poll- a foriegn born president?

would you like foriegn born citizens to be allowed to run for president?

  • yes

    Votes: 12 9.4%

  • no,never!

    Votes: 115 90.6%
  • Total voters
    127
As an Irish Catholic, many in America feared that JFK would hold his allegiance to the Vatican above his committment to the Constitution; it wasn't so. He was more beholden to another group of Italians. ;)

I agree in theory that naturalized citizens who meet all other legal requirements should be eligible to run; that serious consideration should be given to this issue.
What shouldn't happen is knee jerk, constitutional change based on a hare brained scheme to let Ahnuld run.

IOW, base the effort on expanding the rights of a whole group of citizens, not on expanding the priviledges accorded to one man.
 
I don't believe that we are so short of people that we'd have to resort to a foriegner to run the country. The problem lies in that the good ones don't run. Bush has been a surprise but only in the past few weeks.

TJ Hands is right about the old wave of Germans. My Great Grandmother went a step further when she migrated from Austria and refused to speak German at all in the house except to adults. I remember her having some difficulties saying something in English and she'd say a curse word in German, luckily the word in English was similiar to where I could tell what she was saying!

That isn't to say Mexican's don't do the same. My parent's pastor is a Mexican Immigrant who refuses to speak Spanish at home to the detriment of his kids when they try to enroll in College and must learn a foreign language anyway. He says they're Americans (both born here) and they will live and act like it.

I have had the priveledge to know many immigrants with whom I would trust more than the vast number of natives, yet, I believe that the Constitution protects them too. In my section in the Army alone, I served with an immigrant from Costa Rica, and another guy from Ecuador. Their kids can become president and that is enough. If these folks want to become the Chairman of the Joint Chief's they can (Remember Gen. Shalikashvilli?). There are plenty of high offices they can hold, but President is and should remain for somebody who was a native born citizen.

Arnold may make a great president, but I am not willing to alter the constitution just to make one man president no matter how much the Republicans need a winning candidate. I'd rather see 20 years of Democrat control than a foriegn President. Besides, wouldn't Arnold have to take a significant pay cut and move into a smaller house in a poorer neighborhood?
 
I'd be leary of changing any of the core provisions of the Constitution, such as this one, lest others get the idea to start changing others (such as the 2nd Ammendment).
 
A foreign born President leaves the US open to undue influence from a foreign power.

Recall how Clintoon's appointment of foreign-born Martin Indyk to the National Security Council was delayed so that he could become a US citizen...OOPS! And later how as US Ambassador to Israel his divided loyalites became apparent? (I bet Henry Kissenger would like to put his foot up this guy's ass)

It takes a shyte-load of money and influence over a foreign government to have one of your own intelligence officers appointed as that foreign government's ambassador to you.

Want to see this repeated in the Oval Office?

http://www.middleeast.org/archives/9-00-26.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/938519.stm
 
If someone is born in Guam, which is not completly part of America, they can become president. I may be wrong with my statement earlier (after all I don't even know what an EEC passport is) but to me it sounds like the situation is almost the same.
Click to expand...

Guam is a US territory and is most certainly "completely part" of the USA just as much as is Washington D.C.

People born in Guam are automatically US citizens at birth, and therefore can become president.
 
I forget the correct phraseology but Guam is a "possession" of the United States and not completly part of the U.S.. They don't have to secede from the Union in order to form their own country.
 
If I were to move to a foreign nation today, at nearly 19 years old, became the leader of that country, and was faced with a decision to launch a nuclear attack against the USA, there is no way I could make myself do it. That is enough for me to say I don't think we should change the constitution as it stands today.

I'm generally against any changes to the constitution anyway.
 
First of all, I'm from CA, I'm of Mexican decent, and I don't like Arnold. I can't stand all of the liberal Mexican-American legislators (re: liberal...) here in SacTown. I don't want my state being turned over to the Mexican government; I value my American citizenship...I even put my life on the line for that citizenship when I entered in the service of my country. So, no, Arnold will not mexicanise America...I don't want him as our next president, I just want him to go back to Hollyweird and make movies; something he's good at. As for politics, well, I voted for Tom McClintock in the recall election...If that says anything. I know one thing WTSHTF, it's gonna hit really hard and splat everywhere in the PRK... :D Don't get any on ya!!!
 
No.

While Marko or Oleg would make a good president, and Tamara's logic is good on paper...it sets a bad precedent, which would be abused like everything else.

It'd be a small step from foreigner to foreign power, disguised with the letters U.N.
 
Funny I thought that maybe I was to uptight and that I should consider that maybe a foreign born president would not be to bad. After reading some of your statements I have to say that no I would not want a foreign born president.

I will continue to vote for my Father in Law. The only honest man I know... I just hope he never makes a party affiliation. :D
 
"It'd be a small step from foreigner to foreign power, disguised with the letters U.N."

I don't think you have to worry about a foreigner giving away that store any more readily than a God blessed, dyed in the wool, born here so he/she's got to be better than everyone else, native son/daughter American.


Let's throw this into the equasion...


Friends of mine have adopted two children, two infants, from Romania. Both were under one year of age when they were adopted, and are being raised as Americans. The United States is the only nation they've ever known. Currently they don't know that they're adopted, but that's OK, as they're still pretty young.

In a couple of decades they'll both be of age to be elected President, but they can't be, obviously, because they were born in Romania.

Say, though, that the law is changed, and either Jeff or Teri become president.

I guess we'd have to worry about them immediately switching allegiance and letting those pesky Romanians take over the United States...
 
OK- I thought we'd figured this all out but when did we decide that we weren't running John Wayne as our candidate in 08?
 
Raising the question of loyalty to US citizenship is a good idea. Tying it solely to country of birth is... bizarre.


There are many factors in what makes loyalty. The current president has personal, familial ties to the Saudi Royal family. And Arnold has what comparable affiliation with Austria? I give those as examples, but if you're going to get all concerned about patriotic focus, you might want to look at the rest of the forest.


I just think we should consider taking talent where it comes. The selection criteria for President is incredibly narrow - no one on this board even knows the kind of people who qualify in terms of connections and money. We don't understand those people or what actually motivates them. Bill Clinton and George Bush are not "regular Joes" by any stretch of the imagination.

Given that incredibly narrow selection criteria, maybe we should welcome anyone who might break the mold of priveledge and power that are the hallmark of US Presidents.
 
I personally wouldn't want a non-US born citizen becoming president because I beleieve that would in time just hand this country over on a silver platter to foreign interests.

But I think it is ironic that those same folks that are against foreign-born presidents just turn a deaf ear or blind eye to our government haven given away all its major steel making capability which places us in a possible relatively same scenario of bedding-down with a foreign country just because we are completely dependent on them now for providing all our steel or other resources we no longer produce on our own.

We are presently a very sad sort for a supposed superpower (which is mainly accomplished by out-spending our enemies using a fire-hose of red-ink). And I think the EU, Asia and the Middle East have discovered this as well.

We are the ones being assimilated.........
 
It takes a shyte-load of money and influence over a foreign government to have one of your own intelligence officers appointed as that foreign government's ambassador to you.

Want to see this repeated in the Oval Office?
Click to expand...

Hell, the ChiComs had their boy in there for eight long years! ;) :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top