Natural Born Citizen req -- is its time over?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Argo

Lifer
Apr 8, 2000
10,045
0
0
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/time-to-eliminate-the-natural-born-citizen-requirement/



Aside from momentum, why keep it? What if we have a 20 year residency requirement, or even a requirement that the person had to have been living here before the age of 10 or something. Are we really worried about a person being a double agent or being raised in another country and then being sent here to ascend through the nearly impossible hoops required to become a presidential contender, and survive background scrutiny and everything else on the 1 in a million shot they become president? What's the point anymore?

I can see the flip side of that though. Imagine you were born in Country X, and spend the first 10 years of your life there. You remember the streets and you still remember the friends. That same country started a war on US, so you need authorize bombing of the country.

It could be a lot harder for you to do so if you consider that country to be your origin.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,163
136
WHat are we really looking at here? Just because someone is plysically born in area A as to area B should make this much difference? How about the kid thats born in Hawaii, and spends their life at schools in Europe, then travel living everywhere but America, while still legally an American, then one day come back to the homeland of America to run. And thats all fine. Then you have the kid thats born in Mexico, comes here with parents as a baby and grows up in America. And THEY can not run or ever hope to?
This is one of those outdated laws that really make no sense nore should apply.
As republicans might say... let the voters decide if they want an Arnold Schwarzenegger to be their president. Not some outdated law from the stoneage.
 
Last edited:

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
WHat are we really looking at here? Just because someone is plysically born in area A as to area B should make this much difference? How about the kid thats born in Hawaii, and spends their life at schools in Europe, then travel living everywhere but America, while still legally an American, then one day come back to the homeland of America to run. And thats all fine. Then you have the kid thats born in Mexico, comes here with parents as a baby and grows up in America. And THEY can not run or ever hope to?
This is one of those outdated laws that really make no sense nore should apply.
As republicans might say... let the voters decide if they want an Arnold Schwarzenegger to be their president. Not some outdated law from the stoneage.

Uh, that 'outdated law' is United States Constitution. You should read it sometime, it has lots of good stuff in it.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
878
126
WHat are we really looking at here? Just because someone is plysically born in area A as to area B should make this much difference? How about the kid thats born in Hawaii, and spends their life at schools in Europe, then travel living everywhere but America, while still legally an American, then one day come back to the homeland of America to run. And thats all fine. Then you have the kid thats born in Mexico, comes here with parents as a baby and grows up in America. And THEY can not run or ever hope to?
This is one of those outdated laws that really make no sense nore should apply.
As republicans might say... let the voters decide if they want an Arnold Schwarzenegger to be their president. Not some outdated law from the stoneage.

If there was a consensus among the voters that the Constitution needed to be changed then it would get changed, but since there isn't your only argument left is to play the "It's not fair!" card. Sorry, no.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
You know, there were men who supported women's rights, whites who supported black's rights and straight people who supported gay rights. You're the kind of feckless conservative coward that supports the status quo, right or wrong.

I'm not on my way to becoming Canada's PM, but I still enjoy living in the land of the free :)
The Constitution never favored men over women or straights over gays, and the Articles of Confederation didn't even favor whites over blacks, as it was written by a Quaker.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Uh, that 'outdated law' is United States Constitution. You should read it sometime, it has lots of good stuff in it.
I agree with you on the first part--the Constitution is far from outdated. It was intended to be a living document, and it has certainly succeeded at that.

However, the Constitution has very little good stuff in it and lots of bad stuff in it.

If anyone considers the Constitution outdated, then I wonder what they consider the Articles of Confederation?
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
How about the fact that there are millions of American citizens that are second-class citizens because of this policy?


This is one of the things that makes me glad my parents chose to immigrate to Canada rather than the US - whereas I would have always been looked down upon by your kind and treated unfairly there, here I get to be a regular citizen, equal to everyone else regardless of circumstance.

hahah you consider not being able to run for President makes you a second class citizen? Ask Arnold how "second class" his life in America is.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
hahah you consider not being able to run for President makes you a second class citizen? Ask Arnold how "second class" his life in America is.

He's a very ambitious and hard working fellow, and very very pro-American (you should read through his wiki page sometime, it's interesting). It hard to imagine him not wanting to take a shot at the presidency, had he been legally allowed to.


If you don't think think that makes you a second class citizen, try putting yourself in his shoes - imagine you were barred based on some arbitrary birth feature you have - grey eyes, baldness, being less than 6'2" or whatever.


It's also pretty hypocritical for a country to claim they welcome immigrants and then tell them they can never have the same rights because of their birthplace.
 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
This is a case where it would be nice if it were easier to amend the constitution to clear things up. I think the double-agent concern is small but still worth it for such an important position. You should be able to match the following requirements: A) You should born to an American parent or born in the US to legal immigrant parents B) You should live in the US for most of your life since you are five. C) You should not be a dual-citizen (renouncement of other citizenship is a valid option)
(Watch Salt! J/k)

The point of the Constitution is to prevent just this. The framers were not stupid. Slow government is one that is insulated from knee jerk reactions and rapid changes. The slow nature of the government is a primary reason why the US is where it is today, and why we have what could be considered one of the most stable domestic situations around.

Easy change leads to easy tyranny.