Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Soph0571

(9,685 posts)
Mon Mar 4, 2019, 07:00 PM Mar 2019

It's time to allow naturalised Americans to run for president

Today, the distinction between newcomer and native is less relevant, especially as the relationship between citizen and state is being altered by the ease and speed of transportation and communication. Americans, both natural born or naturalised, can possess strong bonds with other countries as they can have multiple passports, international business interests and even foreign family relations.

While being born to American parents or growing up in America is likely to foster affinity for the country, the notion that one’s loyalty can presumptively be linked to the territory of one’s birth is antiquated. There is a whole cottage-industry of “birth tourism” for pregnant women who want to travel to America to give birth so that their children can be American citizens. If someone can be eligible for the presidency on the basis of being serendipitously born on US soil – an event which does not automatically instil loyalty to America – why should there be any reason to deny the same right to those who become citizens by their own choice?

Besides being obsolete, some nativists today even use the natural born clause in a way unintended by the Constitution’s framers. These nativists argue that naturalised citizens should be denied presidential eligibility because the majority of these current newcomers are from non-Western countries, with values that are inconsistent with the Western values that helped create America. Certainly, the Constitution’s Framers were British subjects and European values did shape America. But the Framers were not concerned about protecting European culture and values. If anything, they were concerned about preserving their newly created democratic political order from people who were culturally much like themselves, save for their political loyalties to Europe’s rulers.
=========
In addition to striking a blow against prejudice and potentially increasing the number and variety of presidential candidates, it would further empower voters. By simply letting them decide whether their fellow citizens – regardless of whether they are naturalised or natural born – are worthy of becoming president, it would make America a more inclusive democracy, at a time when many feel it is not.


[link:https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2019/03/it-s-time-allow-naturalised-americans-run-president|

Thoughts? In the UK if you are a naturalised citizen you can run as the leader of your party and if the party wins you would be PM, equally if you are a Commonwealth citizen.... in effect you could be the PM and not be a British citizen. Unlikely to happen but the rules are clear on this. They do not limit democracy based on the country of your birth... would that work in the US?
41 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
It's time to allow naturalised Americans to run for president (Original Post) Soph0571 Mar 2019 OP
Given it would take a constitutional amendment (and how many constitutional amendments are hlthe2b Mar 2019 #1
Ummm The Truth Is Here Mar 2019 #2
Beat me to it sarisataka Mar 2019 #5
Ummmm, NO! 2naSalit Mar 2019 #3
That is terribly adamant Soph0571 Mar 2019 #13
Would require changing the Constitution 2naSalit Mar 2019 #16
Meh. Not a priority for me. Squinch Mar 2019 #4
Why? TheRealNorth Mar 2019 #6
+++++++++++++++++ 2naSalit Mar 2019 #17
Why? Cause there are a lot of disenfranchised people...... Soph0571 Mar 2019 #20
Considering the rule was created Codeine Mar 2019 #26
our system produces crooks, incompetents, and bigots like donnie, reagan, nixon and bushes, and unblock Mar 2019 #7
That's the biggest problem we have? Phooey! marybourg Mar 2019 #8
Not going to happen. MineralMan Mar 2019 #9
No still_one Mar 2019 #10
constitutional amendment required and I doubt there will ever be another constitutional amendment standingtall Mar 2019 #11
Yeah. Heaven forbid brown baby dreamers Soph0571 Mar 2019 #15
Solution looking for a problem. GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #12
I think it really interesting that on this thread Soph0571 Mar 2019 #14
They 've never had the franchise , marybourg Mar 2019 #18
Perhaps you'd address my point as to why it is more important than giving 168 million females hlthe2b Mar 2019 #22
You ever been in one of those brainstorming exercises where there are no bad ideas? GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #39
I don't think so liberal N proud Mar 2019 #19
Cause native born president we got now is doing such a great job? LisaL Mar 2019 #23
Do want Anold? liberal N proud Mar 2019 #40
Hell, yes. DavidDvorkin Mar 2019 #21
I don't agree rockfordfile Mar 2019 #24
NO nt Raine Mar 2019 #25
No thanks....an amendment is required and we can't get the ERA passed. AncientGeezer Mar 2019 #27
I can think of any number of changes to Codeine Mar 2019 #28
No. It would make it even easier to elect a mole or Manchurian candidate, imo. n't theophilus Mar 2019 #29
Godwin's Law: Adolf Hitler was a 'naturalized' German... Wounded Bear Mar 2019 #30
Considering our current pres.... sure. Kurt V. Mar 2019 #31
President Henry Kissinger? Mendocino Mar 2019 #32
It would allow a great woman to run: Thunderbeast Mar 2019 #33
No, it is not. WheelWalker Mar 2019 #34
No. Tarheel_Dem Mar 2019 #35
So low on the priority list of what needs doing around here as to be completely insignigicant. WillowTree Mar 2019 #36
President Arnold Schwarzenegger. TeamPooka Mar 2019 #37
President Rupert Murdoch, no thanks. nt Snotcicles Mar 2019 #38
there are far more imporant things that need to be done JI7 Mar 2019 #41

hlthe2b

(102,292 posts)
1. Given it would take a constitutional amendment (and how many constitutional amendments are
Mon Mar 4, 2019, 07:02 PM
Mar 2019

more pressing to see realized), I don't argue with the point, just the practicality and priority. Given WOMEN in this country represent more than half the population, but STILL do not have equal rights enshrined in the constitution, I sort of feel that to be about a billion times more important.

Soph0571

(9,685 posts)
13. That is terribly adamant
Mon Mar 4, 2019, 07:23 PM
Mar 2019

Why?

If I was a kid who landed when I was 3 - am an American citizen, and am genius.... why not? Fucking hell, Trump is President, I am very sure that there are citizens that did not have America as the country of their birth who could do a better job. Hell, at this point, as someone who owns property in the US, and pays taxes o that income I should be President!!!!! I am not that great, but better than President Orange - quite frankly who wouldn't be!

2naSalit

(86,647 posts)
16. Would require changing the Constitution
Mon Mar 4, 2019, 07:30 PM
Mar 2019

first off:

US Constitution; Article II; Section 1: No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President...

Not gonna happen.

TheRealNorth

(9,481 posts)
6. Why?
Mon Mar 4, 2019, 07:08 PM
Mar 2019

So we can allow Putin and the GOP to install an actual Russian instead of the Russian agent that we have now?

Soph0571

(9,685 posts)
20. Why? Cause there are a lot of disenfranchised people......
Mon Mar 4, 2019, 07:45 PM
Mar 2019

..... who are a citizen as much as you are who are not allowed to have that dream. You go to Russians...why? That shit has already happened. Can you not rely on the electorate to have the wit and wisdom to actually spot that going forward. What you are suggesting is that any foreign born, mostly black or brown, person who could do a really good job as President should be ignored because of what Trump is doing right now? There are 2 things here, conflating one problem to blame all foreign born individuals, or there is a systemic institutionalised racism at the heart of governance in America? Which do you think it might be?

 

Codeine

(25,586 posts)
26. Considering the rule was created
Mon Mar 4, 2019, 08:32 PM
Mar 2019

at a time when virtually all (voluntary) immigration was from Europe it’s a bit silly to state that the natural-born requirement is racist in intent.

unblock

(52,253 posts)
7. our system produces crooks, incompetents, and bigots like donnie, reagan, nixon and bushes, and
Mon Mar 4, 2019, 07:08 PM
Mar 2019

opening up the process to naturalized citizens is going to fix everything?


i don't particularly disagree in principle. my own mother often joked that that restriction was the only reason she wasn't president, and sure, it's silly in her case, having come here at the age of two.

but really, of all the things to fix in the constitution alone, why this?

MineralMan

(146,317 posts)
9. Not going to happen.
Mon Mar 4, 2019, 07:11 PM
Mar 2019

There's no need for it, in the first place. We have no shortage of presidential cadidates.

standingtall

(2,785 posts)
11. constitutional amendment required and I doubt there will ever be another constitutional amendment
Mon Mar 4, 2019, 07:20 PM
Mar 2019

nearly impossible to get the type of support for that for any other issue for that matter.

Soph0571

(9,685 posts)
14. I think it really interesting that on this thread
Mon Mar 4, 2019, 07:27 PM
Mar 2019

Everyone just wants to shut down the aspirations of dreamers.

I asked a question on this post and I am very disappointed with the answer. How many millions are progressives willing to disenfranchise cause it is difficult?

marybourg

(12,633 posts)
18. They 've never had the franchise ,
Mon Mar 4, 2019, 07:34 PM
Mar 2019

so nobody can be DISenfranchising them. Given what we have now in the White House, nobody wants to face the possibility of a real mole, planted by an adversary, there. This is a silly idea whose time has most definitely NOT come

hlthe2b

(102,292 posts)
22. Perhaps you'd address my point as to why it is more important than giving 168 million females
Mon Mar 4, 2019, 08:14 PM
Mar 2019

equal rights in this country? No woman (nor female child)--whether born in this country or not, has equal rights enshrined by the constitution. Women face the ramifications of this every day in this country.

So, why is that less important than changing the US constitution specifically to grant Presidential eligibility to those not born in this country?

GulfCoast66

(11,949 posts)
39. You ever been in one of those brainstorming exercises where there are no bad ideas?
Mon Mar 4, 2019, 10:28 PM
Mar 2019

Well, this is not one of them.

But if you want me to spend my time expounding why a really bad idea is a bad idea I will indulge you.

-It would take a constitutional amendment to do it which will never happen.

-most Americans, including me and I would guess 95% of Democrats believe that the Americans President should be, well, an American with a lifetime of experience being an American.

- most naturalized citizens still hold a lot of allegiance to their birth country. Not what we need in an American. Not to mention their families in their home country could be exploited to manipulate the president.

-any party even hinting this horrorible idea rightly deserves to lose the trust of the voters.


And can the disenfranchisement bullshit. It is insulting to those Americans who actually experience it.







 

Codeine

(25,586 posts)
28. I can think of any number of changes to
Mon Mar 4, 2019, 08:35 PM
Mar 2019

the Constitution that are far more pressing and necessary than dealing with this rather insignificant perceived problem.

JI7

(89,252 posts)
41. there are far more imporant things that need to be done
Mon Mar 4, 2019, 10:30 PM
Mar 2019

and after seeing the russian attack on the election and the right wing embracing it, NO

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»It's time to allow natura...