An article from slate. "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!
Why bother? It isn't a big deal. Btw, it's keeping me out of the presidency so ya'll should be happy.
But the entire republican platform aggrandizes issues that aren't big deals. The question isn't whether or not the item occurs very often, or affects many people... the question is whether or not it is fair. Is the law artificial? Maybe... maybe no.
I mean, I'm gonna wait and see who wants to run. If Arnold wants to run for governor of California, then I am all for it, that way he will be ready to take over for Jeb in 14 years.
Whether or not it's right or wrong (and some could argue that the age requirements are also not fair. Why should 25 year-olds be forbidden from running for Senate or 32 year-olds from running for President, etc), it's not very likely to be changed anytime soon since it would require a Constitutional Amendment.
I have not found why the founding fathers wanted this criteria (which Is what I would really like to know before I pick a side), but I did find this The principal of equal rights for all Americans is at the heart of our democracy. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights outline many rights that belong to all Americans. The Fourteenth Amendment ensures that no state can abridge the rights of any citizen. Indeed, as pointed out by Citizens for the Constitution, seventeen of the twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution "either protect the rights of vulnerable individuals or extend the franchise to new groups." A similar expansion of rights has appeared in legislation, such as the civil rights acts of the 1960s. An amendment to provide full American citizenship for foreign-born adoptees would be another step down this long and honorable path toward equal rights for all. The right to run for President is obviously not as important to a person's daily life as the right to free speech, the right to worship as one chooses, the right to vote, the right to use public accommodations, or the right to be treated equally in the labor and housing markets. Nevertheless, this right has enormous symbolic power and could significantly affect the lives of people who have no interest in running for President. One could say that running for President is the ultimate symbol of equal opportunity. Regardless of their income or ethnicity, parents of a natural born citizen can tell their child that he or she could grow up to be President. This is part of what makes the United States such a great country: You do not have to be born into wealth or social position to aspire to or even to attain the most powerful and prestigious job in the country. Unfortunately, however, this equal-opportunity principle does not apply to foreign-born adoptees. The language in the Constitution was not intended to differentiate between children who grow up going to the same American schools, but that is exactly what it does. Parents of foreign-born adoptees cannot tell their children that they could grow up to be President.(3) Precisely because the right to run for President is such a powerful symbol, the denial of this right could have a significant impact on foreign-born adoptees. Imagine a high school civics class that is conducting a mock presidential election. Should the teacher tell foreign-born adoptees in the class that they are not allowed to participate in the mock election as they could not participate in a real one? Or should the teacher simply point out that their participation in class would not carry over if the election were real? Can there be any doubt that this situation will make foreign-born adoptees feel like second-class citizens? Denying foreign-born adoptees the right to run for President is a clear assault on the principle of equal opportunity. Eliminating this unequal treatment is thus an abiding contribution to a principle that is at the heart of the American democracy. The need to establish equal rights for all citizens, including the right to run for office, was recognized by the Founding Fathers. During a debate on citizenship requirements at the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton pointed out the "advantage of encouraging foreigners" to come to the United States. Then he said: "Persons in Europe of moderate fortune will be fond of coming here when they will be on a level with the first citizens."(4) James Madison agreed with Hamilton. "He wished to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us."(5) During the last decade, about 100,000 foreign-born children have been adopted by American citizens. Because the United States is so wealthy by world standards and because adoption is now such an accepted way of building a family, this country will undoubtedly continue to become the home for many children who are born overseas. As a result, providing full American citizenship for foreign-born adoptees will expand the rights of hundreds of thousands, and eventually perhaps even millions, of people -- and make a profound contribution to the principle of equal opportunity. This amendment is not a response to a current political problem, but an attempt to provide equal rights to a large -- and growing -- segment of the U.S. population. Over 30 years ago a legal scholar, Charles Gordon, addressed the question of whether people born overseas to United States citizens could be called "natural-born citizens" and hence be eligible to be President.(6) After reviewing the legal history of the clause and subsequent legislation, Gordon answers this question in the affirmative. However, he also points out that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue and that "that the picture is clouded by elements of doubt." This analysis leads him to the following conclusion: It is unfortunate that doubts remain on an issue of such vital importance to many Americans. We live in a fluid and ever diminishing world. The interests of our nation and its people are constantly expanding and millions of Americans reside for short or long periods in foreign countries. They are there in pursuit of inspiration, enlightenment, profit, pleasure, repose or escape. All of these have a right to retain their status as American citizens while they live abroad. One can perceive no sound reason for shutting off aspiration to the Presidency for the children born to them while they are temporarily sojourning in foreign countries.(7) With some editing, this eloquent statement can be expanded to include the case of foreign-born adoptees. We live in a fluid and ever diminishing world. The interests of our nation and its people are constantly expanding, and millions of Americans reside for short or long periods in foreign countries, where their children may be born, or build their families by adopting orphans born in a foreign country. All of these people should retain their full rights as American citizens, along with the full rights of their children. One can perceive no sound reason for shutting off aspiration to the Presidency for American children born overseas, whether born to or adopted by United States citizens.
Technically, Martin Van Buren was the first president born a United States citizen. Those before him were born before there was a United States, of course, and were born in what would become the U.S. I actually kind of like Barney Frank's idea of letting those with 20 years of US citizenship eligible to run for President. That sounds like a good compromise. But who knows. The requirement that Presidents be natural born citizens could spring out of the desire to not want people who potentially have loyalty to another country (by virtue of being born there) from taking control of the executive branch of the Government (and become Commander in Chief). Of course, one could be loyal to a foreign country by virtue of things other than being born there. Having parents who immigrated from another country could cloud one's thinking toward that country, for example. It seems a little of this is not unlike some of the questions that faced many Catholic candidates over the years. The fear that the President would take his marching orders from the Vatican concerned many people, as silly as it may sound to many of us now.
I think for some Americans, America was not a true democracy until the 1960's when every American was guaranteed rights despite their creed or gender. That we still have generations who have lived in that age of bigotry means that our journey for true equality is far from over. Allowing foreigners to join the presidency is essentially a symbolic gesture to an archaic provision that feared the predominant European powers from meddling too much inside the US. We haven't even had a female President or someone with non-white decent inside them, so this issue is pretty farfetched from our current reality.
The idea is. . . If a . . . hhhmmm Russian guy becomes pres and decides to give all our secrets to Russia. . . HE COULD DO IT . . . CAUSE HE PRES It is about loyalty Can a foreign born person be more loyal to the US than their homeland Probably . . but why chance it Can an american become Pres of any other country? if so . . which one? Rocket River
