(February 5, 2016 at 2:32 pm)KUSA Wrote: I think that the British Kingship should be open to foreigners. I would run for that position. I would make all of you Brits get your teeth fixed. That's why y'all talk so funny. It's those damned crooked teeth.

It is (currently the heir to the throne is German on his mother's side, and Germano-Greek on his father's side), but you have to be a Prod.

See, they let foreign influence into their monarchy and look what happened to them.  No empire, no longer.  

It should not be a matter of concern if a person was born in a different country, this clause is more of a "Keeping it in the family" issue. Big companies practice this all time passing down there company's to their spoiled children. There would be many qualified immigrants who have better educations then most Americans, think about it this way. Candid A: She has a PHD in political science from Oxford, no major legal trouble in her life, worked for many political organizations. served in the senate, was born and raised in mostly Germany; both parents German, has been an American citizen for 25 years and she's 44, she's fluent in Russian, German, French, and English. This candid does not have children nor married, she's an Atheist. Candid B: He's the son of a former senator and has been in legal trouble in his adult life, did not attend an elite school, served as a mayor, and a somewhat popular senator, he only speaks English, has been admitted to Rehab four times for his drinking problems, and parents born into in rich American families, he's married with three kids and is 54 years old.

What Candid would you win if the natural born clause was not in effect?

It's sort of silly to imagine a "best possible immigrant" for the job and then pretend as if there wouldn't be mounds of eligible citizens who also meet those same criteria......or as if there -are- mounds of those immigrants.....don't you think?

Specifically if we also, in doing this, have to refer to a fucking cartoon of an opposition candidate in order to manufacture the problem. If I were the voting type, I'd have voted for an illegal that couldn't speak english, fought against us as a guerilla, was now a drywaller, and planned to go home soon............ before I'd have voted for Bush the Younger.

(February 4, 2016 at 2:58 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Regardless, it is there and whether or not it should or should not be is irrelevant.

What? Of course it's not irrelevant. The constitution can be changed you know.

(February 4, 2016 at 11:48 pm)Cato Wrote: The name that popped into my mind while reading the OP was Kissinger.

I'm far less concerned about place of birth, and would have no problem with the recommended 20 year idea, than I am with idiots being given a vote simply because they're 18.

I'd favor raising the voting age, the drinking age, and the enlisting age to 25.

(February 5, 2016 at 5:29 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It's sort of silly to imagine a "best possible immigrant" for the job and then pretend as if there wouldn't be mounds of eligible citizens who also meet those same criteria......or as if there -are- mounds of those immigrants.....don't you think?

Specifically if we also, in doing this, have to refer to a fucking cartoon of an opposition candidate in order to manufacture the problem.  If I were the voting type, I'd have voted for an illegal that couldn't speak english and planned to go home soon before I'd have voted for Bush the Younger.

            It is a little bit silly, I'm just saying for sake argument here. Choice A makes far more sense to me then B.

Neither choice "makes sense" they are both equally absurd choices in context.

@Cap. Not easily, not easily.  We certainly couldn't hope to accomplish that change by imagining dream candidates who happen to be immigrants, as we've been doing. I think we all know what sort of immigrant candidate would -actually- appear on our ballots......

A fucking sleazeball, just like our home grown ones. 

We all know that but, who would be less of a sleazeball?

IDK, but consider this......the clause exists to protect against foreign influence..not sleazeballery.....and one of the coolest brits I'm aware of..who just immigrated and has for as long as I;ve know him made comments that make me think he'll be a great USian, left a comment -in this thread- that amounted to;

"that's not how we do it in the foreign country I came from".  

Yup, that's exactly the sorts of foreign influence the clause exists to nullify, and hilariously it's coming from -precisely- the sort of person the clause exists in paranoia of, lol. He's a 21st century "imperial candidate".

That's coming from a non-sleazeball who isn't a flight of fancy that -has- expressed political aspirations. I'd vote for him before I'd vote for me, but I still don't know why he would be , or why I should make him (if I could), eligible. He's already said something, as innocent as it is, as true as it is, that makes me doubt his fitness to be "1st Citizen", The Commander in Cheif of our armed forces, and the weilder of executive order and presidential veto. Not even in office yet, and already talking about how they do shit "back home".

I can only imagine that makes brits cringe too....the thought of a Rhythm PM...telling you how we do it back in 'murica, that yall need more 'murica in the UK......