Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

Palomar · 2004-02-22 11:36:17

[=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20040222/ap_on_re_us/schwarzenegger]Arnold speaks up

*I'm opposed to it. I think only native-born Americans should be eligible for the Presidency. Call it territorialism on my part; I don't think just living here 20 years is "enough." He makes good points about Kissinger and Albright, and though even an American-born person can turn away from American ideals and etc., a foreign-born person might have just that many more conflicts of interest...REAL conflicts of interest, such as their native nation suddenly wanting to jump on the bandwagon with demands for preferential treatment and etc "just because" one of their own is now in the most powerful political position in the world (U.S. Presidency). Next thing we know, people will be wrangling about "why 20 years, why not just 10?", on and on...good grief.

Keep it for the native-born only.

I don't presume if I moved to England and lived there for 20 years I'd still know enough of the culture, societal nuances, and etc., etc. to run for Prime Minister.

I think when it comes to a NATION -- its history, its people, its mores and culture and etc., etc. -- "the lay of the land" is only truly known and felt if you've been born and raised there. Especially a huge nation like the U.S., where Bangor, Maine is noticeably different in respect to my city and state (architecture, ethnic history, food preferences, colloquialisms and slang terms, accent); and likewise the regional culture of Biloxi, MI is markedly different from Fargo, ND. I remember moving here from Iowa...what a change! In attitudes towards work, organization, etc., etc.; a bit of culture shock, and I'm still in the U.S.!

What does Arnold know about the many "mere" regional differences in the U.S. -- just that issue alone? Probably not much.

Of course, I suppose someone might remind me of the "Good, Bad: Who Knows?" parable... :laugh: But this simply isn't a gray issue with me.

I see Ralph Nader is also making a bid for the Presidency. What draws people to that guy, anyway? He's a wet blanket, IMO.

--Cindy

atitarev · 2004-02-22 16:09:57

I'm not American and I am an immigrant in Australia, so you'll probably say my opinion is biased, Cindy. I just want to express my humble opinion.

For the same reason you guys, don't want an immigrant to be a president, many Americans don't want a woman or a black to be a president. And it's not different. I am not accusing you of discrimination, Cindy but that's what it sounds like. It is so common, though for every country that they allow only natives to be their presidents/prime ministers, etc. I just happen to be of a different opinion.

If I were American, I wouldn't vote for Arnold but for a different reason - I don't think he's mature for the job, it doesn't mean that he doesn't feel as American or he is not worried about his country (I'm sure he considers America as HIS country).

It is hard to tell person's patriotism and knowledge of a country based on how long they lived there but 20 years seems enough if it were the criterion.

...a foreign-born person might have just that many more conflicts of interest...REAL conflicts of interest, such as their native nation suddenly wanting to jump on the bandwagon with demands for preferential treatment and etc "just because" one of their own is now in the most powerful political position in the world (U.S. Presidency).

Besides, maybe America just needs a little bit of that - good relationships with other countries. Historically, it's not always the case that a foreigner in power tries to make more benefit for their country of origin. The Russian Empress - Catherine the II was German. Although, she spoke with some German accent - her command of Russian was perfect, she knew all the nuances of the language and the folklore and she forced the noblety to use more Russian, even banned the use of too many foreign words (overkill!). Anyway, my point is - it's mainly the quality of the candidate that should be used for deciding who should be elected.

Palomar · 2004-02-22 19:01:46

I'm not American and I am an immigrant in Australia, so you'll probably say my opinion is biased, Cindy. I just want to express my humble opinion.
For the same reason you guys, don't want an immigrant to be a president, many Americans don't want a woman or a black to be a president. And it's not different. I am not accusing you of discrimination, Cindy but that's what it sounds like. It is so common, though for every country that they allow only natives to be their presidents/prime ministers, etc. I just happen to be of a different opinion.
If I were American, I wouldn't vote for Arnold but for a different reason - I don't think he's mature for the job, it doesn't mean that he doesn't feel as American or he is not worried about his country (I'm sure he considers America as HIS country).

*Hi Atitarev. No, I don't think you are biased. As for the immigration issue: Well, all of my ancestors (with 1 exception) were European immigrants to the U.S., so I don't make my comments lightly. Yes, I understand how my position could sound discriminatory (I want to say "no, I'm not"...but maybe I am?). Hillary Clinton faced a similar predicament when she ran for the New York Senate in 1999. She'd never been a resident of New York; now she wants to be a NY Senator? She purchased property shortly before the campaign began, and by the time the campaign was started she was officially a New Yorker. She won the Senate seat, too; but many people dismissed her as an interloper. It's essentially the same "feeling" I have. I don't consider Schwarzenegger as a "lesser" American...good grief, how could I? He's the embodiment of "The American Dream" -- rich, successful, famous. In those respects, he's more of an American than I am, I guess. :laugh: And though he took the initiative and worked hard for everything he's got, how familiar is he, really, with day-to-day America? He came here seeking fame and fortune (nothing wrong with that), but I can't help thinking he has serious tunnel experience...revolving mainly around Hollywood. Has he ever shaken an Iowa farmer's hand? Eaten shrimp with Louisiana fishermen? Does he know what "down the road apiece" or "Wednesdayweek" means? Can he distinguish a Boston accent from an Alabama accent? I have enough trouble with people like Bush, Jr. (born with a silver spoon in his mouth), not being sure he understands or has a real familiarity with "everyday America" -- how much more Schwarzenegger? I don't think the familiarity issue is trivial...not at all. This is a very big nation, with lots (LOTS) of regional differences, diversity, etc.

Besides, maybe America just needs a little bit of that - good relationships with other countries. Historically, it's not always the case that a foreigner in power tries to make more benefit for their country of origin. The Russian Empress - Catherine the II was German. Although, she spoke with some German accent - her command of Russian was perfect, she knew all the nuances of the language and the folklore and she forced the noblety to use more Russian, even banned the use of too many foreign words (overkill!). Anyway, my point is - it's mainly the quality of the candidate that should be used for deciding who should be elected.

*Catherine the Great! I've studied her life, and have discussed her rather extensively at my "Age of Voltaire" group. Very interesting woman (but poor, poor Peter...). I've also studied her relationships with Gregory Orlov, the other Orlov brothers, Potemkin, etc. Intriguing. I especially enjoy the anecdote regarding her wishing to introduce the practice of smallpox inoculation into Russia. A doctor from England administered the injection while her ladies in waiting and other courtiers stood around, very afraid, praying and weeping, etc. (of course they were afraid the inoculation would backfire and she'd die...which of course didn't happen). She was a brave, bold person who did bring many reforms to her adopted country. I would really like to visit the Hermitage Museum and Winter Palace at St. Petersburg...I have seen photos of it (stunning!). Baroque architecture...aaah! Don't get me started, it's beyond gorgeous.

Sorry for the little history rundown (which I'm sure you are even more familiar with than me)...I just wanted to prove I knew a bit about her.

--Cindy

For folks who might be interested:
[http://www.cityvision2000.com/city_tour/hermitage.htm]The Winter Palace & The Hermitage Museum

atitarev · 2004-02-22 19:48:36

I understand very well what you fee like, Cindy. You know, in England they are planning to introduce the rule that if you want to get permanent residence in the UK, you should learn to play cricket among some other things. Yes, I agree a president should know a lot of things about their country and the daily problems people face in different areas but you admit that even a pure American candidate may not know enough about "everyday America". R. Reagan too was an actor but made it to the presidency, did he care about Iowa farmers? Not knowing the difference in the accents or not knowing how shrimps in Louisiana taste can be a source of embarrassment and reduce your chance to establish good communication and that's what makes an alien different from Americans but I would prefer a person who can listen to problems and solve them, rather than a chap who is "friends" with everyone, knows all the regional diversities but only thinks about more power and wealth. That's not a very important issue for me, anyway. I accept that you've got your reasons to want only native-borns to be eligible.

I must admit - I'm not as good in History as you think. I did well at school and at Uni in Russia, but focused too much on languages and, in the last years on computing - especially after arrival in Australia in 1997 - very time-consuming but no excuse not to learn other things. I haven't seen Hermitage or Winter palace either - what a shame! Of course I saw so many pictures, TV shows, etc, I feel like I've seen it. I stayed in St Petersburg only shortly on the way to Finland. A really beautiful city!

Great link, thanks!

Byron · 2004-02-23 06:39:14

I would really like to visit the Hermitage Museum and Winter Palace at St. Petersburg...I have seen photos of it (stunning!). Baroque architecture...aaah! Don't get me started, it's beyond gorgeous.

I have a friend that's going to St. Petersburg in May, among other places on a European cruise. I'll make sure and tell him to visit the Winter Palace...so he'll take tons of pics (he's a real shutterbug..lol) to bring back home. Wish I could go with him! Oh well....<sighs>

As for the idea of letting immigrants run for President...I say let's nix that idea, pronto. They put that in the U.S. Constitution for a reason...I'd rather not fix something that isn't broken, if you can catch my drift...

As for Ralph Nader, if he wants to run and help put Bush back into office this fall, then more power to him...it's not like he'll ever get himself elected or anything. I'm sure the Democratic candidates view him as a wet blanket, indeed.

B

clark · 2004-02-23 10:29:29

Doesn't a requirement of "native-born", for any position of leadership, run counter to the values of a meritocracy?

I can understand a concern related to a conflict of interests arising if a non-native leader had to deal with their birth-country, but that's a hypothetical situation that is best understood if we're dealing with it in reality. Is it really going to be such a huge issue?

What's a democracy? The people choosing their representative. That means individuals get to decide on who they feel best represents themselves, and their interests. Yet, a requirement that only native-born citizens may be our federal leaders, denies choice to people, it doesn't increase it.

We could sensibly institute rules that require all elected representatives, of any type, to have a law degree prior to holding any office. What we have then done is limit the pool of possible people we might choose to represent ourselves.

If living in this country is such a necessity, what of US citizens born in the States, but live the majority of their childhood and adult life in another country? Technically this person could legally run for President, but a naturalized immigrant who lived their life in the US since age one would be denied this opportunity.

Look at the argument for equality of opportunity- to be truly efficient, it behooves a society to open up all positions to all possible candidates. By preventing certain groups from some opportunity, society is robbed of the chance to benefit from the most capable individuals. That's why we should not hinder women or minorities in the work place or in other opportunities.

We shouldn't limit someone's opportunity to succeed in this country, we should enable opportunity for everyone. What's wrong with expanding our choices?

Earthfirst · 2004-02-23 14:39:23

Only Americans citizeens are allowed to be president and that's the way it should stay! Because that is the way america wants it.

clark · 2004-02-23 14:51:40

The American Principle, for Foreigners: You may join. You may have your say. But you may never lead the way.

A naturalized citizen can fight for this country, sacrifice with life and limb, but they can never hold the highest office in the land. A naturalized citizen is required to pledge alligence to America, must contribute to the society in which they choose to belong, yet they are prevented from becoming a full and equal member of the society for no other reason than the location of geographical birth.

There are citizens, and then there are second class citizens. Naturalized Americans will always be a part of the latter group as long as we have rules like this.

With progress like this, Mars never looked further away.

Algol · 2004-02-23 14:57:36

Personally, i think the cultural and ethnic diversity and freedoms within the United States are its major redeeming factor. Practically every culture in the world is represented in some niche somewhere within its borders and thats precisely why a non native president should be acceptable.

A lot of foreigners would make better presidents than a lot of 'natives'.

Cobra Commander · 2004-02-23 15:58:57

Overall I'm with Cindy on this one. Immigrants, no matter how long they've lived here, can't have the same "American experience" as natives. I have absolutely nothing against immigrants, in fact I think in general they have a much better work ethic than native-born citizens, but I'm just not comfortable with the idea. On a deeper level, the constitution was written the way it is for good reasons, changing it on a whim whenever it suits us invites bad happenings.

The American Principle, for Foreigners: You may join. You may have your say. But you may never lead the way.

How much opportunity do you think we should offer? Should we allow foreigners to run for President after living here for 20 years? 10, 5? Why not just let them run right off the boat, let the voters decide? Hell, why even require citizenship, or residency for that matter?

bin Laden/Kucinich 04!

If we're gonna start changing the rules, where do we stop?

But then one could also ask why we're even debating it, since the interpretaion of the constitution has been somewhat flexible of late.

clark · 2004-02-23 16:16:10

Immigrants, no matter how long they've lived here, can't have the same "American experience" as natives.

What is this "American Experience" you refrence? Whose experience? Can an immigrant who lived the majority of their life, from childhood, in America, not have an "American Experience"? Does an American born in the US, yet lives their life abroad since childhood (hello Army kids!), do they still have an "American Experience"? Where in the Constution does it say that we have to have an "American Experience"? And the neo-cons talk about the judical branch interpreting the Constution... isn't that what you are doing?!

Sorry for the questions, but it shows the weakness in this idea you are trying at Cobra.

How much opportunity do you think we should offer? Should we allow foreigners to run for President after living here for 20 years? 10, 5? Why not just let them run right off the boat, let the voters decide? Hell, why even require citizenship, or residency for that matter?

Open it. Look how our Republic has morphed from its inception- it is now more democratic, and we have a history of expanding people's choices to directly choose their leaders and represenatives. So instead of the State choosing the Senator, the People of the State now choose.

David Duke runs, and the man is little more than a racist. He dosen't get elected (comes awfuly close though). Why are Naturalized Citizens the boogey-man?

Let people decide for themselves. If enough people feel as you do, then we don't need to worry about any foreigner getting elected. However, if people feel as I do, we effectively have NO option to have our choice registered. There is an inequality and a level of disenfranchisement our current policy engenders.

I live in California, and we have the 7th largest economy in the world, on our own. A foreigner leads my State. So what? Arnold get's judged on his merits, on his ability to perform his duties. If he fails those, if it seems like he dosen't have our best interest at heart, then we toss the SOB out like Davis.

The beauty of the Constution is the system itself, not what it says or defines. Who cares if the age limit is 35 or 18? Who cares if the people we elect are native born, or naturalized- we're all freaking Americans. Changing the requirements for who may run for President dosen't affect the checks or balances within the system one bit.

To sum:
"No color lines, yo."

Palomar · 2004-02-23 16:16:16

If we're gonna start changing the rules, where do we stop?

*That's -the- question.

Never mind that the framers of the Constitution were direct descents of immigrants themselves; nor, for that matter are probably most everyone siding *against* Schwarzenegger on this issue.

Oh well...I guess the Moon never looked so far away!

--Cindy :laugh:

P.S.: Hillary Clinton faced the same flap over her NY Senate run (very short-term State resident prior to the campaign). How quickly we forget...

Cobra Commander · 2004-02-23 16:41:38

Where in the Constution does it say that we have to have an "American Experience"? And the neo-cons talk about the judical branch interpreting the Constution... isn't that what you are doing?!
Sorry for the questions, but it shows the weakness in this idea you are trying at Cobra.

But I'm not the one advocating changing the constitution. The burden of justifyng the position isn't on me. It plainly says that a President must be an American by birth, aged 35 or more. Fine. Why should we change it? If you have a compelling case, state it. Otherwise my position wins by default. Right until proven otherwise

The beauty of the Constution is the system itself, not what it says or defines. Who cares if the age limit is 35 or 18? Who cares if the people we elect are native born, or naturalized- we're all freaking Americans. Changing the requirements for who may run for President dosen't affect the checks or balances within the system one bit.

So as long as it's in the general spirit of the constituion that's enough? That erodes it. But then why start worrying about the finer points of the constitution now, with all these precedents to the contrary. Freedom of speech, abridged. Right to bear arms, abridged. No self-incrimination, what happens if you don't sign your 1040? The "checks and balances" are all outta whack with judges dictating new law and President's starting wars without congressional declaration. Yes, I think that was of highly questionable constitutionality, even though I agreed with the motive.

Know what the constitution has become? It's a yellow piece of paper in a Lucite box, in a dark room that few people ever go in. So okay, let's change things to whatever suits us at the moment. But let's stop pussy-footin' around it and just dump the constitution and start over. Why have all that baggage we pretend to care about? If we can do so much better let's just get on with it.

I'll be in that dark room at the National Archives.

A.J.Armitage · 2004-02-23 22:48:18

I'd like to observe here that clark objects to the Constitutional provision as going against values we should take as higher -- and mentions four (on my count) which are incompatible with each other if taken as normative. These being meritocracy, democracy, equality of opportunity, and efficiancy. If meritocracy is normative, we should fill offices by test results (only), like they used to do in China. If you take democracy as normative, why have age limits? Why, for that matter, have a Bill of Rights? After all, if the people suddenly decide they like unreasonable searches and seizures, what's a piece of paper written on by slaveowners to stop them? And if we really want equality of opportunity, officeholders should be chosen by a lottery. Why deny talentless or unpopular candidates an equal shot? And if we take efficiency as normative, it's an empirical question and in principle we might get a dictatorship. Trains on time, ect. (No doubt, my comments on democracy and efficiency got clark all excited. "Dictators! Trains! Searches and seizures! Woooooo!")

If an immigrant is upset that "you may never lead the way", they're coming here for the wrong reason anyway.

clark · 2004-02-24 06:36:40

Cobra passes the ball back to me?

Very well.

The fool does not heed his fathers? advice, the wise man learns from it.

The Constitution is a remarkable document in that it is still relevant today. It has remained relevant because consecutive generations of Americans have all had the opportunity to change it as they saw fit, given the times and experience of their day. Now, our eighteenth century farmer-founding-fathers were wise in the construction of the apparatus of the Constitution, but they were men, and they were wedded to the cultural moors and knowledge of their time.

While the Framers sat around, declaring boldly that they were freemen, who required consent to be governed, they denied these same universal and apparent rights to women, people of color, and non-land owners. These same people outlined ten basic freedoms that all free-men posses. It wasn?t until the Civil War, nearly one hundred years later, that these same rights were extended to people of color, at least in name. It wasn?t until fifty years after the Civil War that basic voting rights were extended to women. It wasn?t until another 50 years after women could vote, that people of color, and women, were given full access and protection under the law. During all of this, the American history is one of expanding rights and choices of individuals considered full-Americans.

I?m not here to argue the separate merits of limiting or opening other basic rights as outlined in the Bill Of Rights. As Americans, as a group, in our own special way, we come to consensus, and change the Bill of Rights as we see fit. We outlaw drinking, then later change our minds. We allow former slaves to be free, then later get around to making sure that these new freemen are equal in more than name only. Through all of this, we are appraising the advice of our forefathers and improving upon their design to meet our needs. That?s what the Constitution is, a design for the times at hand, and as is said, the times they are a changing.

I live in a cosmopolitan area, California. Southern California, in a part of the greater Los Angeles area. People from all around the world end up here, working, living, or just ?being? (hey, it is California). I see immigrants who have built their business from the ground up, who have become pillars of the community, who have led PTA or neighborhood watch meetings. I have seen naturalized citizens, former immigrants, become mayors, lawyers, and policemen. I have seen these same people, these same immigrants, join and serve with honor in the US armed forces. I have seen their coffins sent home to the land they chose to belong to, America. I have seen people, owning nothing more than a dream, come to America, to realize that dream. Now, I have seen a foreign born US citizen become the highest executive leader in my land, with the largest economy in the US, with the greatest population size, in the US, and I ask, is this such a bad thing?

Now you and I may differ, may quibble on the qualities of my current governor, but is the location of his geographical birth relevant to any of the differences we might point out? Does it matter that the governor of California is originally from Austria? Perhaps because he is only a ?governor? and doesn?t have the same powers as a President, it?s a different issue. Yet a governor of any State can commute the death sentence or even call out the National Guard (not to mention a whole slew of other powers over native and foreign born citizens alike). The powers and responsibility of President and Governor are remarkably similar.

Cobra, you spoke of the ?American Experience?, and as far as I can see, the American Experience is one of people helping others to attain their dreams. The American Experience in this country, in society, is one where everyone who has come here, comes for a better life, to make a better life for themselves and their family. The American Experience has been one of improving upon our past, of strangers in a strange land coming together for the betterment of all who follow.

We have immigrants who come to this country to be star baseball players, rock musicians, or even astronauts. We have the hearts of the world, bulging with hope, that America will touch the stars, and that some 10 year old in an impoverished nation can perhaps one day find a way to this land, and then to the stars. You can see this in the people that visit this board. You can see this in the people who come to America, to a foreign country, to make it home. You can hear it in every whispered aspiration set against the darkness of fear and hate.

Let us continue the long struggle down the path of enlightenment where we find equality among all people, not just those with the acceptable label of our times. Naturalized Americans are Americans, as such, they should be afforded all possible opportunities within our society. To do otherwise is to not learn from the history of all our fathers, foreign and native alike, and fail the hopes of our forefathers.

Cobra Commander · 2004-02-24 12:55:27

Through all of this, we are appraising the advice of our forefathers and improving upon their design to meet our needs. That?s what the Constitution is, a design for the times at hand, and as is said, the times they are a changing.

The constitution was never meant to be as flexible as it has become for the simple reason that the federal government was never meant to be as large as it has become. Your points on "improving" the constitution over time only hold within the context of an assumption and acceptance of its underlying principles being debased. What we have is not so much the constitution being altered to suit new times, but rather ignored to suit new perceptions. To use an example from your own post:

Does it matter that the governor of California is originally from Austria? Perhaps because he is only a ?governor? and doesn?t have the same powers as a President, it?s a different issue. Yet a governor of any State can commute the death sentence or even call out the National Guard (not to mention a whole slew of other powers over native and foreign born citizens alike). The powers and responsibility of President and Governor are remarkably similar.

President and Governor are more equivalent than is generally understood today. When the constitution created the federal government it granted it specific and limited powers. This was done because the US federal government was a completely different animal from the national governments of Europe, from which it descended. Each State was, and constitutionally still is, an independent sovereign entity voluntarily joining a federation with other independent sovereign entities. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the President of the Republic of California, and independent sovereign state. The federal government did little more than negotiate treaties on behalf of the Union and regulated commerce between the member states. The federal government was the UN of North America. It had no jurisdiction within the borders of a State, unless specifically granted in the constitution. The federal US government was a united face we present to the world, an indication that you don't just attack New York or Virginia, but the entire Union.

But along the way those sovereign states let themselves be subordinated to the federal government, in direct opposition to the constitution. As that happened, some of the structures put in place made less sense. The people directly elected US Senators. The Electoral College became a rubber-stamp of the state's popular vote, a vestigial remnant of the republic founded with the constitution. With the "nationalization" of everything from Senate selection to education funding to healthcare, we have bypassed the entire purpose of the constitution. It has become irrelevant to the way our government functions.

So, if we, as a democratic mob, decide that we want some guy from Zimbabwe to be our national leader, fine. The mob has spoken. But let's not pretend we're still the same country the US Constitution governs by going through the charade of amending it.

Then maybe I'll move to Cuba. You know, to be President someday.

clark · 2004-02-24 13:22:49

The constitution was never meant to be as flexible as it has become for the simple reason that the federal government was never meant to be as large as it has become.

Man was never meant to fly, but we fly anyway. We can argue over how the Constitution should be, or we can argue over how it is. Choose one, please.

The world is as it is Cobra, as we have inherited. Now the question before us, where do we go from here.

President and Governor are more equivalent than is generally understood today. When the constitution created the federal government it granted it specific and limited powers.

And it also granted the power to the States, and the People, to amend and modify the Constitution as we see fit. The Framers went so far as to set up a rather convoluted system of checks and balances to ensure that it would be difficult to change the Constitution, but they made sure that it could be done by successive generations of Americans.

Our Framers certainly didn't envision a nation spanning an entire continent with so many States, and so many people. They created a framework that acted as the basis from which all future generations would work from. They were not Gods, they were men. Men filled with all the petty fears and ignorance of their day, just as the men of today (albeit with different petty fears and ignorance).

This was done because the US federal government was a completely different animal from the national governments of Europe, from which it descended.

So let us speak of the animal that is, not was.

Each State was, and constitutionally still is, an independent sovereign entity voluntarily joining a federation with other independent sovereign entities.

True, once. The Civil War settled that issue though. Texas, the lone star State can't leave the Union, but their governor can be President.

But along the way those sovereign states let themselves be subordinated to the federal government, in direct opposition to the constitution. As that happened, some of the structures put in place made less sense.

Beautiful bit of sophistry there Cobra. The States chose to become more subordinate to the Federal government, and they cemented their decision with ratification of the Constitution (that binding agreement between the States, remember ) through a pre-defined process.

I'm not calling for the unilateral changing of the Constitution by one person, or a few people. I'm giving you reasons why we, as The People, should welcome and encourage this change (which you asked me to do!) to the Constitution. I would really love to hear an argument against anything I have posted on why letting naturalized Americans run for federal office is such a bad thing.

So, if we, as a democratic mob, decide that we want some guy from Zimbabwe to be our national leader, fine. The mob has spoken. But let's not pretend we're still the same country the US Constitution governs by going through the charade of amending it.

So we're no longer a die-in-the-wool Republic. Darn. So we have more democratic institutions, and a greater reliance on public views in determining the course of our fine future. Drat.

We're also not a bunch of ignorant back-water hicks who primarily farm and kill indigenous populations (not our own anyway, and not anywhere North of the Mason Dixon line).

Cobra Commander · 2004-02-24 13:54:25

Man was never meant to fly, but we fly anyway. We can argue over how the Constitution should be, or we can argue over how it is. Choose one, please.
The world is as it is Cobra, as we have inherited. Now the question before us, where do we go from here.

I am simply pointing out that what the constitution is and what the world is are in conflict. Amending the constitution in a manner directly contradicting the constitution when that document is ignored in so many other areas is a silly game. Take it as you will.

Each State was, and constitutionally still is, an independent sovereign entity voluntarily joining a federation with other independent sovereign entities.

Beautiful bit of sophistry there Cobra. The States chose to become more subordinate to the Federal government, and they cemented their decision with ratification of the Constitution (that binding agreement between the States, remember ) through a pre-defined process.

The states were not subordinate under the constitution as ratified. The federal government was delegated the few tasks for which it was created and no more. It practically had to beg to the states for apportioned tax revenue. It was the servant, not the master.

So we're no longer a die-in-the-wool Republic. Darn. So we have more democratic institutions, and a greater reliance on public views in determining the course of our fine future. Drat..

There were good reasons for creating a republic over a democracy. We follow the latter road at our peril.

But to the main issue, what we have here is a fundamental difference of perspective. You look at the prospect of immigrant Presidents and say "why not." I look at the prospect of changing the already mangled constitution and ask "why change?" I can't present you any over-powering reasons against it, no proof that a foreign-born president will sell us into slavery to the Chinese or cede the southwest to Mexico. Nor can you present any compelling case for it. We are at an empasse.

But as the issue is amending the constitution, a long and complex process, the burden is yours. Why change? How would an non-native citizen make a better President? What do we gain as a nation? Why?

clark · 2004-02-24 14:04:35

I am simply pointing out that what the constitution is and what the world is are in conflict. Amending the constitution in a manner directly contradicting the constitution when that document is ignored in so many other areas is a silly game. Take it as you will.

Amending means to change Cobra. Is it your view that the Framers had no intention for successive generations of Americans to not change the Constitution and the agreements between the people and their States? If so, why would they provide the means to change the very essence of the Constitution? There isn't a single word on that document that can't be changed. That's the whole point.

The states were not subordinate under the constitution as ratified. The federal government was delegated the few tasks for which it was created and no more. It practically had to beg to the states for apportioned tax revenue. It was the servant, not the master.

That may have been, but that isn't now. Don't cry for me Argentina...

But as the issue is amending the constitution, a long and complex process, the burden is yours. Why change? How would an non-native citizen make a better President? What do we gain as a nation? Why?

Because changing the Constitution to allow naturalized Americans to run for the office of President follow along the maturation of our values as a people, and is but one more step towards greater equality among all Americans.

It's not really a matter of establishing if a native born or a foreign born US citizen would make a better president, it's a matter of establishing the opportunity for People to make that individual choice on their own. In the same way women and people of color were recognized as equals, so to should any person who carries the moniker Hyphen-American.

If someone has a dream to be an astronaut, would you deny them that opportunity based on where they were born? What purpose does that serve? How is it wrong to expand opportunity and choice, the twin pillars of the "American Experience"?

Cobra Commander · 2004-02-24 14:42:53

Amending means to change Cobra. Is it your view that the Framers had no intention for successive generations of Americans to not change the Constitution and the agreements between the people and their States? If so, why would they provide the means to change the very essence of the Constitution? There isn't a single word on that document that can't be changed. That's the whole point.

So if Congress decides that they will serve life terms, get 300% pay raises and put you in prison for complaining about it after they seize the assets of your friends and family to fund the confiscation of gold, guns and red meat from the citizenry, you accept that? If every word can be changed, they are all meaningless. You're talking about digging up the foundation because you don't like the front door.

Because changing the Constitution to allow naturalized Americans to run for the office of President follow along the maturation of our values as a people, and is but one more step towards greater equality among all Americans.

Ah, to the meat of it. Is increasing "equality" a maturation of values? While only a fool would claim that all individuals actually are equal, equality of opportunity is a valid concern. So, what do we have to lose by having a non-native president?

For one, there could be serious conflicts of interest. What if Abdul, who came here from Fallujah when he was 15, gets elected President of the United States at 65? Now, his native Iraq is run by a brutal thug who terrorizes his own people. I know, use your imagination here. :;): This thug is at war with the Saudi Caliphate, a repressive fundamentalist Islamic state made bankrupt by the US adopting renewable, clean-burning mana as a power source. We have no interest whatsoever in the conflict, except that the longer they fight the longer they can't commit terrorist acts against America.

Abdul, our new President, is heartbroken at what has become of his homeland. And he has just the military machine to do something about it...

Less likely, what about "sleeper" candidates? Move here, blend in for 20 or 30 years, get elected and cause some damage. Outlandish, yes. But so was the idea of Saudis flying airliners into buildings not so long ago.

Does anyone come to America saying "I'm going to be the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth one day?" If not, were's the lost opportunity. If so, I'd watch them closely. Even if they totally assimilate and become just as American as you and me, they'll still remember this other place that may be at odds with our interests.

A valid question is "what is the difference between someone who comes here when they're 2 and someone born here to parents who arrived 2 years before?" In essence, nothing. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. Otherwise we're left with a case-by-case assesment, which is essentially the absence of qualifications. Which fits nicely with that "democracy" thing you're currently so fond of but is no way to run a civilized state. Laws, not men... I seem to recall reading that somewhere...

If someone has a dream to be an astronaut, would you deny them that opportunity based on where they were born? What purpose does that serve? How is it wrong to expand opportunity and choice, the twin pillars of the "American Experience"?

Because a foreign-born astronaut is not in a position to significantly jeopardize US national security by making policy based on the best interests of other countries.

clark · 2004-02-24 15:27:11

Ah, a feast!

So if Congress decides that they will serve life terms, get 300% pay raises and put you in prison for complaining about it after they seize the assets of your friends and family to fund the confiscation of gold, guns and red meat from the citizenry, you accept that? If every word can be changed, they are all meaningless. You're talking about digging up the foundation because you don't like the front door.

Very pretty Cobra, but don't waste it on me. Congress doesn't have the authority to change the Constitution, and you know that. Silly fascist, changing laws is for the People, not the lawyers.

And yes, all the words ever written are ultimately meaningless. We, as in People, give them meaning. Also, I like the foundation just fine, I would like to pull out a few more weeds in the garden and fix the leak in the roof though.

For one, there could be serious conflicts of interest. What if Abdul, who came here from Fallujah when he was 15, gets elected President of the United States at 65?

Come on Cobra, you're smarter than this. Thank you for being such a valiant foil, but your ship is sinking. There could be serious conflicts of interests. I admit it, just as I admit that every President and would be President presents a conflict of interest based on their religion, or their ethnicity, or their private lives, or any number of ways you wish to divide people up and label them.

People were worried about JFK because he was Catholic (uh-oh, the Pope is running the show now!). People are worried about an avowed fundamentalist Christian President being led by the Christian right on a holy Crusade that just happens to fit into the Oil Cartel's plans for world domination. People were worried that Bush Sr. had too many CIA connections. People worry about all this stuff all the time. Cheney, Haliburton. Regan, was anybody home, were they in the loop? Carter, well he was okay even if went in circles. :laugh: Nixon? Do I need to list the conflict of interest issues?

A foreign born astronaut could conceivably fly the Shuttle into something important. Uh-oh, look at the risks!

If a President in your scenario were to do as you suggest, couldn't Congress impeach em? Yes.

I'm all for qualification Cobra, but I like them to make sense. This one doesn't hold water.

Palomar · 2004-02-24 15:37:58

People were worried about JFK because he was Catholic (uh-oh, the Pope is running the show now!). People are worried about an avowed fundamentalist Christian President being led by the Christian right on a holy Crusade that just happens to fit into the Oil Cartel's plans for world domination. People were worried that Bush Sr. had too many CIA connections. People worry about all this stuff all the time. Cheney, Haliburton. Regan, was anybody home, were they in the loop? Carter, well he was okay even if went in circles. :laugh: Nixon? Do I need to list the conflict of interest issues?

*Clark raises some excellent and valid points. Well put!

But when/where did Cobra Commander ever say or imply that the process (as it is now, i.e. Presidency for native-born only) is devoid of fault between its native-born candidates and the citizenry?

Should we stop holding elections because it cannot be entirely flawless? Should we just "let it all hang out" (alter the Constitution at whim, who gives a damn) because it cannot be entirely flawless?

I don't think so.

Cobra Commander is right: "What we have is not so much the constitution being altered to suit new times, but rather ignored to suit new perceptions....

If every word can be changed, they are all meaningless. You're talking about digging up the foundation because you don't like the front door."

Where will it end?

And if the majority of the U.S. population were to vote NO on the foreign-born issue, WILL that --decide-- the matter (or will special interest groups derail/hijack/whatever the matter...as they are wont to do)?

Again: Where will it end?

Those are valid questions, too.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-02-24 15:47:40

I love questions, can ya tell?

But when/where did Cobra Commander ever say or imply that the process is devoid of fault between its native-born candidates and the citizenry?

A denial of equal opportunity within society between supposedly equal members of said society, based solely on a qualification that is not based on merit, is wrong!

It's the same premise as those who said women are incapable of holding office because they happen to be women, and we all know women are irrational and biased. It's the same premise as those who say colored folk have no place in leading our nation because they happen to not be white, which means that that they are incapable of serving whites in an equal and fair manner.

Don't you see the basic underlying principle that still grips us, that fear that is used to divide us and make us suspicious of those who are, well, not us?

Should we stop holding elections because it cannot be entirely flawless? Should we just "let it all hang out" (alter the Constitution at whim, who gives a damn) because it cannot be entirely flawless?
I don't think so.

Of course not, nor am I even suggesting something like that. However, if we can admit that there are flaws, can we not take the steps to rectify it? To improve the system? Must we forever be held hostage to Florida and their hanging chads!

And if the majority of the U.S. population were to vote NO on the foreign-born issue, WILL that --decide-- the matter?

Well, it would shut me up for a while. At least until the next opportunity to make the necessary changes.

Senator Hatch, good luck.

Cobra Commander · 2004-02-24 15:50:59

Very pretty Cobra, but don't waste it on me. Congress doesn't have the authority to change the Constitution, and you know that. Silly fascist, changing laws is for the People, not the lawyers.

In defense of my admittedly grandiose example, If enough Congressmen voted for it, as they might being that it benefits them, all they need is for 2/3 of the state legislatures to ratify. maybe offer to expand Congress and let them in on the spoils All it really takes is the cajones to try it. All perfectly constitutional in the school of Clark.

Come on Cobra, you're smarter than this. Thank you for being such a valiant foil, but your ship is sinking. There could be serious conflicts of interests. I admit it, just as I admit that ever President and would be President presents a conflict of interest based on their religion, or their ethnicity, or their private lives, or any number of ways you wish to divide people up and label them.

Yes, conflict of interest by having ties to Halliburton or being Catholic is one thing, but a conflict of interest involving a potential split loyalty with a foreign power is quite another.

I'm all for qualification Cobra, but I like them to make sense. This one doesn't hold water.

And the changes to those qualifications need to make sense. Which brings us back to the "why?" My "American Experience" argument is certainly not conclusive, but so far all you've come up with is this "maturation of values" thing. If we gain nothing but your nebulous sense of "maturation," we have a proposal for a significant constitutional change with no purpose, other than some aesthetic sense of "good." How 'bout a law banning disease while we're at it. A "War on Discomfort" perhaps.

clark · 2004-02-24 16:03:41

In defense of my admittedly grandiose example, If enough Congressmen voted for it, as they might being that it benefits them, all they need is for 2/3 of the state legislatures to ratify. maybe offer to expand Congress and let them in on the spoils All it really takes is the cajones to try it. All perfectly constitutional in the school of Clark.

Thank you Cobra, now let me borrow a page from your play-book: The People, well armed, make their point about how they feel about all of this. It's perfectly Constitutional for one person to end the world (president pushes the button). I love watching the death throws of ideas like this (don't worry, I've had my share too ).

Yes, conflict of interest by having ties to Halliburton or being Catholic is one thing, but a conflict of interest involving a potential split loyalty with a foreign power is quite another.

Oh, so religious or corporate conflicts of interest are okay? I mean, it's not like Big Business can get us involved in War, right? It's not like a Religion can be a cause for War either. Hmmm, how is Haliburton stock doing these days? How is our lovely Crusade going?

we gain nothing but your nebulous sense of "maturation," we have a proposal for a significant constitutional change with no purpose, other than some aesthetic sense of "good."

How significant is it really to allow Naturalized Americans the opportunity to run for President of the United States? It once again realigns and reaffirms that America is a classless society. That opportunity is indeed open to ALL Americans. Not just the white males, not just males, not just the women, but all people, regardless of race, creed, or color.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-02-22 11:36:17

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#2 2004-02-22 16:09:57

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#3 2004-02-22 19:01:46

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#4 2004-02-22 19:48:36

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#5 2004-02-23 06:39:14

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#6 2004-02-23 10:29:29

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#7 2004-02-23 14:39:23

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#8 2004-02-23 14:51:40

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#9 2004-02-23 14:57:36

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#10 2004-02-23 15:58:57

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#11 2004-02-23 16:16:10

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#12 2004-02-23 16:16:16

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#13 2004-02-23 16:41:38

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#14 2004-02-23 22:48:18

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#15 2004-02-24 06:36:40

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#16 2004-02-24 12:55:27

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#17 2004-02-24 13:22:49

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#18 2004-02-24 13:54:25

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#19 2004-02-24 14:04:35

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#20 2004-02-24 14:42:53

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#21 2004-02-24 15:27:11

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#22 2004-02-24 15:37:58

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#23 2004-02-24 15:47:40

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#24 2004-02-24 15:50:59

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

#25 2004-02-24 16:03:41

Re: Foreign-Born Presidents? - ...(another can of worms?)

Board footer