Should foreigns be given a chance to hold presidency?





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Should foreigns be given a chance to hold presidency?
By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 01:07 pm: Edit

For most children, it's a dream to be granted the throne of presidency. For others, it's mere thought that would amount to reason nothing.

America started in a distant land, the only residing people were Native Americans. This land started of as nothing but a forest. Later, foreign came and build this country to one of most developed democracies in the world.

As an alien, I always wondered, why should not we foreigns be given a chance to hold such statue we can only dream of. Simplicly, just because we were conceived outside another nation. Was, I ask, was it our choice to be born in so and so place? We didn't even asked for our fertilized egg to conjoin with our mother's uterulite lining. We didn't ask!

In order to be granted American citizenship, you must take a test. Do born citizens take a test? The last time I checked, they just came out of the birth canal and "poof" "Another American citizen!"

Now, alot of people have various opinions regarding this debate.

"Even though the foreign-born citizen may show a dedication to the United States of America, the foreign-born will always hold an amount of respect for the country of their birth,"

"America was composed of foreigns."

"It's for our nation's security."

"If a citizen is a citizen, then they should be granted the rights of a citizen."

I question the opinions on both sides. They each have a reliable basis.

What's your opinion?

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 01:20 pm: Edit

I think they should JUST so Arnold can run for president!

SCHWARZENEGGER '08!!!

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 01:25 pm: Edit

Should foreigners be allowed to be president? IMO, no. Resounding no.

Read the Constitution. It quite clearly states that the only people who could be president were to be citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution or born in the country. That was a time when, again my opinion, immigration was much more a factor in the population... and even then, the Founding Fathers thought it important to have a native-born lead.

Let's ask your question a different way: why should America be ruled by a foreigner? While you are correct to say that no one chooses the country of their birth, you are incorrect in that you can choose which country to live in. Don't like that law? Move back to where you were born. Harsh, yes, not entirely fair, yes, but still - there is the option. Important to parents that their kids have the option to be President of the US? Move to the US before you conceive.

Getting off of that topic, I think that there are legitimate reasons to restrict that office to native-born citizens. There is something unique about the culture of every country, and I think that it is important that the President understand, absolutely intuitively, what it means to be American. Other countries have different value systems, and it is expressed in ways which are difficult to quantify. A native-born almost certainly would have gone to public elementary school and thus will always have a better clue of what they are like than someone who moved here at age 20.

If I were to move to another country, I think that I would be uniquely ill-suited to hold office there, especially the highest office. There is something about the culture that I would never be able to grasp as well as people who lived there all their lives and have always had that country as their home. I'm very educated, still young enough to move somewhere and acclimate, but I just would not understand. I don't see how a foreigner could "get" Americans the way someone who has always lived here does.

Just my two cents.

By Gidget (Gidget) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 04:28 pm: Edit

I think they should be able too... American was founded on Immigration and an citizen is and citizen norn their or not. - Equal rights for everyone !!!!!!

Ariesathena- for you argument on "here is something about the culture that I would never be able to grasp as well as people who lived there all their lives and have always had that country as their home."
Just wondering... what do you think about if someone had grownn up in America, like their parents brough them here at the age of 3 months.... I think they would have a pretty good grasp...

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 04:54 pm: Edit

I would agree with that, Gidget - they would have a good grasp of American culture.

So let's refine the question: if we agree that it's important that the person have lived here for most of their lives (like know what public school is like so that he or she can make informed policy decisions about it), how do we amend the Constitution to reflect that? Do we impose a cut-off in age at which the person must have moved here? Is it worth it to establish such a clause when the potential for conflict of interest is so great? I personally would not be comfortable with someone who could have two homelands and thus, when dealing in world affairs, not act with the best interests of the US but rather in the best interests of his other country.

When acquiring a security clearance (which I need for my job), they ask if you have any other citizenships. I believe that top-level classified clearance requires that the person renounce their other citizenship. The President is privy to information which few citizens will ever know about... and people argue that a foreign-born person could do that job?

I disagree with "equal rights for everyone." (Bear with me!) If you were not born in this country, why should you be entitled to the rights of the country which are given to those who are born here? I.e., can we say that an individual is given full rights in the country he or she is born into, but may or may not be entitled to full rights of the country to which they move?

In some respects, I stand by what I said earlier... if it's that important to parents, then concieve in this country. Furthermore, if you are born in another country, you have rights of that one - including to be president or Prime Minister or whatever.

Also, "this country was founded on immigration," while true, is completely beside the point. Notice how the Founding Fathers were aware of the huge amount of immigration but still decided that someone must be a native born citizen to hold the highest office.

Question: do other countries have similar restrictions? Would I be able to move to France and be PM? How would citizens react to the thought of a foreigner being in power?

America is a young country comparatively, but we certainly have developed our own traditions, customs, culture, and, yes, laws (including the one in question) which are upheld through years of tradition. Saying that "this country was founded on immigration," is, in my opinion, nonsensical - as America is much more than an immigrant colony now.

By Magoo (Magoo) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 05:24 pm: Edit

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION:

NO!

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 05:31 pm: Edit

So concise Magoo - what's with that?

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 05:34 pm: Edit

So I'm assuming based on your answer that you concur to Aries Athena, Mr. Magoo.


JUST GIVE US FOREIGNS A CHANCE!

Enough said.

By Kingkonglives (Kingkonglives) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 05:49 pm: Edit

a chance you would not have, there's no way any foreign president would be voted in especially with the South being so big in the elections!

yes i believe foreigners should be allowed; it would give our country some perspective if one were to be elected!

like we wouldn't just start bombing people or going to war :-(

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 05:52 pm: Edit

How about we get a different type of foreigner as president...

a WOMAN. We should work on securing their equal rights, especially since they are citizens and yet the Equal Rights Amendment has never passed. :( Damn status-quotients.

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Yeah, who needs foreigners?! I think *she'd* give us the perspective we need.

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 05:53 pm: Edit

yeah. there this organization called the V*** Monologues (be safe than sorry) working on that.

By Averagemathgeek (Averagemathgeek) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 06:03 pm: Edit

I have no problem with a foreigner being the president. I am not sure what is accomplished by having a person born in the US in the Oval Office.

After all, do you think discriminating against most of the world's population is a great way to express our view of democracy?

By Takiusproteus (Takiusproteus) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 07:15 pm: Edit

Giving foreigners the right to run for the Presidency would be silly.

It's like giving a bike to a quadriplegic as a birthday present.

There's some fine print at the bottom of the Constitution that they never taught you about in school: You need to be a blue-blooded WASP with a family history dating back to the Mayflower in order to be able to run for President.


...actually, I change my mind. We SHOULD give it to the Foreigners. It'd be a cute little token gesture to demonstrate our devotion to the principles of democracy and liberty.

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 07:23 pm: Edit

No.

By Duke3d4 (Duke3d4) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 08:21 pm: Edit

magoo i thought u were a nice guy before now i Know ur just racist.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 08:29 pm: Edit

i strongly believe anybody should be able to run for president of our country: women, quadriplegics, foreigners, even saddam himself. everyone should have the opportunity to run. granted, if anybody in any of those categories were to run, he or she probably wouldn't win. ummm so what i'm trying to say is that although i don't think a foreigner should be president, i think he should have the right to run.

By Rachelvishy (Rachelvishy) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 09:05 pm: Edit

No!

P.s.-"How about we get a different type of foreigner as president...

a WOMAN. We should work on securing their equal rights, especially since they are citizens and yet the Equal Rights Amendment has never passed. Damn status-quotients.
"
Go Jenesaispas!!

By Magoo (Magoo) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 09:15 pm: Edit

magoo i thought u were a nice guy before now i Know ur just racist.

whoa!! calm down there buddy...how could this be racist?...i don't undertand...if u are an american citizen u should be able to run for president regardless of race or creed.

By Alicia129 (Alicia129) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 09:23 pm: Edit

Nope. Where are the other powerful nations giving foreigners chances to be the most powerful leader in their land?

I think I'll just skip over to Great Britain and see if I can be their Prime Minister. Maybe they'll change their laws. Move over Tony Blair - here I come! :)

By Averagemathgeek (Averagemathgeek) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 09:51 pm: Edit

Alicia129,

The fact that other nations have restrictions on who can run for their highest office (based on nationality) does not mean we have a mandate to follow their example.

The US must hold itself to higher standards.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 10:13 pm: Edit

grrr, average math geek, i was going to post THE EXACT SAME THING!!

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 10:17 pm: Edit

I want Tony Blair for president! I think we need to go back under british rule just for him :). Or invite him over here and make him president. Oh for a president that can actually speak english properly...(sigh)

By Recordingwater (Recordingwater) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 11:42 pm: Edit

I think No, too.

I do think that someone foreign-born will always have some sort of allegiance to their nation of origin.

I also think that opening up the highest power in the nation to foreigners could run a serious risk to security. Yes, I am sure there are tons of people who are foreigners and are great, upstanding moral citizens, and would do a fine job as U.S. President. But I am also sure that there are some people who would take advantage of the fact that they could become president and assume power and then turn America into some kind of police state. Hey, it's happened! Look at Adolf Hitler. He was Austrian.

And yes, I also realize that there are Americans who could be a threat to security, if they assumed power, (such as Timothy McVeigh), but I think the chances are much less if the office of President is only open to Americans.

I also pretty much agree with everything Ariesathena said about culture and understanding.

Plus, I think Americans would just be unreceptive to a foreigner in office. Seriously. Why would someone who was NOT born American be allowed to have THE HIGHEST POSITION in America? I don't think it's fair to Americans.

(P.S. I think there are better jobs than Prez of the U.S. Aspire to those jobs!) =)

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 11:54 pm: Edit

Why not ... it's not like the person would win. There has yet to be a president from the United States that was anything but white, male, and protestant/catholic (mostly protestant). That was more cynicism than actually a response to the question.

By Averagemathgeek (Averagemathgeek) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 12:00 am: Edit

"I do think that someone foreign-born will always have some sort of allegiance to their nation of origin."

Is that any worse than the allegiances and motivations that some presidents have had?

And besides, as someone rightly pointed out earlier, the American people are not electing a foreigner anytime soon.

By Baggins (Baggins) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 12:25 am: Edit

Who would you pick? Someone that was born in a different country and moved to the US 1 month later and never left the US since or someone born in the US and moved to a different country 1 month later and never left that country since? The first clearly has more expertise about the US since he/she has been living there while the later was only born there.

By Magoo (Magoo) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 12:30 am: Edit

yes, however niether would be voted into office.

By Buckojackson (Buckojackson) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 02:27 am: Edit

Nope.

By Magoo (Magoo) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 02:45 am: Edit

i also wonder how a president who was born in a foriegn country would handle a hostile situation between America and his native homeland...if the basis of his or her campaign was to appeal to people who immagrated to the U.S. how would these people handle any strife between these lands...also what would this person's heart tell them if they were in the precarious situation of deciding which solution is best for america, and its people or...would he or she choose which is better for the other country...playing favorites (making allies jealous/or enemies happy)...or how would this president find common ground in this arena...

my point is some one who was born out side the united states may be fit to run the country, however there is a slight chance that some one or some group would try and take the opp. to cause some sort of conflict...yes, i know there are a lot of possibilities, and there is no way that i can prove that something negative will happen (can't prove something negative wont either) but still, there is a slight chance...and when u are in that position the last thing u need is more stress and difficulty with ur job because of where u were born...

i don't agree with it now (changing the constitution to suit the desires of the hopeful candidates)...if something like that were to take affect now i don't know how the world/nation would handle it.

it would NOT disgust me to see someone hold the office with an immediate immagrant background, however it does pose unique risks (and breaks away from tradition) and those are some risks im not willing to take for my country...

SORRY, this is the way i feel.

also PLEASE: some one tell me how i'm being racist...i don't get it. this has more to do with nationalities and politics than race.

By Crazylicious (Crazylicious) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 04:03 am: Edit

Jenesaispas: regarding women, you should see the thread i started a couple days ago on hillary clinton becoming president

as for foreign born people becoming president? i think they should be able to. the first couple presidents were obviously immigrants from england (which couldn't be avoided though). well anyways, i think foreigners-turned american citizens should be able to run for president.

however, if foreigners were allowed to, i don't know how much of a chance they'll have to win. but they should run anyway. heck, we have a ton of independents running for president who we never heard of, why does it matter if foreigners run? i'm sure in a couple decades, considering foreigners are soon allowed to run, people will embrace the fact that the united states is a big nation of immigrants and maybe the foreigners will have a chance then.

anyways, before we tackle the issue of foreigners becoming president.... why don't we wait until we see, say... a natural born US citizen ASIAN person becoming president..

By Crazylicious (Crazylicious) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 04:07 am: Edit

Takiusproteus: what's a WASP? haha i need to brush up on acronyms

Magoo: i thought u didn't want foreigners to become president.. what's this: "if u are an american citizen u should be able to run for president regardless of race or creed."? sorry i'm just confused that's all.. cuz obviously american citizens can be foreign-born. just want to clarify

By Loop123 (Loop123) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 04:16 am: Edit

Anyone should be able to become the president. The winner is decided by votes, after all. If the majority of the country believes that a foreigner would be the best leader available, then so be it.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 04:18 am: Edit

simply put: The Presidency of the United States of America is the most patriotic role in the US...the root of patriotism derives from being a US citizen

..I mean comon yes we all immigrated here from different countries, but the majority of us have been here for over 200 years...should the PM of England come from Germany? Should the President of France be Italian?

We used to be ethnically diverse, but we have reached a point in time that we are all now Americans (whether we like it or not)

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 04:22 am: Edit

WASP -- White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

By Conker (Conker) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 08:25 am: Edit

"I mean comon yes we all immigrated here from different countries, but the majority of us have been here for over 200 years..."

Are you sure about that?

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 01:05 pm: Edit

"simply put: The Presidency of the United States of America is the most patriotic role in the US...the root of patriotism derives from being a US citizen"

It may just be me but I don't want a crazy patriotic/nationalistic president by any means.

Also, I second Conker's doubts about being here for over 200 years -- pretty sure the majority of the country has not been here since independence or even the early 1800s.

By Matth (Matth) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 01:25 pm: Edit

In reality, the only individual who, in the foreseeable future, would cause this debate is Arnold, and his case is really very different than the discussion of someone who moved here when they were 3 months old, etc. I don't see that there is any inherent benefit to having the president be native-born, rather than having moved here, and become a naturalized citizen at age 3 months (for argument's sake). To say that it would be difficult to have a cut off and who would decide, etc. is just a little silly because there are already rules by which candidates must abide in order to run for office, e.g., their age. So why couldn't rules be instituted for naturalized citizens?

One of my neighbors just got back from a trip to Mexico where the wife gave birth early while on vacation there. The baby spent a week of its life in Mexico but will now be raised here. Is it fair that he will not have the same opportunity he would have had if his parents had instead gone to Florida on vacation? It just shows the sillyness of the rule in that context.

All of the people arguing with the statements such as "ok I'll just fly over to England and run for Prime Minister" or some such, are just ridiculous. No one is suggesting that a visitor just be allowed to drop in and run for President. The rational discussion should be concerning native born vs. long-term naturalized citizens. What about dual citizens? People who were born in the U.S. but have dual citizenship with another country? Should they be disqualified, too?

In any case, it's so very difficult to be elected President that, as I said, the chances of anyone even being in contention for such an issue, other than Arnold, are slim.

By Alicia129 (Alicia129) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 01:32 pm: Edit

Averagemathgeek - why must the US hold ourselves to higher standards? We hold ourselves to high enough standards as it is - I don't think that including foreign born citizens to be able to run for president is really in our favor. As many people have stated here, a foreign born leader would always have some loyalty to his native homeland...

Scubasteve expressed my opinion perfectly with "should the PM of England come from Germany? Should the President of France be Italian?"

It's no different for the US

By Averagemathgeek (Averagemathgeek) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 01:51 pm: Edit

"Why must the US hold ourselves to higher standards?"

Good question. I must admit that the answer is purely based on a person's political beliefs. Even more subjective is how to define higher standards. I believe that the highest standards are giving individuals the rights to "live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The government must show no prejudice to any person based on nationality.

The US Government must hold itself to these standards for any other way would produce an illegitimate government. Once again, the above is just my opinion.

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 03:03 pm: Edit

Yes, the government should hold itself to a higher standard, but not at the expense of its own safety. A foreigner as president is a national security risk because we are not sure where his loyalties lie (granted we are no really positive where anyone's loyalties are, still, it makes people feel better knowing the president is and always was an American).

By Demingy (Demingy) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 05:49 pm: Edit

"People who were born in the U.S. but have dual citizenship with another country? Should they be disqualified, too?"

Yes they should be disqualified too. It could be seen as a conflict of interest.

Anyway, this is my only argument because I think that most of my other points have been made (although I don't agree with some of the points made).

By Magoo (Magoo) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:43 pm: Edit

double post...read below

By Magoo (Magoo) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:43 pm: Edit

CRAZY: u know what i meant:

if the person was born in america...an american born citizen...wow

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 01:28 am: Edit

It's worked for 217 years... If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

By Lethalfang (Lethalfang) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 03:43 am: Edit

My answer to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," is:

When you enter the world of "Alice in Wonderland," you will see a rabbit, and around his neck is a clock. This rabbit is constantly running. If you ask him why he is always running, he will say to you, "the world is turning every second, if you want to stay at where you are, you will have to run with the world. If you want to be ahead of where you are, then you will have to run faster."

You don't have to wait for something to break before you fix it.
Just because it ain't broke, doesn't mean it's perfect and cannot be further improved.

By Magoo (Magoo) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 03:47 am: Edit

hmmm...good argument, but still, no!...sorry, no can do.

im not totally appaled at this notion

maybe in the future when the country see it fit...if there is one central govt...or most countries are so advanced that people readily move from place to place due to globalized jobs and other reasons....but as of now...to be honest with you...i don't see the point

p.s. i still want to know why im "racist"

By Crazylicious (Crazylicious) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 03:51 am: Edit

ya magoo i knew what u meant magoo but i guess i felt like being in an unnecessarily annoying mood earlier. hah.

By Magoo (Magoo) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 03:53 am: Edit

ok great...phew...i thought you were just trying to spite me or something...i thought...damit...i lost some one's favor over a stupid political debate

thanks for the clear up.

By Steveruleworld (Steveruleworld) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 06:33 am: Edit

"One of my neighbors just got back from a trip to Mexico where the wife gave birth early while on vacation there. The baby spent a week of its life in Mexico but will now be raised here. Is it fair that he will not have the same opportunity he would have had if his parents had instead gone to Florida on vacation? It just shows the sillyness of the rule in that context. "

That was a bad argument. According to the US citizenship and naturalization website, if a child is born abroad to two US citizens, as long as they were both US citizens at the time of birth and at least 1 has lived in the US, or to one US citizen who at the time of birth is a citizen of the US, lived at least 5 years in the US before the birth of which 2 must be after 14th b-day, then the child is considered to be a born US citizen.

Leth: Sure, i agree that just because something works doesn't mean you shoudl stop trying to make it better, but personally i can see a few other things that can be changed that are of more importance than the issue of foreigns running in presidential elections. Including electoral college system (though i support bush completely, if people keep giving the argument that he didn't win the numerical number of votes why aren't they trying to get rid of this system) side note: It may already be gone, but i can't recall it being taken out. the amount of press that candidates get: Right now we are in more of a 2 party system than a true democracy as a result of cash flow. If all candidates were given equal air time (i do see the problem that this would allow a massive number of candidates, but maybe some other criterion could be imposed as well, such as an aptitude/poly graph/drug test to qualify the top candidates.) then we wouldn't have people saying, "i'm voting for Kerry, just because he's not Bush" It would give us a lot more options. And a third thing... some form of indeniable proof so that you cannot vote twice or something... like fingerprint or retina scan (would take a while to get it up and running, but would help out on controversial elections). Also, absentee ballots from over seas (which are probably mainly military members, who are normally inclined to be republican,) not be looked upon differently as i believe they were in florida.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 01:35 pm: Edit

How would it work if a child was born abroad and immediately adopted and brought to the US? I know more than a few people who fall under thid category.

By Slayer (Slayer) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 08:45 pm: Edit

"We should work on securing their equal rights, especially since they are citizens and yet the Equal Rights Amendment has never passed. Damn status-quotients."

OK now, I'm all about gender equality and what not, but do you have any idea what that amendment would entail? Women would be drafted to war like men. It was women who protested the passing of the amendment during the women's movement

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 09:09 pm: Edit

Women being drafted wouldn't bother me. And, seriously. A draft? Any time soon, ever again? I don't think so.

It was women who protested the passing of the amendment during the women's movement

Only *some* women protested. (I'd go as far as saying it was a small minority, relatively.) The National Organization for Women and many other women organizations made the ERA their main focus. It was that damn Phyllis something who worked against it, that bitch.

Currently, only *16* of the 50 states (30%) have ERAs in their state constitutions. This looks like a problem to me, especially when 35 states ratified the ERA, but that wasn't enough for the 3/4 majority.

By Averagemathgeek (Averagemathgeek) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 09:28 pm: Edit

I hate to deviate from the topic, but why is the ERA needed? I thought that the 14th Amendment secured the equality of all people under the law. Rather than just amending the Constitution, we should hold the government responsible for violating the 14th Amendment.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 09:46 pm: Edit

The argument is that the ERA is needed because the 14th amendment was never interpreted on the basis of sex -- this mistake couldn't be made if the ERA existed.

By Thenarrator (Thenarrator) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 10:10 pm: Edit

ERA is redundant in this day and age. 14th grants equality to all. "all persons born or naturalized in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the US and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abrdige the privileges of immunities of citizens of the US; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, w/o due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law."

nowhere does it say its limited to only race. ERA is redundant, hell it diminishes the female sex and the 14th amendment. It says that women are excluded from the definition of "all persons." I'll be damned if a "mistake" could be made about the 14th and sex.

By Hellagood133 (Hellagood133) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 12:34 am: Edit

wat exactly is American though???? its one thing to be born here, but i mean we are all essentially of foreign decent. Isnt america all about being the melting pot??? but at the same time, i kinda see both sides to this argument.
Answer this....
We have only had WHITE presidents....what if a chinese man who was born here ran for president and won? im sure that the chinese man was probably raised with chinese values that his immigrant parents instilled in him....isnt that almost the same as a foreigner coming here at the age of 3, being raised here, and then running for prez if it was possible?
do you guys think america will have a non white or non male president in the near future?

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 12:35 am: Edit

It would be amazing if a Chinese was a president! Our New Year parties would be amazing!!

By Aim78 (Aim78) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 01:02 am: Edit

No.

You can have an Asian as President, but he/she would have to have been born here.

By Crazylicious (Crazylicious) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 01:53 am: Edit

aim78: "what if a chinese man who was born here ran for president and won?" ya thats what i think they were talking about

By Thenarrator (Thenarrator) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 08:21 pm: Edit

can't be a US president?.....just take over the world

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 10:43 pm: Edit

jus solis- claim US citizenship by birth
jus sanguis- claim US citizenship by parental blood.

So technically...you could have two US parents, but say...they move to England and raise you there, although they claim US citizenship for you- you could still be President.

I believe you could still be "foreign born" yet be President, as long as you parents were US citizens.

By Paulhomework (Paulhomework) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 01:00 am: Edit

One question:

Can a person with dual citizenship (US and some other country) run for presidency?

By Steveruleworld (Steveruleworld) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 01:46 am: Edit

It would probably be a major security concern if someone with dual citizenship ran for president, so i would believe that it is not allowed.

Thenarrator:i wonder if you read my earlier thread.

By Mac87 (Mac87) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 04:54 pm: Edit

well that's kind of a non issue since you cannot have dual citizenship in the United States

By Lucifersam (Lucifersam) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 06:07 pm: Edit

I'm pretty sure you can have dual citizenship in the United States, as one of my good friends was born in Germany and somehow qualifies for dual citizenship. I may be wrong, but I really don't think I am.

Anyway, there is no reason that a foreigner to the US cannot become President if he or she so desires and has the means to. Many people have brought up how "Well, the majority of Americans would not vote for a foreigner, so what's the point?". Well, the majority of Americans would not vote for a woman, either, but it is still worth a try for a woman to attempt Presidency, and there is no law against it. Hellagood133 also brought up a good point. One of my parents is an immigrant from Portugal. If I were to run for President, although I would never do such a thing, I would hold some of the values that my immigrant mother holds, as well as many other characteristics that come from having an immigrant parent.

Magoo: It may have been a little strong for whoever did to call you racist, but in the way you posted the first time, it did seem that you were STRONGLY opposed to a foreign President, and nobody would seem to be that strongly opposed just because of some laws. I don't know, that's the best way I can put it.

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 06:14 pm: Edit

Yes you can.. My parents were thinking about getting me dual citizenship before I was 18 (it's cheaper) I protested because after my undergrad work is done, I'm leaving to England.

BTW, Magoo is banned. So is KillerTofu..... :(

By Macramequeen (Macramequeen) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 06:14 pm: Edit

So long as we as a democracy can vote for a well qualified, capable candidate who we, ourselves, choose to be president, why not? I truly believe that our country is a big old melting pot. We've got enough love for everyone!

By 3togo (3togo) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 09:46 am: Edit

FYI - the current limitation is stronger than limiting foreigners from becoming citizens and then becoming President. Even US citizens need to be born on US soil to become President. For example, if a US couple had a child while spending a vacation weekend in Canada, that child is a US citizen but can not be President (I have a nephew born in London who can not be president). I am not sure exactly what the definition of US soil is ... what about a US military base overseas, a US territory (Guam), or a US embassy, etc.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 02:04 pm: Edit

A US Embassy is, I believe, considered to be US soil.

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 02:20 pm: Edit

If you were born in sea, the first place you land would be your country of nationality.

Ariesathena: Would someone literally go to a US Embassy and give birth?

I really never considered being a president in my life, but I moved here when I was a year and a half. I have not recollection sowhatever except one memory of being in Canada. And, I haven't been back since. Would it be wrong of someone like me, to become a president? Plus, one of the people, 20th or something like that to be in line for president isn't a born citizen. Would they skip him because his birth certificate has a different country?

By 3togo (3togo) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 03:40 pm: Edit

> Plus, one of the people, 20th or something like that to be in line for president isn't a born citizen. Would they skip him because his birth certificate has a different country?

Great question ... I wonder if the first few people in the succession line (VP, speaker of the house, etc) also need to be US citizens eligible to be president? Or would they skip over people?

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 04:01 pm: Edit

I don't think that someone would give birth at an embassy; I was just answering the question asked.

Military bases would make more sense to give birth, as their doctors are probably US-trained and might be better than those in foreign hospitals.

By Mac87 (Mac87) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 07:32 pm: Edit

in the US you can have dual citizenship up to age 18, for instance, if your parents are of another nationality but are in the US when you are born you are a US citizen and a citizen of the other country; however, when you turn 18 you have to declare which country you want to be a citizen of

other countries have their own laws about what a citizen is so it's would be different for every country about having dual citizenship

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 07:47 pm: Edit

what about canada to dual citizenship to the united kindgom? i'm wondering cause it actually concerns me...

By Katiya (Katiya) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 09:23 pm: Edit

i think that foreigners who are adopted should definitely be considered the same as if they were born on US soil.

others... i dunno. i should hope the law would say that they had to have lived in the U.S. for 35 years. i don't think it would be such a terrible thing.


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page