natural born Citizen

Quote: AZDuffman

Rubbish. How many countries let immigrants be in the top executive post?

UK. Canada. Ireland. Most countries let any citizen of the country serve in any post. The US does for almost all posts except president.

Once someone has immigrated (a la Schawrznegger, for a start), they hold all rights and responsibilities as someone born in the country. Which is as it should be. You shouldn't be creating a second-class of citizens, distinguishing between born in the country and immigrated. Or maybe you do, but it seems odd.

Quote:

Yes, I l know about Catherine the Great and a few others, I don't care. Do we really want someone to come in and be able to take over like that? It simply makes sense that to lead a country you should be born there, which is why the founders put the clause in there.

The founders weren't all born there, and 'take over' is based on a democratic system, which is far more important - the tax payers of the citizens get to elect the officials who run the country.

I don't think it 'makes sense' at all that birth place matters. Citizenship does.

Quote:

And I don't care who says I am "racist" for thinking this way.

No, xenophobic, perhaps. :)

Quote: TheCesspit

UK. Canada. Ireland. Most countries let any citizen of the country serve in any post. The US does for almost all posts except president.

I don't know if Israel still allows it, but the first several Prime Ministers were not born there.

Quote:

You shouldn't be creating a second-class of citizens, distinguishing between born in the country and immigrated. Or maybe you do, but it seems odd.

If you keep taking away the conservatives' phobias, they'll throw another fit ;)

Quote: TheCesspit

UK. Canada. Ireland. Most countries let any citizen of the country serve in any post. The US does for almost all posts except president.

let me follow up this statement by saying, that as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter to me how the US selects it's leader, it just seems to be an odd quirk in the US constitution, to guard against a danger that is no longer there.

Plenty of countries have those odd quirks in their systems of governance (UK, Canada, Ireland... :))

Quote: TheCesspit

let me follow up this statement by saying, that as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter to me how the US selects it's leader, it just seems to be an odd quirk in the US constitution, to guard against a danger that is no longer there.

It's a quirk of xenophobic countries. Take Mexico, which gives the US a run for its money as regards xenophobia. Until a few years ago, the requirement was that a candidate for the presidency had to be Mexican by birth, born of parents who were Mexican by birth, and grandparents who were Mexican by birth. That's ridiculous. Now it's changed to just Mexican by birth, regardless of where their parents were born, or even if they are Mexican. This si still ridiculous, of course, but not nearly as much.

Quote: TheCesspit

The founders weren't all born there, and 'take over' is based on a democratic system, which is far more important - the tax payers of the citizens get to elect the officials who run the country.

The founders were eligible via residency at the adoption of the Constitution

Quote:

No, xenophobic, perhaps. :)

And happily so.

Quote: AZDuffman

The founders were eligible via residency at the adoption of the Constitution

Indeed, but they weren't all born there, yet chose to make laws that didn't apply to them. Shrug. I think trusting the infalliabilty of the constitution writers without reference to their unique time and situation assumes it is an objectively correct document, not subjectively.

The reasons for not removing you present seem weak in the current climate, that's all. But it probably is academic.

Quote:

And happily so.

Most xenophobes don't know what they are missing. :)

Quote: TheCesspit

Indeed, but they weren't all born there, yet chose to make laws that didn't apply to them. Shrug. I think trusting the infalliabilty of the constitution writers without reference to their unique time and situation assumes it is an objectively correct document, not subjectively.

What law did they make that did not apply to them? I don't see it.

Quote:

Most xenophobes don't know what they are missing. :)

We miss things like the muslim ghettos in France and countries breaking along ethnic lines such as the former USSR and Yugoslavia. Yeah, I don't know what I am missing.

Quote:

We miss things like the muslim ghettos in France and countries breaking along ethnic lines such as the former USSR and Yugoslavia. Yeah, I don't know what I am missing.

No, the latter happens -to- xenophobes, where things break along ethnic lines. Fear of a different culture is -exactly- why Yugoslavia split up into it's parts, and the wars of ethinic cleansing in that part of the world. Xenophobia is precisely to blame for the dissolution of that country.

No, what xenophobes miss is travel to other countries, experience of different cultures, foods, ideas and experiences. They miss sites like eating food on a roadside stand in Seoul, spending a night drinking in Northern Sweden, or sharing food with a guy from Brunei in a field in the middle of Japan. Or visiting Canada and the US for three months with a bag and a passport and a willingness to see what happens.

Quote: TheCesspit

No, what xenophobes miss is travel to other countries, experience of different cultures, foods, ideas and experiences. They miss sites like eating food on a roadside stand in Seoul, spending a night drinking in Northern Sweden, or sharing food with a guy from Brunei in a field in the middle of Japan. Or visiting Canada and the US for three months with a bag and a passport and a willingness to see what happens.

I'm not adverse to any of that, the travel I mean. What I am saying is strong countries are formed along strong common ethnic lines and those that have unnatural mixing or a leader who is not a part of the common culture have problems, often serious. Yugoslavia was an unnatural country, formed by the Victors of WWI. It only held together because it had a leader who was of mixed ethnicity of the two major groups. It was the only communist country in Europe that was not part of the Soviet-bloc. When Tito was no more the country fell apart. The groups hated each other worse than the Black Panthers and the KKK would hate each other.

Obama has led more as a "citizen of the world" than any POTUS in US History. We can see the divisiveness this alone has caused. While 47% of the population is happy no matter what happens as long as their freebies keep coming, the people that make the country move do not like a leader governing as a "citizen of the world." We believe that POTUS should look out for US Interests first and foremost. And we do not see how anything but a life-long American can do this. I do not want even a chance of split-loyalty.

Quote: TheCesspit

Indeed, but they weren't all born there, yet chose to make laws that didn't apply to them.

“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

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

There was actually a clause that covered them.

There were two emperors of Mexico over 40 years apart.
Agustín I 27 September 1783 – 19 July 1824 (aged 40) emperor from 19 May 1822 to 19 March 1823
Maximilian I 6 July 1832 – 19 June 1867 (aged 34) emperor from 10 April 1864 to 15 May 1867

I am sure there was a genuine concern at the time of the constitution that some power could take over control of the USA. But pretty much by the late 19th century it was clear that the country was not going to be invaded or split apart.

They just need to strike out the words that no longer apply

“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”