U.S. Presidents & The Natural-born-citizen Clause

[KUSA]

The purpose of it was to make sure the president has an allegiance with the US and not another country. I agree with the intent of the this.

What if Putin came over here and got elected? That wouldn't be good at all now would it?

[Minimalist]

I'm sure he could get the republicunt nomination over any of the turds running now.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Here's an interesting one for you. The debate about "natural born citizens" and presidential eligibility was brought up in the 2008 election (with Obama), and again this year because Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother.

This isn't a thread about what constitutes a "natural born citizen", but rather whether that clause should even exist. The USA is on a very short list of countries which require their head of state to be a "natural born citizen", rather than someone who has gained citizenship via another means.

So what do you think?

Personally, I think that all citizens should be allowed to become President, but much like the requirement that Presidents be older than 35, people who have gained U.S. citizenship via means other than birth should have held that citizenship for a number of years (e.g. 20) and also been a U.S. resident for the same period of time.

Agreed that all US Presidential candidates should be citizens of a minimally mature age, but since Bush and the current race's Republiclowns have proven that age<>maturity, there is dire need for psychological evaluations and IQ testing as well - they should be required to pass both, and score at least 135 on the IQ test before being allowed on the ballot! 

On duration of citizenship, if England needed a new King right and they want you wherever you are, then you could get the job as soon as you land on their soil according to historical precedent - therefore, I tend to doubt that it's really oh-so-very important here. You can be natural-born in the US and still have dual citizenship with your parent's country of origin, and that issue would be truly important - such details need to be made public, and allegiance to other countries which apply must be publicly renounced.

[Minimalist]

For the record, Martin Van Buren (#8) was the first president of the United States who was not born a British subject.... FWIW.

(Perhaps that is why they did not bother to define the term?)

[The Grand Nudger]

It exists as protection against foreign influence.  Makes it a little more difficult for the proverbial "manchurian candidate" to get into the highest elected office.

The issue of foreign influence seems more important than an inconvenience of a few decades, at most, for the politically motivated.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Here's an interesting one for you. The debate about "natural born citizens" and presidential eligibility was brought up in the 2008 election (with Obama), and again this year because Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother.

This isn't a thread about what constitutes a "natural born citizen", but rather whether that clause should even exist. The USA is on a very short list of countries which require their head of state to be a "natural born citizen", rather than someone who has gained citizenship via another means.

So what do you think?

Personally, I think that all citizens should be allowed to become President, but much like the requirement that Presidents be older than 35, people who have gained U.S. citizenship via means other than birth should have held that citizenship for a number of years (e.g. 20) and also been a U.S. resident for the same period of time.

Agreed that all US Presidential candidates should be citizens of a minimally mature age, but since Bush and the current race's Republiclowns have proven that age<>maturity, there is dire need for psychological evaluations and IQ testing as well - they should be required to pass both, and score at least 135 on the IQ test before being allowed on the ballot! 

On duration of citizenship, if England needed a new King right now and they want you wherever you are, then you could get the job as soon as you land on their soil according to historical precedent - therefore, I tend to doubt that it's really oh-so-very important here. You can be natural-born in the US and still have dual citizenship with your parent's country of origin, and that issue would be truly important - such details need to be made public, and allegiance to other countries which apply must be publicly renounced.

[Dystopia]

I personally am not going to vote because I'm not America, but just to tell a curious fact - In Portugal, the president has to be 35 years old and a citizen of origin. It's pretty much accepted as a good principle. A Portuguese of origin is simply someone with Portuguese lineage. A grandparent or something like that is enough. In theory, someone who acquired citizenship without previous ancestry is never allowed to be president. Of course, there's other requirements as well, so it's not like you discover Portuguese ancestry and can suddenly become president.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If the US ever gets over its collective xenophobia regarding presidential birthplaces, I'm willing to serve.

I mean, if you lot don't mind switching to a Guinness and sheep-based economy and changing your national anthem to 'Red Haired Mary'.

Boru

[Tiberius]

Regardless, it is there and whether or not it should or should not be is irrelevant.

*sigh* you get that this is a thread discussing a hypothetical right Min? The fact that it exists in the Constitution doesn't mean we can't discuss whether or not it should exist there.

So, and this is bound to piss off the birthers, Obama who was born in Hawaii would be "natural-born" even if both his parents had been Kenyans while Cruz, born in Canada, would have some problem.

Cruz would only have a problem if both his parents were non-US citizens though.

The purpose of it was to make sure the president has an allegiance with the US and not another country. I agree with the intent of the this.

What if Putin came over here and got elected? That wouldn't be good at all now would it?

I understand that, but blanket banning seems a little harsh. After all, there are plenty of U.S. Citizens who have worked for foreign governments, have spied against the U.S., etc. These people would have all be eligible for the presidency.

That's why I personally think there should be a restriction, but it should be on the amount of time the person has been a citizen. A foreign national who has become a U.S. citizen and has lived in the U.S. for 20 years is highly likely to be allegiance to the U.S. more so than his or her country of birth.

It exists as protection against foreign influence.  Makes it a little more difficult for the proverbial "manchurian candidate" to get into the highest elected office.

The issue of foreign influence seems more important than an inconvenience of a few decades, at most, for the politically motivated.

It makes it more difficult, sure, but not impossible. An American citizen can easily ally themselves with another country (many have done in the past) and they would still be eligible.

[Dystopia]

That's why I personally think there should be a restriction, but it should be on the amount of time the person has been a citizen. A foreign national who has become a U.S. citizen and has lived in the U.S. for 20 years is highly likely to be allegiance to the U.S. more so than his or her country of birth.

What makes you think so? There's a bunch of reasons anyone would like to work in the US. Maybe you have a specialization that pays of well in the US or something... But people rarely forget where they were born at - Unless someone immigrated while they were 2 or 3 years old. Time doesn't necessarily mean alliance, I don't think so. My dad worked for 10+ years in other countries, lived there, ate their food, but he still had a higher affinity to the place he was born in and raised as a kid