• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should individuals born in foreign countries be able to run for president?

Should they?

  • yes

    Votes: 31 30.7%
  • no

    Votes: 63 62.4%
  • other

    Votes: 7 6.9%

  • Total voters
    101
I've never stated that an expanded pool would be a bad thing; just that it would not make much, if any, difference.

I would think that those arguing for change would be the one's that would have to justify their position by proving some significant benefit. :shrug:

.

I wouldn't mind a change as long as the benefits outweigh the risks. I see no reason why there should be "significant" benefits to justify the change, it is more a matter of principle for me. There's no reason why someone born outside the country is less capable of doing the job (as long as they prove to be loyal citizens). They have every right to be qualified for the job as natural-born citizens. If you're an employer and you want to hire, you don't cut out a bunch of potential employees because of where they were born. That's how I see it.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't mind a change as long as the benefits outweigh the risks. I see no reason why there should be "significant" benefits to justify the change,
And here I always heard it was a good thing to have a high hurdle to change the USA Constitution. So you must really like the idea of mob rule, eh?

it is more a matter of principle for me. There's no reason why someone born outside the country is less capable of doing the job (as long as they prove to be loyal citizens). They have every right to be qualified for the job as natural-born citizens. If you're an employer and you want to hire, you don't cut out a bunch of potential employees because of where they were born. That's how I see it.
Yes we do. :doh

.
 
And here I always heard it was a good thing to have a high hurdle to change the USA Constitution. So you must really like the idea of mob rule, eh?

On the contrary. I espouse the idea that Thomas Jefferson suggested in which all Constitutional laws come up for renewal once a generation. If they make sense, they will be kept. If not, they should be disposed of. In a letter to Madison he wrote:

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.

And I do think the hurdle as it currently exists is a bit too high. Hell, something as basic as the ERA couldn't even be passed.

Yes we do.

Do ordinary employers in the private sector do this? Makes absolutely no economic sense in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
On the contrary. I espouse the idea that Thomas Jefferson suggested in which all Constitutional laws come up for renewal once a generation. If they make sense, they will be kept. If not, they should be disposed of. In a letter to Madison he wrote:



And I do think the hurdle as it currently exists is a bit too high. Hell, something as basic as the ERA couldn't even be passed.



Do ordinary employers in the private sector do this? Makes absolutely no economic sense in my opinion.
Not really surprised. :shrug:

.
 
For the record, the rule that disallows foreign-born citizens from becoming President isn't in the Constitution.
So what does Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 mean? :roll:

.
 
You do realize that there ARE people born outside the U.S. who are U.S. citizens at birth in accordance with U.S. law???
You are repeating yourself (post #206) and if you could bother yourself to read the damn thread before spouting off you would see I addressed that in post #210. :roll:

.
 
Then perhaps you should be more precise in your words...
Don't blame me if you have reading comprehension issues. StillBallin75 understood ok.... but maybe he isn't just trying to be a jackass. :roll:

.
 
Don't blame me if you have reading comprehension issues. StillBallin75 understood ok.... but maybe he isn't just trying to be a jackass. :roll:

.

I just don't have time to remember what everyone said earlier in the thread... again, perhaps you should be more consise and accurate in your words... if others can't understand your point, perhaps that is YOUR problem...
 
StillBallin75 said:
For the record, the rule that disallows foreign-born citizens from becoming President isn't in the Constitution.
So what does Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 mean?

So what does Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 mean? :roll:

.

He was talking about foreign born citizens... again, perhaps you should be more clear in your wording in response... there are some foreign-born citizens who would arguably fall under II-1-5
 
I just don't have time to remember what everyone said earlier in the thread... again, perhaps you should be more consise and accurate in your words... if others can't understand your point, perhaps that is YOUR problem...
Damn, you don't even remember asking the question before? And then you are too lazy to read the posts immediately following that provided answers to that question.

Maybe you need to take some responsibility for your own shortcomings... but I suppose that is asking too much from your kind. :roll:

.
 
Even more important than being born in America is being RAISED in America.

If a person was born here but spent nearly all of his first 15 or more years being raised in cultures foreign to American values, he should be completely disqualified.
 
Hellz no why should they be?
 
Back
Top Bottom