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

Palomar · 2004-02-24 16:09:10

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.

*More good points.

Now I have more questions: What are the chances a woman or non-white person will be the first within their group to hold the Office of President if we allow non-native born people like Arnold (white male) to run (and chances are good...WIN)?

Aren't we doing native-born citizens a disservice by squeezing/shutting them out further with extra competition?

Hillary Clinton vs. Arnold: Who do you think will win? And is that fair to Hillary?

--Cindy

Byron · 2004-02-24 16:15:47

Now I have more questions: What are the chances a woman or non-white person will be the first within their group to hold the Office of President if we allow non-native born people like Arnold (white male) to run (and chances are good...WIN)?
Aren't we doing native-born citizens a disservice by squeezing/shutting them out further with extra competition?
Hillary Clinton vs. Arnold: Who do you think will win? And is that fair to Hillary?
--Cindy

Yeah, I'd have to say the chances would be pretty dismal in that kind of a situation.

As for competiton, we'll always have that. But the Constitution is difficult to chance for a *reason* and it should only occur if there is a valid purpose to do so. In my mind, allowing nationals to run for President doesn't qualify as a serious enough reason to make the effort to change it.

As far I'm concerned, I'm perfectly happy to see Arnold right where he is...lol.

B

Cobra Commander · 2004-02-24 16:18:20

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 ).

And your point is what, precisely? I don't recall any constitutional authority for the President to destroy the world. Presidential authority to fire nuclear weapons without a declaration of war from Congress could be construed as unconstitutional, as there is no mention of proper use of nukes in the document we must make policy as the world changes.

But there is an emphatic statement about Presidential qualifications.

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?

But some US interests were at stake, though not all agree with the policy. Conflict of interest are never a good thing, but they can't be completely eliminated. I'd much rather have the conflict be between various American interests than with a foreign power. At least corrupt Native Presidents can't run home to the motherland after they get thrown out of office.

Or we could just build a super-computer to run society for us, thus saving us the trouble of having to deal with our own frailties. You get to keep the same Governator, though

How significant is it really to allow Naturalized Americans the opportunity to run for President of the United States?

Constitutionally, it's a big deal. How significant is it to allow a dog to run for the Senate?

clark · 2004-02-24 16:22:11

Now I have more questions: What are the chances a woman or non-white person will be the first within their group to hold the Office of President if we allow non-native born people like Arnold (white male) to run (and chances are good...WIN)?

LOL! Play the middle against the sides, very well done Cindy.

However, let's untangle this mess and look at the real issue, the opportunity for women or non-white's to conceivably attain the office of President versus a white male. It shouldn't be an issue though about where you were born though, it should simply be a question of capability. Can this person, man or woman, lead our country. That's it.

Now why wouldn't you want as many choices, as much opportunity in choosing someone like this, as possible?

Aren't we doing native-born citizens a disservice by squeezing/shutting them out further with extra competition?

Uh-oh, NAFTA rears it's ugly head! How can Americans compete in a global marketplace?! If you don't like competition, go back to the USSR you pinko commie bastard! (just kidding Cindy, just trying to be colorful and informative)

clark · 2004-02-24 16:29:13

In my mind, allowing nationals to run for President doesn't qualify as a serious enough reason to make the effort to change it.

Apathy, thy name is Byron.

I don't recall any constitutional authority for the President to destroy the world. Presidential authority to fire nuclear weapons without a declaration of war from Congress could be construed as unconstitutional, as there is no mention of proper use of nukes in the document we must make policy as the world changes.

Okay Cobra, we will sort it all out after the nuclear holocaust. :laugh:

Conflict of interest are never a good thing, but they can't be completely eliminated. I'd much rather have the conflict be between various American interests than with a foreign power. At least corrupt Native Presidents can't run home to the motherland after they get thrown out of office.

Oh, becuase corrupt leaders are safe anywhere in the world. Where did we find Saddam again?

How do we deal with conflicts of interest now? Why is it stagnant? Why can't we deal with new forms, or new issues of conflict of interests in a sensible and sane way? Is there simply no solution? Isn't it a better course to take each instance on a case by case basis, weighing the relevant factors , as opposed to a blanket judgement that presumes that such attempts are fruitless and without hope?

Or we could just build a super-computer to run society for us, thus saving us the trouble of having to deal with our own frailties.

Leave Josh out of this one.

Constitutionally, it's a big deal. How significant is it to allow a dog to run for the Senate?

Not very. The decision can be over-turned, and the exsisting checks and balances will work it out. It takes time, it's messy, but that's the way our forefathers wanted it... :laugh:

dicktice · 2004-02-25 10:38:47

I cerrtainly don't believe Arnie is ready for the Presidency, yet!

clark · 2004-02-25 11:32:52

So Dicktice, you don't think someone born in Austria, son of an SS military man, is ready to lead our fine nation? Perhaps, perhaps. Yet the discussion isn't about the Governator, it's about Naturalized Americans- those immigrants who have shown respect for our laws by immigrating to our country legally. Thos immigrants who have become part of their community by starting business's, getting involved with their religious instutions, and raising their children to be new Americans. Naturalized Americans are Americans, they are the finest Americans we can have becuase they themselves embody the Spirit of America, the History of America. Naturalized Americans are as our forefathers, coming to a foreign country to take part in it and make it home.

What exactly does someone have to do to prove their loyalties to our country? Fight for it? They do. Respect the laws of the land? They do. Contribute to society and their community? They do. Learn our history, language, and civil processes? They do. Pay taxes? They do. Vote? They do. Take part in the judicial process by being jurors? They do.

If we truly believe that where you are born prevents you from being a legitimate leader, then why can't we also say that becuase you are a woman, because you are black, or because you speak with a different accent, you can't be a legitimate leader?

Your eyes are blue, so there is an obvious conflict of interest with those who have brown eyes, thus any who have blue eyes cannot be legitimate leaders. People shouldn't even be allowed to vote for blue eyed people.

Where does it stop? Slippery slopes are on either side of the mountain.

Cobra Commander · 2004-02-25 17:19:24

Where does it stop? Slippery slopes are on either side of the mountain.

But for over two centuries our footing on this slope has been sure and steady.

Does America lose anything by not changing this requirement? Aside from the vaporous "maturation of values" does America gain by changing it?

The same questions keep repeating...

Alt2War · 2004-02-25 17:30:44

If your an Immigrant and come to America, no matter what color, religion, culture, or race, your children can grow up and run for president. There is no discrimination here.

dicktice · 2004-02-26 10:01:52

Dear, dear, Clark--I do believe I stepped on a toe or two, there, regarding Governor Arnie. Not my meaning! I had just read that he endorsed ammending the Constitution so he could run for president. Somehow, I felt it was unpresidential to have made such a statement himself. Quite aside from your valid points, what do you think of that?

clark · 2004-02-26 10:41:51

Ah, the fraility of the written word! I didn't think ill of your comment, I was merely addressing it, and others objections to what is largely a matter of principle. No worries.

Let me try to meet you all half way, then perhaps you will come with me the rest of the way...

I agree with many of the points made here about concerns related to a conflict of interest based on nationality. I agree with many of the points made about changing the Constitution, in any respect, ever. I agree that there is the possibility of danger when opening the highest offices of our Republic to those who are not native to this land. I doubt that I would actually choose a foreign born US citizen for President over an alternative Native born US citizen. All things being equal, I would probably be more inclined to choose a native US citizen who is less qualified than a more qualified foreign born US citizen for President.

So why am I arguing? If I willingly admit that I am not likely to vote for a foreign born US citizen for President, why do I suggest that we amend the Constitution to allow foreign born US citizens to run for the President?

For choice. For opportunity. To simply not allow my basic instinctual fears to rule my principles.

I believe strongly in the principles of our country, which is one of choice, and one of opportunity. I believe strongly that we all are better off when we, as individuals, are provided the greatest opportunity by which to make our choices. You want to believe in God, great! You don't, wonderful! You want to vote for a the Green Party, fine throw your vote away! You want to vote Republican, I may disagree, but I respect, and encourage you to make your voice heard as you choose to have it heard.

I believe strongly that when we limit opportunity or choice, we should do so only for legitimate and rational reasons based on as many objective criteria's as we can muster.

I believe strongly that the institution of Democracy, and our Republic is best served by allowing the People to choose who they wish to represent themselves and make the laws that shall govern them. If you are going to deny someone the choice of their representative of choice, you should have a pretty darn good reason.

It used to be African-Americans were considered unfit to lead because of the color of their skin.

It used to be that Women-Americans were considered unfit to lead because of their gender.

It used to be that non-land owning Americans were unfit to lead because they lacked property.

It still is that Naturalized Americans, i.e. a sub-section of Americans, who are equal to Native born Americans in every respect, are denied an opportunity, and we as a people are denied a choice.

Now, a bunch of Californian's had an opportunity to make a choice that as a Nation, we cannot. Just because we allow this choice for people doesn't mean they have to avail themselves of it, just as we respect every one's right to speak their mind, but not necessarily agree with what they are saying.

Also, we should realize that this requirement was created during a different time, after British rule (who do you think they wanted to keep out of the national government!). And times have changed.

Palomar · 2004-02-26 11:15:17

*How long will naturalized citizens have to wait until they are allowed to run for the Presidency? Arnold suggests 20 years. It's been asked before here (and not adequately answered, imo, by proponents of allowing naturalized citizens to run for the Presidency): Why 20 years? Why not 10? Who decides? Or, as Cobra mentioned: Why not fresh off the boat?

Also, what about people who reside here on Green Cards, who are actively in the process of being naturalized...but are -not yet- naturalized? Since they have expressed a desire to become naturalized citizens, why not let them run for office *while* still on Green Card status?

These are legitimate questions, aren't they, on the slippery slope? Since we're on this slippery slope, why not just go all the way?

Again: Where does it end?

The only way to avoid any sort of discrimination entirely is to let anyone anywhere on the entire surface of our globe run for President of the US regardless of anything; otherwise, somewhere along the line, we are discriminating somehow...right?

--Cindy

clark · 2004-02-26 11:33:54

I for one have no qualms in requiring a set amount of time prior to allowing any American to run for President. Even Native born Americans must wait 35 years as an American to be eligible to run. Those in the process of becoming Naturalized Americans are not Americans. They haven't proven via measurable and quantifiable actions their loyalties. Naturalized Americans who go through the process, and make America their home, do prove their loyalties though.

And I for one disagree with Arnold on the whole 20 years, or even ten years. 35 years as an American ought to do it just fine. As a Native born American, this is a limit imposed upon me, and so I can agree to the sense in it, and there is less of an issue of equality.

Now, the slippery slope can lead anywhere if we allow it, but we usually don't. We take tentative steps, then another, then another. Perhaps one day we will be at the point where we all see the sense, and no longer fear, opening the process to the entire globe. But I would be a fool to say we were ready for such a step, and I would be dishonest if I said I would support such a step now. I support allowing Naturalized Americans who have been American for at least 35 years, to have the opportunity to run for President.

What we point out is that limiting who can run for President is kind of arbitrary to begin with, if it is arbitrary though, that means we can and should reassess if it still makes sense. Can it not be reevaluated? I think it can, just like the rest of our Constitution, and I think making this kind of change is in line with the values of our society.

Equality comes in steps, and this is but one more step. It's not Mars, just the Moon... you know, Camp Dead Rock.

Cobra Commander · 2004-02-26 16:14:43

Clark, I see your perspective on this and you have a valid point. In a way this fits in with my own mad dream of unifying the entire planet under the US Constitution. The original one, not that shady, unclear copy Congress and the President seem to have been reading from, and the courts, for that matter. Something akin to what was done after the annexation of Texas would be needed, where citizens of the once-independent nation are treated as natural-born Americans for legal purposes. But that's a tangent we don't need to follow right now...

I am always wary of amending the constitution. And yes, I'm opposed to Bush's "marriage amendment," and opposed to gay marriage. Why should we amend the constitution, they're the ones that want to change the law. Again, a tangent... When we amend the constitution we are altering the foundation of our laws. We shouldn't do it lightly. I do not believe we have compelling reasons to make that change at present. Discussing it is good, but I don't think it's the right thing to do in these times.

clark · 2004-02-26 16:48:52

Well good ol fashion moderation has brought us to a bit of a standstill here.

In your opinion, what would constutite a compelling reason?

dicktice · 2004-02-27 11:38:15

Whoa, Nellie! I mean Cobra, regarding your statement [In a way this fits in with my own mad dream of unifying the entire planet under the US Constitution.] You left out the name of the planet--Mars, I presume?. Otherwise, put up yer dukes!

Cobra Commander · 2004-02-27 21:09:17

Well good ol fashion moderation has brought us to a bit of a standstill here.
In your opinion, what would constutite a compelling reason?

Well, if I could think of one I'd be on your side.

Whoa, Nellie! I mean Cobra, regarding your statement [In a way this fits in with my own mad dream of unifying the entire planet under the US Constitution.] You left out the name of the planet--Mars, I presume?. Otherwise, put up yer dukes!

"Planet," singular? What was I thinking? No need for the putting up of dukes, I wouldn't want to export America as it is right now anyway. You got time before liberation.
:laugh:

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-02-24 16:09:10

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

#27 2004-02-24 16:15:47

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

#28 2004-02-24 16:18:20

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

#29 2004-02-24 16:22:11

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

#30 2004-02-24 16:29:13

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

#31 2004-02-25 10:38:47

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

#32 2004-02-25 11:32:52

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

#33 2004-02-25 17:19:24

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

#34 2004-02-25 17:30:44

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

#35 2004-02-26 10:01:52

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

#36 2004-02-26 10:41:51

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

#37 2004-02-26 11:15:17

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

#38 2004-02-26 11:33:54

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

#39 2004-02-26 16:14:43

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

#40 2004-02-26 16:48:52

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

#41 2004-02-27 11:38:15

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

#42 2004-02-27 21:09:17

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

Board footer