Ahhhnold for President?

RainyDay · October-5th-2003, 04:53 PM

So how about Ahhhnold for President? Could happen. This is from my posts on the GOP Outrage thread:

Quote:

H.J.RES.67

Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President.

Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] (introduced 9/3/2003)

Cosponsors: 1

Latest Major Action: 9/3/2003 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(1), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Sherman, Brad - 9/23/2003 [CA-27]

Pete C · October-5th-2003, 05:04 PM

I approve of the amendment, but not Arnold. I think the old rule is archaic, and this change would most likely benefit Latinos and Asians, who certainly shouldn't be shut out.

Pete C · October-5th-2003, 05:30 PM

RainyDay · October-5th-2003, 05:36 PM

I haven't read the bill but I would have a problem with someone who is naturalized. If they had maintained duel citizenship, I would have a real problem with it even if they had to give up their citizenship to the other country. Requiring that someone by at least second generation is not an unreasonable requirement. Why? Because I would want someone who has deep roots in the country.

(Like George Bush?

Good point.)

Pete C · October-5th-2003, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RainyDay
I haven't read the bill but I would have a problem with someone who is naturalized. If they had maintained duel citizenship, I would have a real problem with it even if they had to give up their citizenship to the other country. Requiring that someone by at least second generation is not an unreasonable requirement. Why? Because I would want someone who has deep roots in the country.

Somehow that sounds dangerously close to the old concern about JFK's possible allegiance to the Vatican. Is an accident of birth in the U.S. necessarily a better indicator of allegiance than immigration by choice? There are plenty of immigrants I'd prefer running the country to Bush or Cheney or Lieberman.

RainyDay · October-5th-2003, 05:51 PM

That's a bogus analogy since JFK was born in this country, not Italy, and his family's roots in this country went back at least two more generations.

After 9-11, students at Cal with duel US-Israeli citizenship went to Israel to defend it. So where does their allegiance lie? Which country is their priority? I think it is a fair question. In a conflict between the US and a president's country of origin, how would that affect their decisions?

Dr Dave · October-5th-2003, 05:51 PM

Anybody who is a citizen ought to be able to run for President, as long as citizenship was obtained legally. If nothing else, it would widen the pool of potential candidates, which is something sorely needed. Whatever else one might think of the current President Of All The People and most of his challengers, they're all cut from the same patrician cloth. I said MOST, not ALL, you ding-dong. (Thought I'd get that out front for all those Al Sharpton supporters out there. Carol Mosley Braun makes the patrician cut, as far as I'm concerned, because she got her law degree at the University of Chicago.)

RainyDay · October-5th-2003, 05:53 PM

It would have to be an exceptional situation for me to vote for a non US citizen. I used to joke about drafting Tony Blair (pre Iraq) but I would have to take a long look at that. I mean, trade decisions, war conflicts, I think there are built in conflicts of interest.

Pete C · October-5th-2003, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RainyDay
I mean, trade decisions, war conflicts, I think there are built in conflicts of interest.

Primary allegiance to multi-national corporate interests by natural born citizens doesn't bother you?

RainyDay · October-5th-2003, 05:59 PM

Of course I'm concerned about corporate interests and conflicts. I am suggesting that I would not want to add to that mix a conflict of national allegiance. The political landscape is already quite corrupt enough.

RainyDay · October-5th-2003, 06:02 PM

If a Cuban refugee became President and the US had a major showdown with Castro, would that Cuban-American be prepared to take military action against Cuba? Assuming he still has family and friends and deep cultural roots there?

Salvador Dali Lama · October-5th-2003, 06:49 PM

Dude, Rainyday, do you know many cubans?

IF a cuban born presdient were elected, his first executive descicion would probably be to bomb cuba.

shieeeeet.

bluenoter · October-5th-2003, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RainyDay
Requiring that someone by at least second generation is not an unreasonable requirement. Why? Because I would want someone who has deep roots in the country.

I'm with Rainy on this one. Opening it up to natives of other countries would pose too much potential for conflicts of interest--too much additional potential. I feel like a creaky old reactionary, but so be it.

BFrank · October-5th-2003, 08:18 PM

Do you guys realize how racist this thread sounds? Why not take each nominee at face value as a person? Isn't that what America is all about?

I would think that there should be a minimum amount of time that a person would have to have lived in this country (20 years? 30 years? whatever ...) in order to fully understand how the system works. Beyond that, it's up to the voters to decide how well suited each individual nominee is prepared for the office.

RainyDay · October-5th-2003, 08:47 PM

The only Cubans I've been around mostly are not anti-Castro and don't support the US policies in Cuba.

This thread is racist? How so? I'm not singling out any particular group. I'm saying no one who was born outside the US as a citizen of that other country should be eligible for the presidency. I'd like to hear more about how that is racist because I don't consider myself a racist person at all. What do others think about this thread having a racist tone?

bluenoter · October-5th-2003, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BFrank
Do you guys realize how racist this thread sounds?

You may mean any number of things, but you don't mean "racist." Potential presidential candidates of all races are affected equally; it just doesn't make sense to infer racist overtones in this thread.

Quote:

Originally posted by BFrank
I would think that there should be a minimum amount of time that a person would have to have lived in this country . . . in order to fully understand how the system works. Beyond that, it's up to the voters to decide how well suited each individual nominee is prepared for the office.

That's what you think, but that's not what the Constitution says. It imposes several restrictions on potential presidential candidates, including a minimum age.

Pete C · October-5th-2003, 09:00 PM

I wouldn't call it racism; perhaps misguided nationalism, perhaps neo-nativism, perhaps paranoia.

bluenoter · October-5th-2003, 09:03 PM

We shouldn't be nationalist when selecting a president of the United States?

RainyDay · October-5th-2003, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pete C
I wouldn't call it racism; perhaps misguided nationalism, perhaps neo-nativism, perhaps paranoia.

Yeah, okay. That works for me, except the misguided part.

I would be happy to vote for anyone of any ethnicity or religion if they were born in the US and a strong candidate. This is not about race, this is about country of origin.

How many countries allow people who were foreign born to become PM or president?

Pete C · October-5th-2003, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluenoter
We shouldn't be nationalist when selecting a president of the United States?

We should never be nationalistic in the heinous sense of the word.

bluenoter · October-5th-2003, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pete C
We should never be nationalistic in the heinous sense of the word.

But selecting a president of a country is inherently nationalist, in a neutral sense of the word.

It's not a good occasion for a referendum on the desirability of dividing the world into countries.

Captain Hate · October-5th-2003, 09:46 PM

Citizens are citizens, period; anybody that pays taxes should be able to run for President, unless they're felons. We're all the spawn of immigrants; unless there are any aboriginal (NOT native; I'm a native American) Americans here.

Gordon B · October-5th-2003, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BFrank
Do you guys realize how racist this thread sounds? Why not take each nominee at face value as a person? Isn't that what America is all about?

I would think that there should be a minimum amount of time that a person would have to have lived in this country (20 years? 30 years? whatever ...) in order to fully understand how the system works. Beyond that, it's up to the voters to decide how well suited each individual nominee is prepared for the office.

Make it 20 and I'm on board.

BFrank · October-5th-2003, 10:05 PM

I see I started a firestorm here.

I'll agree with Pete C's explaination, though.
"I wouldn't call it racism; perhaps misguided nationalism, perhaps neo-nativism, perhaps paranoia."

Perhaps "racism" was the wrong term. In reading the reasoning here, I was reminded of terms racists used to rationalize their opinions in the past.

In terms of the amount of time one has to live here, I was just thinking that it might be a restriction for those uncomfortable with a non-native.

Pete C · October-5th-2003, 10:23 PM

hey, wait a minute
"Natural-Born" Killer
Abolish the idiotic constitutional clause barring immigrants from the presidency.
By Jefferson Morley
Posted Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 12:57 PM PT

Any section of the Constitution that kept Henry Kissinger out of the White House can't be all bad, but Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, is pretty close. The clause, which forbids anybody but a "natural-born" citizen from becoming president of the United States, is a national embarrassment.

The discriminatory effects of Article II are not small. The last U.S. Census counted 12.5 million foreign-born, naturalized citizens, about 4 percent of the population. ("Natural born" is not the same thing as American born. John McCain, for example, was born in Panama, but to American parents. He is a "natural-born" American citizen.)

Eliminating the natural-born clause might expand the presidential talent pool and improve the contest. It would almost certainly foster a more ethnically diverse field of contenders. Say you're a Democrat looking for new faces. You might wish for a telegenic, up-and-coming woman with executive experience. What about Michigan's new governor, Jennifer Granholm? Forget it. She was born in Canada. Maybe you think a Democratic ticket should include someone with business experience. How about liberal billionaire philanthropist George Soros as a candidate? Nope. He was born in Hungary.

If you're a Republican tired of candidates named Bush, don't bother weighing the presidential potential of Labor Secretary Elaine Chao. She was born in Taiwan. Perhaps you think it's high time the GOP cultivated a Hispanic candidate for the Oval Office, someone like Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez from Florida. Sorry, he was born in Cuba. Do you yearn for another charismatic Californian with proven screen appeal a la Ronald Reagan? There will be no President Schwarzenegger: His Austrian origins bar him.

No natural-born requirement exists for the vice presidency, but constitutional scholars agree that an immigrant vice president could not assume the presidency upon the death or incapacitation of the president. This effectively prevents an immigrant vice presidential candidate, since the entire purpose of the veep is to be able to succeed the president.

The actual effects of the natural-born clause are not as important as its symbolism. Barring immigrant citizens from the White House is a pointless insult. Such nativism is weirdly out of place in the charter of a multicultural nation where immigrants run our largest businesses, command our armies, and preside over our courts. The natural-born clause elevates the accident of birth over the accomplishments of the individual. It compromises the American faith that social mobility and openness foster national strength.

The natural-born clause has an unimpressive pedigree. Stanford historian Jack Rakove says it was drafted by a committee at the 1787 constitutional convention, which was charged with designing a chief executive position for the new American government. The language was "silently inserted into what became Article II and was adopted without debate" by the constitutional convention, Rakove says. Nor was the provision discussed during the debate over the ratification of the Constitution, he adds.

The founders' motivation, Rakove says, "was almost certainly the fear of foreign influence over an official who would be commander in chief of the armed forces and would have significant foreign relations duties and so on."

But if there is a risk of undue foreign influence on the president, a proposed constitutional amendment introduced in 2001 by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., would take care of it. Under the language of House Joint Resolution 47, anybody who had been a citizen for 20 years would be eligible for the White House. Frank plans to reintroduce a version of the bill this year.

It doesn't take a Karl Rove to recognize that abolishing the natural-born clause could be a winning political issue for either party. The most immediate beneficiaries of eliminating the natural-born clause would be Hispanics, the country's largest ethnic minority. For Republicans, such a constitutional amendment would give substance to their rhetoric of inclusion. For Democrats, it would signal to Hispanics that the party is serious about expanding opportunity for immigrants. For either party to take the lead in pushing for Congress and state legislatures to approve HJR 47 would encourage the other to get on board, if only in self-defense.

Granholm in 2008! From the White North to the White House!

Jefferson Morley is a Washington writer.

Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2079204/

bluenoter · October-5th-2003, 10:56 PM

Quote:

No natural-born requirement exists for the vice presidency, but constitutional scholars agree that an immigrant vice president could not assume the presidency upon the death or incapacitation of the president.

Morley falls down badly in that rare instance in which he states a "fact." Here is the last sentence of Amendment XII to the Constitution:

Quote:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

If we want to improve the lives of immigrants to the United States, we should do so in substantial ways, not by "signaling" them or altering "symbolism"--particularly because the foremost agenda seems to be providing "a winning political issue for either [sic] party."

mke · October-6th-2003, 09:01 AM

Does it really make sense that practically every elected (senator, governor...) and non-elected (CEO) position is open to all comers, except president and vice-president?

Alastair · October-6th-2003, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RainyDay

How many countries allow people who were foreign born to become PM or president?

Uh, we do. And I would assume that most other European countries do, too. As long as you're a citizen (or equivalent).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pete C
I wouldn't call it racism; perhaps misguided nationalism, perhaps neo-nativism, perhaps paranoia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Xenophobia, I'd say.

RainyDay · October-6th-2003, 10:47 AM

Well, that explains it. I'm a xenophobe. Not a person with a differing opinion but a xenophobe. To be called that by a European, is shall we say, just a tiny bit amusing. I believe Eurppeans have immigration laws a lot more restrictive than the US. After colonizing half the world, they make it difficult for former colonials to step foot on their precious Eruopean soil.

mke · October-6th-2003, 11:02 AM

I wouldn't call you a xenophobe, but I agree that your original sentiment had a xenophobic tinge about it.

Quote:

Originally posted by RainyDay
Well, that explains it. I'm a xenophobe. Not a person with a differing opinion but a xenophobe. To be called that by a European, is shall we say, just a tiny bit amusing. I believe Eurppeans have immigration laws a lot more restrictive than the US. After colonizing half the world, they make it difficult for former colonials to step foot on their precious Eruopean soil.

By this logic, is it "amusing" to be called stupid by an American?