128. The good ones born elsewhere don't have a chance anymore

than native born goodones, so why is this important?

[ButterflyBlood]

129. it's about equal rights as I've said

not about allowing certain people to run who you want or denying certain people you don't want. the argument they don't have a chance is irrevelant. Back in the 1800's there was no doubt at all that a black man couldn't win, does that mean that blacks shouldn't of been given the right to run?

[Classical_Liberal]

136. The children of immigrants can run for Pres

so this is nothing like that.

[ButterflyBlood]

141. no it is

we're talking about two classes here: blacks and immigrants.

you're saying no good immigrant could get elected which is probably true. However no black could get elected in the late 1800's - early 1900's, and probably not even today. Therefore they shouldn't be allowed to run.

[Classical_Liberal]

150. immigrants aren't a race like blacks

and thier condition is not heritable like blacks so there is no comparison.

[ButterflyBlood]

154. but their condition

shouldn't make them any less qualified to anyone who isn't a Buchananite.

[Classical_Liberal]

156. Demogogue this issue then

Would a Buchannanite want an open border with Mexico like me? You obviously aren't interested in rational discussion.

[Cheswick2.0]

187. No Blacks can get elected now! Solve that and get back to us

Wow what a bunch of fucking hypocrites. The same people here all up in arms about the rights of non US born citizens would be the first to tell you that Sharpton and Mosely-Braun have no chance and should drop out..... I know they aren't the right black people.

Please, when you have supported a woman candidate or a black candidate in reality, not in theory, get back to me.

[blkgrl]

201. Thank you!

LOL

[ButterflyBlood]

206. I'm not going to support someone for no other reason than their race

or gender, which is essentially what's being advocated here.

and yes, you're right, they aren't the right black people. far too much baggage and scandals.

But it's not about electability, it's about equal rights. A foreign born probably couldn't get elected today anyway, but I think they should have the right to run.

[_Jumper_]

127. I agree 100%

2-Saying that immigrants aren't full American or are loyal to their old country firsthand which basically sounds like something just out of Pat Buchanan's book.

[Blitz]

112. Thank you Dolstein

for exposing yet another popular form of bigotry at DU. Honestly, even with my somewhat jaded view of political extremists, I never would have anticipated this result from this group. I am once again reminded that the political spectrum is not a line. It's a circle.

And you're right. DUers and Freepers have once again found common ground.

[ButterflyBlood]

119. it appears that...

Middle Eastern policy isn't the only issue the majority of DUers agree with Pat Buchanan on.

[Darranar]

236. Hey!

I'm a far leftist, and I'm for allowing foreign born citizens to run for president and to serve as president.

[ButterflyBlood]

113. Anyone who voted no

should never bash dolstein for being a moderate ever again. at least he isn't spewing Pat Buchanan arguments, or in support of keeping an incredibly outdated clause just because of one fucking person. Maybe we should've never of given blacks equal rights, imagine President Alan Keyes or Clarence Thomas! That's about as much sense as keeping this in for the sole purpose of blocking Arnold.

[Blitz]

116. You and I agree completely

Wow.

Excuse me while I go outside and search the skies for the other three Horsemen ;) .

[ButterflyBlood]

124. 2 of the most notoriously moderate DUers

being far to the left of the vast majority of the board. wow.

I wonder what Carlos will say.

[_Jumper_]

118. Amen

How much of this is racism because most immigrants are non-white????

[Classical_Liberal]

121. The nonwhite Mexicans aren't the ones I am scared of

. The immigrants that would make good Presidents in my eyes, haven't got a shot. Arianna would be a great President, but she wouldn't become president because she doesn't kiss enough corporate butt, and she is a women. Why does anyone care about expanding the pool of rich white guys to include rich white immigrant guys?

[ButterflyBlood]

123. how are the immigrant guys any worse?

besides, it's not about increasing the candidate pool or keeping it closed, it's about equal rights.

[_Jumper_]

125. Exactly

Imagine the furor here if someone said we needed to proscribe blacks from running for president because 50 years from now the reincarnation of Alan Keyes would win.

[Classical_Liberal]

126. Expands the pool to make it look more competant

so people are satisfied with the condition of only electing this type of person. W the dummy is good for the cause of campaign finance reform. Campaign finance reform is more imporatant this issue. Way more imporatant.

[ButterflyBlood]

132. Priorities should not be affecting viewpoints

the fact that I think getting * out is more important than who wins my school senate races didn't stop me from voting there, or voting for the people I didn't like just because it wasn't really all that important in the long run anyway.

[Classical_Liberal]

137. It effects my viewpoints

I will say no until campaign finance is passed.

[_Jumper_]

143. What else would you say no too?

Would you say no to equal rights for homosexuals until campaign finance is passed?

[Classical_Liberal]

144. Homosexuals are already allowed to run

. I don't consider the foriegn born requirement any worse then the 35 requirement for Pres, or the 18 requirement for voting. Immigrants aren't really a group, anymore than people under 18 are a group.

[ButterflyBlood]

147. why?

why are rich immigrants worse than rich natives?

[Classical_Liberal]

152. immigrants aren't like race or gender

so why can't I lower the number of qualified rich guys to run for President using that qualification?

[ButterflyBlood]

155. because what difference does it make?

stopping immigrant rich white guys from running isn't going to lead to any non-rich white guy Presidents anytime soon.

[Classical_Liberal]

158. reducing their numbers can do that

so people will look elsewhere sooner.

[ButterflyBlood]

162. oh give me a break

this argument would work if there was enough time for every single rich white guy in the country to be President at one point. Until then it's moot.

In fact, the only immigrants the Democrats have wanted to run ARE women (Madeline Albright and Jennifer Granholm.) And in fact, Granholm is probably the most electable woman or immigrant out today. So that already kills your "rich white guys argument"

[Classical_Liberal]

165. The numbers are already reduced when

you factor those who want to, and those who are electable, and niether of the women immigrants are even were they not immigrants.

[ButterflyBlood]

166. Granholm's not electable?

why? The fact she can't run is one of the DNC's biggest headaches.

In fact this clause is doing the exact opposite of what you want, it's stopping a non-rich white guy from running.

However your logic only works if you honestly believe we ever will have an election that no rich white guy runs in because every rich white guy intersted in it and electable has already been President.

[Classical_Liberal]

169. She is not seriously in the running as a President

She would be treated like Mosely Braun who would be my favorite if they didn't have such contempt for her.

[ButterflyBlood]

172. not at all

Moseley Braun's two biggest flaws are that she is a FORMER senator who lost in a pretty liberal state to to a dark horse opponent and some scandals that caused that. Granholm managed to win in a swing state despite being perceived as an ultraliberal.

[Classical_Liberal]

178. Whatever

.

[_Jumper_]

159. The issue here is equality , a supposedly progressive value

Why should you have the right to run for president but not me????

[Classical_Liberal]

161. Well since no immigrants child is denied

What is the problem. Why should noncitizens not be allowed. Why should non residents not be allowed. Why should people under 35 not be allowed?

[_Jumper_]

163. Answer the question

Why shouldn't I have the same right as you?????

[Classical_Liberal]

168. Conflict of Interest

The same reason we don't run Military Men, and lack of experience the reason we don't run people under 35.

[ButterflyBlood]

170. so you're saying immigrants are really loyal to their home country

first of all.

you just entered Pat Buchanan territory.

Also I find the idea that that would apply to my friend who moved here from Canada at 6 weeks old pretty damn riduculous.

[Classical_Liberal]

174. Some are

look at the right wing Cuban exiles.

I don't think because I deny them that one office I am in Buchannan territory.

[ButterflyBlood]

179. and some eligible to run aren't loyal to the country at all

like our current squatter. Right wing Cuban exiles would make shitty presidents. So would nutcase fundies who put the Constitution below the Bible. But they're eligible.

However, I would think that right wing Cubans are actually NOT loyal to their home country at all...

[_Jumper_]

181. I was here since I was 6 months old

My father was a naturalized citizen at the time and worked for the feds! I was born overseas because my mom, who was not a citizen, was visiting a foreign nation. If she was a citizen I'd automatically have become a citizen. How did the fact that I was in a foreign nation as a newborn affect my loyalty? How was my loyalty affected because my mother wasn't a citizen until 2 years later?

Can you prove immigrants are not loyal? Do you think people that come here as kids or babies don't idenfity with America?

[ButterflyBlood]

167. because the groups you listed do have factors about them

that make them unqualified. This does not apply to immigrants unless you're a Buchananite.

[Classical_Liberal]

171. I am not a Buchannanite

I am not trying to keep immigrants out.

[ButterflyBlood]

173. you are using arguments from that school of thought though

that immigrants are really loyal to their original country above all.

[Classical_Liberal]

175. It's clear that some are.

.

[_Jumper_]

182. The people and the parties

Do you think the people and the political parities won't be able to ascertain the loyalty of an immigrant?

[Classical_Liberal]

190. not at present

At present many voters believe in things like Dispensationalism and are otherwise lead around by the nose by the very political orgs that worry me.

[libertad]

209. Alan Keyes and Clarence Thomas are natural born Americans,

what does this have to do with the issue? Nationality is not a race issue at all.

[sujan]

120. yes

it's discrimination based on origin.

[FDRrocks]

131. Agreed.

[Book Lover]

130. You know, you are right and I am wrong

Thanks for posting this poll. It made me realize that I hadn't given this real thought. I take back my reply from above; there's no reason why *any citizen* can't be President, as long as they've been living in the nation long enough to understand what's been going on.

If the constitutional age requirement is 35, and we say that a person reaches the age of majority at 18, then as long as you've lived here for at least 17 years as an adult, you can run for the office. What do you think? I'm operating off the top of my head...

[_Jumper_]

134. I think you made an excellent point

I have been here since I was 6 months old. My father was a naturalized citizen at the time. Why should I not have the same right that most people have? What difference did those 6 months make? Was I taught to hate America as a newborn? What difference would it have made if both of my parents were citizens(If they were I'd automatically be a citizen, despite the fact I was born overseas).

[sujan]

135. didn't you read the posts above?

according to naysayers here, electing you would be a security concern.

So called progressives.......

[_Jumper_]

138. Oh, sorry

I did not learn the American value of listening to everything before reaching a conclusion. If I was president I might listen to a biased group of people and do something like start a war based on flimsy evidence...

[Cheswick2.0]

188. gee life sucks, you will never be President and neither will I

I was born without a penis.

[Classical_Liberal]

140. 18 yr olds can't run for President

I would say that you should have been a citizen for 35 yrs all things being equal.

[ButterflyBlood]

142. but you're saying that

foreign born shouldn't be allowed to run period because only rich white guys could win.

[salin]

145. how does 35 years morph into white guys?

oh ya.. women shouldn't be able to run - native or foreign born. :eyes:

[ButterflyBlood]

146. read all of his posts on this thread

he's basically arguing that since the only immigrants who could win are more rich white guys, they shouldn't be allowed to at all. so he sort of flip-flopped here.

and do you honestly think i believe women shouldn't be allowed to run?

[salin]

151. I think that you

don't have enough sense to realize what sort of can of worms you were opening with that poll. Don't you ever see the latent sexism around here - and periodically hear the shes around here try to point it out? Some of it is societal shit (folks don't see it), some is a lot more blatant. Giving the invitation to vote on shit like that - for all to see - is like asking Arnie if he would like to watch your 18 year old daughter for a few minutes while you go run to the atm machine. Just an invitation to grab the juvenile chances to show just what we think - anonymously, of course.

I didn't vote on this stupid poll (on this thread) for reasons stated above - and stated long before I saw your silly thread.

So you want to use sarcasm - and do it in a silly and tasteless way - it is your right. As it is mine - to give you a little heck for it. True?

[ButterflyBlood]

153. yes it goes on here

but I doubt any DUer voted no, or honestly believes no. It was some lurking Freepers as always.

Anyway I wanted an appropiate way to make my analogy, and I'm sorry I offended you to this level, but I honestly don't want you thinking that I really don't think women should be allowed to run, or anything along those lines.

[_Jumper_]

157. 79% have voted no thus far

It is safe to say that a majority of DU'er agree with Pat Buchanan on this. :(

[Uzybone]

226. And you and Hatch

are joined at the hip, no? You guys sound like frothing at the mouth right to lifers....visciously condemning all who disagree with you on one issue. Disgusting.

[salin]

176. What you believe or not

is not my business. I am not the "thought" police. But in the past week I have watched Duers claim that sexual harassment is not a big deal, and that arnold is liberal enough on some issues that even if the charges against him are true, it shouldn't be too bad. I have seen that a term used to describe a heightened moment of domestic violence is colloquial enough to be a cool term at DU. Professionally I have watched a very capable woman (with a Ph.D. from a top tier university) hit a glass ceiling while a very uncapable male with almost no credentials, a professional trail of semi-successes to abysmal failures rise. Seeing the 'kidding around' on your silly poll reminds me that folks really don't give a damn. If its good fun - who cares. Hence the comments about its a good opportunity to polk fun at the women folk.

You do realize, don't you, the HUGE $$$$$$$ expense of a constitutional amendment, right? Not just the time at the Hill spent on it rather than other pressing things, but at most statehouses in an effort to get 33 states on board. More than 20 years ago an attempt for an equal opportunities for women amendment failed - though it had (until near the end) great momentum. I came of voting age just as it failed. I realized the great expense and effort that it takes to change the constitution and realize that it is not something to take lightly. If we are to mount such a serious endeavor, with such high costs, it shouldn't be on something silly (eg the "flag burning amendment" that involvess very few incidents in the first place), and we should prioritize what is most important. Granting those that have selected to become US citizens - knowing the provisions of the Constitution - or giving greater protection to half of the population? I gave up on the ERA a long time ago due to polictal pragmatism (esp the costs). Asking support for an amendment that effects a smaller portion of the population - at a great expense, while ignoring this - and THEN to make light of gender issues by using the example of women being able to run for office? Sorry - I usually don't have a short fuse. But the two, juxtaposed, reminds me of that very real glass ceiling that many of my colleagues (and myself) have hit as we have matured in our professions (last 30s through 50s). And reminds me of the little lessons at DU where jokes at womens' expense are cheap and easy (though I am glad to say often called on by many other Duers).

So I consider you probably young and lacking of context rather than believing this. I would hope that you would reflect on my words - and acknowledged over reaction - and hear from where they came rather than dismiss the whole thing as 'female overreacting'. For if the reflection occurs - the interchanges have been worth the effort.

[ButterflyBlood]

180. well I will say this

I haven't read the board much as usual lately, and didn't see the Arnold posts, or those defending or trying to excuse him. So perhaps I did miss the recent events in this case.

However this and the ERA are not mutually exclusive, it's entirely possible to support both. I do. The question in this case though is simply a hypothetical, and not about what to push for, and will really have no effect on all. I doubt any DUers pushing for this would oppose the ERA though.

[salin]

183. I wish I were as optomistic as you on that point

saw way to many justifications as to why not support it. That would be an interesting poll (both, one or the other). You could be right that they are not mutually exclusive - except for the cost and time - mounting any constitutional amendment is a many year many dollar proposition.

[salin]

184. By the way

thank you very much for reading, and listening to my longer explanation for the grip - and responding to it as such. I very much appreciate that. It can be easy - especially when receiving the end of snipping (which I was doing) to tune out. Thank you for listening to the why, when I gave it.

[Classical_Liberal]

149. no I am saying, it is low priority for that reason

That and the fact that immigrants are like 18 yr olds. They are a condition not a group.

[ButterflyBlood]

160. the 18 year old condition goes away

the immigrant one can not.

[Book Lover]

148. Hummm, 35 years seems like a long time...

I was thinking about the amount of time since you reached the age of majority; the logic being that if I have to be an adult for 17 years before I can run, then the nonnative citizen should be an adult citizen for the same amount of time...

[ButterflyBlood]

177. I have to go to bed

early class and a test later tommorow, bleh.

I'm just suprised I've seen the day that dolstein was to the left of 79% of DUers.

[Cheswick2.0]

189. Why, who do you and Orin have in mind?

I fail to see why suddenly this should be a "liberal" cause. Get a woman elected, get a black man elected. Then I will worry about he rights of foreign born citizens.

[Speed8098]

191. The Constitution is fine as it is.

There is no need to change the Constitution just because some butthead(Hatch) comes up with an idea to further the RW agenda.

This is just another ploy to take the attention away from the real criminal issues that face the current misadministration.

The framers obviously knew what they were doing, and I say leave it alone.

And NO I am NOT a Buchananite.

Sorry, but once again dolstein is on the wrong side of this non-issue.

[tlb]

192. Nothing to do withj Arnold or immigrants.

The Constitutional requirements are fine as they are. if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[IndianaGreen]

193. This poll reflects a knee-jerk anti-Arnold backlash

The best time to discuss this issue is after we put some time and distance from the California recall election. Constitutional issues are best discussed when reason rather than majoritarian passions can prevail (It will also help to have some clue as to what the Constitution means and its history).

I am a strong advocate of the principle set forth in the Fourteen Amendment that no State can deny the privileges and immunities of citizenship to any citizen of the United States. This principle must be extended further by the consideration of two new amendments to the Constitution:

1. An equal rights amendment granting full equality before the law to all persons regardless of sex, gender, and sexual orientation. Such an amendment would sweep away all abortion laws, and all forms of workplace discrimination against gays, as well as preventing the federal government or the states from barring gays from getting a marriage license, or serving in the military.

2. An amendment abolishing the "natural born" citizen provision of the Constitution.

As to the latter, this is a proposal that has been around since the time of Nixon, when some of its advocates were promoting the idea of Henry Kissinger as President.

Both of the amendments I mentioned above deserve serious consideration on their merits. They are needed in order to bring the US in line with more advanced societies, such as the EU and Canada. After all, look at what a fine job our "natural born" presidents have done in botching things in this country.

The one restriction I would advocate in repealing the "natural born" restriction on the Presidency, is that we must keep a bar on dual, or multiple citizenship, Americans. This means that Austrian-Americans and Israeli-Americans, to name only two out of many examples, cannot run for President.

[JHB]

194. President Rupert Murdoch

Three little words explain it all.

[sujan]

238. President George Walker Bush

Indeed.

[curse10]

197. Yes

As long as they've been a US citizen for quite a while (like 20 or 30 years).

[LalahLand]

202. What if relatives from their home country

start calling up the Oval Office and trying to set foreign policy and asking for financial aide? Then what? Who do you think the President would be loyal to in that case?

[Book Lover]

213. This exact argument made me change my mind

In my original post, I jokingly talked about my attachment to Italy, as my father is from there and we have relatives there. If I were President, I very well might have trouble being completely impartial (I'd like to think I'm above that, but I am a human being, after all) But I am constitutionally eligible to run for the office. Do we then ban 1st generation USians from running because we might be unduly influenced?

The other thing that made me realize this idea was wrong was my feelings about the current junior senator from NY. She was not born there, did not live there for any great length of time, and only learned about the issues while campaigning. She seems to be doing pretty darn well for herself, and doing well for my home state. But I had to burn through a lot of dislike for her that was based on a form of nativism - that was wrong of me. Go Hillary!!

Anybody can be influenced by anybody else, blood relations or not. Anybody can also avoid that kind of pressure. I know we don't see a lot of character in our politicians, but some people *do* have it.

One final note, and it's one I put in my original post - does anybody on this board doubt the loyalty of Madeline Albright? It is a wrongheaded tradition that keeps her from holding our highest administrative federal office. Let's let go of our idolization of the office and populate it with citizens. Any citizens.

[LalahLand]

224. Children of immigrants

Have far less affinity for their parents' home country.

[Book Lover]

234. Don't make blanket statements

I still have more affinity for Italy than my father... must have something to do with the fact that when I went there, there was more to eat than polenta and whatever they could coax out of the ground, like when he was growing up. I cannot be the only person in the US in this position.

[_Jumper_]

219. Liberman

Do you think he can't have an objective pro-American foreign policy because of his religious affinty to Israel?

[LalahLand]

223. He's already demonstrated his irrational bias

with his support of the war, etc.

[blkgrl]

198. No, but remember, an immigrants' kids can become President

with hard work and devotion. Lets just let the system "work" the way it always has.

[_Jumper_]

220. Don't they have ties to the "mother country" too?????

I don't see any difference between a child of immigrants born here and an immigrant who came here at a very young age. They both grew up in America and are Americans first. Why make a distinction between the two?

[Padraig18]

239. Thank you!

I came here as an 11 year-old, and while I have a deep affection for the land of my birth, I in now way even think of myself as "Irish" any longer, and haven't for a long time.

[LalahLand]

200. Sure, why can't Bin Laden's cousins run for President

after being immigrants for a few years. I absolutely don't see any conflcts arising there. :scared:

[ButterflyBlood]

205. yeah, I see them as pretty electable candidates...

:eyes:

[Wednesdays]

210. I say "maybe." But that's a debate for another day.

I'm not going to change the Constitution just so "Ahhhnold" can get in.

[West Coast Democrat]

216. I'm sure not surprised who started this thread

Is that the response you hoped for?

[T_i_B]

217. Don't worry folks

I'm not about to run for president. However, I could always stand as the Monster Raving Loony Party candidate for Maldon & East Chelmsford if you lot ask me very nicely. :evilgrin:

[Padraig18]

221. As a naturalized American, consider this, if you will:

I understand the 'con' arguments, but if you will, consider my 'pro' arguments:

I chose to become an American, not because it made me eligible to stay here (I already was a legal resident alien), but because America means something special to me. I BELIEVE in the idea that is America. Furthermore, I have had to demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of its history, institutions and beliefs in concrete ways native-born Americans have not had to--- schooling, tests, background checks, loyalty oaths, etc. .

I don't believe we naturalized citizens should be eligible to run for President immediately, of course not; but at what point does the passing of additional years become a statistical irrelevancy? 20? 25? 30? 40? The point is very simple--- either I AM WORTHY of full citizenship, or I am not.

:hi:

[janekat]

222. We must stop Arnie from becoming President - that's what this is about...

n/t

[ButterflyBlood]

229. no it's not

I'm pretty confident that clause wasn't put into the Consitution to prevent Arnold from running.

[Forkboy]

227. It's threads like this that make me really wonder

why I'm a Democrat :-(

[Darranar]

235. You have company...

It is saddening to realize just how radical basic ideas of tolerance and acceptance can be, even on a leftist message board.

[noonwitch]

228. No, unless their parents are citizens and they were born abroad....

due to travel or whatever. Are there exceptions made for this? I know there are for members of the armed services' children and those of diplomats.

[beyurslf]

231. Yes

A person must be a naturally born US citizen, not born inside the US.

A person born in Spain to US parents is a US citizen and is eligible to run for the Presidency even if he has never been to this country.

[Xithras]

232. Yes, with a couple conditions.

My first reaction was NO WAY!, but after thinking about it I think reason prevailed:

Natural born American citizens are required to live as such for 35 years before they're allowed to run for President, and this same requirement should exist for immigrants. If your parent's moved you here when you were 1, you can run for President at 36. If you immigrated here when you were 30, you can run for President at 65.

I'd also impose stricter rules on the election process...like making the accepting of donations from foreign sources a felony (for all candidates, regardless of heritage). I'd probably also like to see a clause prohibiting immigrants from running if they'd ever been a soldier for, an agent of, or employed by, a foreign government (which would, btw, ban Arnie because he was in the Austrian army).

Besides that, I have no real problem with the idea.

[DemBones DemBones]

233. How about foreign-born citizens whose fathers were Nazis and

who came to the US to advance their careers in body-building and who still have a hokey accent after twenty years of American citizenship? Those guys I definitely want excluded from the presidency and vice-presidency and all other national offices.

[ComerPerro]

240. Whatever are you talking about?

Do you have someone specific in mind?

:evilgrin:

[gemini_liberal]

237. to be quite honest

from reading the kind of posts on this thread, and average posts on issues about natural Americans vs. immigrants, it will never happen, because you all seem to have this high and mighty attitude that you're BETTER than the rest of the world. You act as if you've been blessed with the hand of God because you were born in a particular part of the world. You cite a handful of bad people from overseas and say they could become president, when to be quite frank if you're stupid enough to elect those people, you deserve it.

I am not trying to start a flame war here, but as a non-American I find this rhetoric to be absolute bullshit. You think the non-American world is just a handful of terrorists and Hitlers, when it's not. Americans are as capable of being evil tyrants as somebody born in the middle east or Europe or Africa or wherever else, and yes an American can be an Al Qaida operative too.

Quite frankly I find it idiotic that you would use national security as something to set your democratic terms.

I'm sorry, but I had to speak out, I find this nationalism pointless and regressive. Oh, and FYI you are more than welcome to become an Australian citizen and run for PM.

[mumon]

241. As long as they're Democratic, Socialist, or Green

YES.

No REPUBLICANS. They are a clear and present danger to democracy.

[Athletic Grrl]

242. You have to be 35 to run...let's add citizenship....age plus 35..

But there will be extenuating circumstances. I had an old boyfriend who was born in Germany, adopted by Americans teaching on our bases and came here as a baby. At 18 he had to choose his citizenship. He didn't even know he was adopted. How is he any less of a citizen? When can he run? At 35 or 70?

This sort of situation is why I voted NEVER. Too many extenuating circumstances. What about military brats? Have they been exempted?

My guess is Tom DeLay was born on a base in Germany.....what's the shelf life on bug killers?