• 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
If such a law could be changed so quickly, then shouldn't every single article in the ammendment be changed. If the only argument for changing this law is "because we can", then I suppose any party not only can, be should change anything and everything be it can be changed.
 
The States are, they have their own forms of constitutions. The State's ratified the Constitution, but it's not like nothing was voted on or changed. People had influence and many States came back with changes here and there. In the end, the Constitution itself is not a government, it is a contract between the ones creating the government "We the People" and the government intended to be created. It is ceding to the government, loaned from the People. There was a lot of debate and inquiry and input on behalf of the people towards the creation of the Constitution.

It is still a restriction.

There is no pedestal, I called the Constitution what it was, it's a contract. It is not itself the series of laws constructed by government. It is a list of things government is allowed to do, what powers it has, what powers it must share, and what it is forbidden from doing. That's all. The restriction on people outside the US being allowed to run for President is a restriction on the government; not by the government.

Restricting the government does not make it a non-law. It just means that it is a law that applies to the US government. Mining regulations may not directly affect you, but they are still laws.

Law | Define Law at Dictionary.com

law1    
[law] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2.
any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. Compare bylaw, statute law.



Yes, there's lots of restrictions on government.

Ideally, like any restriction, they are placed there for good reason. There was good reason to have this restriction in 1789, when the election for head of state had often lead to war or compromising of a weak country by stronger ones.

I do not see the need to outsource our highest office just yet. I see no need to open ourselves further to foreign influence when we have what it takes to do the job right here at home. There is no necessity for it, and till that becomes true there is no point in allowing the added risks which come from outsourcing our Presidency.

It's not outsourcing if they are also Americans. There is no real cost to give our voters a choice of candidates that could be inept in one additional way to the countless ways that current candidates are inept.
 
But the whole examining a person's mind thing presumes a difference that is inherent to immigrants to begin with, a superficial and maybe artificially created presumption at best - I mean, look at people who have been citizens all their lives and yet want the country to fall.
No, it presumes that there is more likely to be negative views towards the US in the mind of a someone not of the US, as opposed to a person born & raised here.

As I said, the law by no means eliminates the possibility that someone with negative designs towards the US might become president. I'm sure some would agree that Obama is such a one. And Bush II. And Clinton. And Bush I... Need I go on?

Point is, it’s more likely that someone NOT born and raised in the US (or to and by US parents, as I don’t think “natural born” requires birth on US soil – not clear on details, fully) would have such designs.

Thus, as a precaution, it seems reasonable to me.

And it’s not like it really limits the field of choice all that much, since there are quite a few people in the US to choose from. Of course, for some reason all the ones who show interest seem crappy lately, but…
 
Question to those that voted yes. What current foreign leader would you want as the President of the USA?

.
 
I voted yes but I would like some rules applied to it.

I actually never thought about it before just now when I read the question. Originally I was like HELL NO but then once I thought about it I cant really come up with any good logical reason for a blanket no.

Our government system is set up with the president at top but there is checks and balances to keep him in check and secondly if he makes president that means WE elected him! So I definitely think the answer is yes.

I would like a time limit on it though and some rules. Of course you would have to become a citizen and then be a citizen and live here for a certain amount of years. 10+

Just glancing through this thread I still havent come up with any good reason to vote know with how our government is set up
 
Question to those that voted yes. What current foreign leader would you want as the President of the USA?

.

Huh??? What does this have to do with the question in the OP..

You know, there are many people who are born OUTSIDE the U.S.A. who are citizens at birth, you know that, right???
 
Huh??? What does this have to do with the question in the OP..

You know, there are many people who are born OUTSIDE the U.S.A. who are citizens at birth, you know that, right???

There are also many people born outside the USA who become naturalized citizens. Frankly most of them do a heck of a lot more to earn their citizenship than the people who are citizens by birth.
 
How does one define "natural-born?" According to Shakespeare, that would exclude anybody who came out via a c-section (not "natural" born).

I think that you should be allowed to under some restrictions. My kids were born in Russia, so as it sits now, I can't raise them to believe that they could be President. I do think that the person should have "made their life here" in some significant sense. Like maybe spent a majority of your adult years in the US?
 
If someone came here when they were like 5, I don't really see why not. They can already serve in pretty much all other branches of the government (save for maybe intelligence, it's hard to get clearance if you're not a natural born citizen or from an allied country and burn your passport from there and stuff).
 
Huh??? What does this have to do with the question in the OP..

You know, there are many people who are born OUTSIDE the U.S.A. who are citizens at birth, you know that, right???
Maybe I am wrong, but I thought the OP was referring to those who are not USA citizens at birth. Otherwise they would meet the birth qualification, would they not?

U.S. Constitution Online said:
•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.

Link

What I was getting at is, what would be the point of changing the Constitution, if the results would be unlikely to improve.

Also, you do realize that the constitutional change would have to be approved by the politicians in Congress and the states and probably 80% of those politicians think they should be President and would not want the additional competition. ;)

.
 
Maybe I am wrong, but I thought the OP was referring to those who are not USA citizens at birth. Otherwise they would meet the birth qualification, would they not?



What I was getting at is, what would be the point of changing the Constitution, if the results would be unlikely to improve.

Also, you do realize that the constitutional change would have to be approved by the politicians in Congress and the states and probably 80% of those politicians think they should be President and would not want the additional competition. ;)

.

How would you know that? I believe widening the pool of qualified individuals to be President might improve some results. And substantively, what makes a natural-born US citizen inherently better at being a President than a naturalized citizen?
 
Last edited:
How would you know that? I believe widening the pool of qualified individuals to be President might improve some results. And substantively, what makes a natural-born US citizen inherently better at being a President than a naturalized citizen?
If leaders being elected in countries other than the USA are not better than those available in the USA, why do you think someone better would be elected in the USA.

It is really no concern of mine. If the good citizens of the USA want to make that change to their Constitution they should have at it.

But some people are arguing as if they think it might actually happen and I think that is rather silly.... or maybe they are just that naive. :shrug:

.
 
If leaders being elected in countries other than the USA are not better than those available in the USA, why do you think someone better would be elected in the USA.

It is really no concern of mine. If the good citizens of the USA want to make that change to their Constitution they should have at it.

But some people are arguing as if they think it might actually happen and I think that is rather silly.... or maybe they are just that naive. :shrug:

.

Well yes I don't think it's going to happen, but that's not what the poll is about. The poll is whether or not you think people born in foreign countries SHOULD be allowed to run for President.
 
Well yes I don't think it's going to happen, but that's not what the poll is about. The poll is whether or not you think people born in foreign countries SHOULD be allowed to run for President.
If you say so. :roll:

Obviously my original question went over your head. I asked it because it seems many think some fantastic candidate from another country would run and be elected. If they are not being elected in those countries where they are already qualified, what makes you think they would run and be elected to the USA Presidency.

Also, some folks, including you, seemed to think that no one born outside the USA could be a natural born citizen or that natural born USA citizens born in other countries were disqualified from being the USA President. I don't believe that is the case, but then I could be wrong. After all, I don't have the benefit of an education in the USA government schools.

If this whole thread was just meant to be a meaningless exercise, well... never mind. :2wave:

.
 
Obviously my original question went over your head. I asked it because it seems many think some fantastic candidate from another country would run and be elected. If they are not being elected in those countries where they are already qualified, what makes you think they would run and be elected to the USA Presidency.

I don't know how you are coming to this conclusion. I believe there ARE foreign leaders who are more capable at running their countries than some US presidents are at governing America.

Also, some folks, including you, seemed to think that no one born outside the USA could be a natural born citizen or that natural born USA citizens born in other countries were disqualified from being the USA President.

I don't know where you are getting this. John McCain is one such example. However I believe the thread/poll is about naturalized US citizens born outside of the US, since natural born citizens born outside the US, like McCain, are already able to become President, that's not an issue.
 
Last edited:
I don't know how you are coming to this conclusion. I believe there ARE foreign leaders who are more capable at running their countries than some US presidents are at governing America.
So then what was all the dancing around? Why didn't you just answer the damn question?

Which was:
What current foreign leader would you want as the President of the USA?


Unless you think governing all countries is the same, it doesn't really matter how those leaders are running their countries. Do you think a leader that does an acceptable job leading their country would be a better USA President than anyone qualified under the current rules?


I don't know where you are getting this. John McCain is one such example. However I believe the thread/poll is about naturalized US citizens born outside of the US, since natural born citizens born outside the US, like McCain, are already able to become President, that's not an issue.
This may shock you, but its not all about you.

Maybe if you would read some posts of others instead of trying to show how brilliant you are, you might see where I got that impression....or maybe your reading comprehension is just a tad off. :roll:

.
 
Which was:
What current foreign leader would you want as the President of the USA?

Sorry, I hadn't seen your earlier post.

Edit: I had seen your question, but didn't really understand it, sorry about that.

Unless you think governing all countries is the same, it doesn't really matter how those leaders are running their countries. Do you think a leader that does an acceptable job leading their country would be a better USA President than anyone qualified under the current rules?

It's possible. Yes, I understand governing other countries is not the same as governing the US, but it would never hurt to widen the pool of qualified candidates.

Maybe if you would read some posts of others instead of trying to show how brilliant you are, you might see where I got that impression....or maybe your reading comprehension is just a tad off.

Is it my responsibility to read every other post in the thread, now? I was just chiming in with my own opinion. Others are responsible for their opinions, and I'm responsible for mine, that is all.
 
Sorry, I hadn't seen your earlier post.

Edit: I had seen your question, but didn't really understand it, sorry about that.



It's possible. Yes, I understand governing other countries is not the same as governing the US, but it would never hurt to widen the pool of qualified candidates.
So which ones?


Is it my responsibility to read every other post in the thread, now? I was just chiming in with my own opinion. Others are responsible for their opinions, and I'm responsible for mine, that is all.
Not if you don't mind looking stupid. ;)

.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't mind having someone like Angela Merkel over here, even if her approval ratings aren't so hot.
OK, well there's one.

Do you really think she is better than any natural born citizen of the USA would be? I suppose you probably know your country's citizens better than I.

The USA government education system sure doesn't get the masses off to as good a start as the systems in many other countries so maybe some infusion of brains is needed.

I don't know about Merkel though. She may very well be better than anything the USA has to offer, but I've never been that impressed with her. But I've not been all that impressed with those the good citizens of the USA have chosen lately either.

.
 
OK, well there's one.

Do you really think she is better than any natural born citizen of the USA would be? I suppose you probably know your country's citizens better than I.

The USA government education system sure doesn't get the masses off to as good a start as the systems in many other countries so maybe some infusion of brains is needed.

I don't know about Merkel though. She may very well be better than anything the USA has to offer, but I've never been that impressed with her. But I've not been all that impressed with those the good citizens of the USA have chosen lately either.

.

Everyone has their opinions, like I said before I don't see how widening the pool of available candidates could hurt.
 
No.

Obama has shown that merely being born in the US isn't sufficient. He was raised in Indonesia and simply does not understand the nation stupid enough to elect him president. He was even able to comment on the 57 states, 7 of which clearly do not exist.
 
No.

Obama has shown that merely being born in the US isn't sufficient. He was raised in Indonesia and simply does not understand the nation stupid enough to elect him president. He was even able to comment on the 57 states, 7 of which clearly do not exist.

Four years living in Indonesia as a child = being raised in Indonesia?!?!? huh!?!?!? He spend most of his childhood in Hawaii, where he was raised... NOT in Indonesia..

And frankly, spending some time overseas is NOT a bad thing in a president.
 
Everyone has their opinions, like I said before I don't see how widening the pool of available candidates could hurt.
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:

.
 
No.

Obama has shown that merely being born in the US isn't sufficient. He was raised in Indonesia and simply does not understand the nation stupid enough to elect him president. He was even able to comment on the 57 states, 7 of which clearly do not exist.
So what is your solution? Are you suggesting that anyone that ever lived outside the USA, even if a natural born USA citizen, should be disqualified?

.
 
Back
Top Bottom