I haven't read everything in the thread up until now but I'll weigh in:
Initially, I don't have a problem with the clause requiring a president to be a natural-born citizen. I don't personally know exactly what legally defines "natural born" but my understanding was that you are born to an American citizen either in the US, on "US soil", or outside the US and are then legally "naturalized" and by that definition both Obama and Cruz
would count, for me, as "natural born citizens." The hypocrisy of Republicans being up Obama's ass about "not being eligible" when he was born to a US citizen ON US soil is what amuses me about the Cruz situation - but technically I think he's legally eligible. (Again, )
With that said, I am open to being convinced that the "natural born citizen" clause is unnecessary, or that immigrants who meet residency and citizenship requirements should be allowed to run for POTUS.
Having knowledge of the political systems of another country via the mechanism of actually living there for an extended period or growing up there could be a really interesting and valuable source of knowledge for a president to have. There's also the possibility that such a person could have better international relations due to their wider cultural knowledge - but also the flip side of bringing some baggage with them that other countries wouldn't be too fond of. So there are benefits and drawbacks.
You're talking about Americans who can often be very xenophobic, so along with a change in eligibility requirements I think a cultural shift would have to happen along with it in order for a non-natural-born-citizen to ever be elected POTUS. We could change the law today but still not elect an immigrant who gains citizenship to POTUS for 50+ years. It took 50 years to elect the first African American president after the Civil Rights Movement and look at the fit pitched by Republicans over that.
I think that would be reasonable. Not only residency length requirements, but citizenship-length requirements (like you can't gain citizenship in 2014 and run for President in 2016). By a standard like that, Schwarzenegger could be POTUS eligible. That would be interesting.
Initially, I don't have a problem with the clause requiring a president to be a natural-born citizen. I don't personally know exactly what legally defines "natural born" but my understanding was that you are born to an American citizen either in the US, on "US soil", or outside the US and are then legally "naturalized" and by that definition both Obama and Cruz
would count, for me, as "natural born citizens." The hypocrisy of Republicans being up Obama's ass about "not being eligible" when he was born to a US citizen ON US soil is what amuses me about the Cruz situation - but technically I think he's legally eligible. (Again, )With that said, I am open to being convinced that the "natural born citizen" clause is unnecessary, or that immigrants who meet residency and citizenship requirements should be allowed to run for POTUS.
(February 4, 2016 at 2:22 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:(February 4, 2016 at 2:21 pm)Chad32 Wrote: I think it is useful if someone grew up here, and knows a good bit about Americans and their politics, but if they were born in another country, and grew up here, I don't think it matters.
Honestly I don't even care if they 'grew up' here. If they're knowledgeable about our history and politics, and have shown ability to lead and be effective in a political arena (which I'm assuming is a given, as we're talking about presidential candidates here) I don't really care where they grew up.
Having knowledge of the political systems of another country via the mechanism of actually living there for an extended period or growing up there could be a really interesting and valuable source of knowledge for a president to have. There's also the possibility that such a person could have better international relations due to their wider cultural knowledge - but also the flip side of bringing some baggage with them that other countries wouldn't be too fond of. So there are benefits and drawbacks.
(February 4, 2016 at 2:23 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: It shouldn't matter. Let the people collectively decide what criteria matter at the polls.
You're talking about Americans who can often be very xenophobic, so along with a change in eligibility requirements I think a cultural shift would have to happen along with it in order for a non-natural-born-citizen to ever be elected POTUS. We could change the law today but still not elect an immigrant who gains citizenship to POTUS for 50+ years. It took 50 years to elect the first African American president after the Civil Rights Movement and look at the fit pitched by Republicans over that.
(February 7, 2016 at 1:10 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I think it's important for someone to have lived here long enough in order to be eligible to run it. I don't think this is unreasonable.
I think that would be reasonable. Not only residency length requirements, but citizenship-length requirements (like you can't gain citizenship in 2014 and run for President in 2016). By a standard like that, Schwarzenegger could be POTUS eligible. That would be interesting.
Teenaged X-Files obsession + Bermuda Triangle episode + Self-led school research project = Atheist.
