• 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
Well, our country is called Great Britain. XD

But, in all seriousness, France and Britain (along with the US, China and Russia) are two of the five most powerful nations on Earth, and are peerless outside of the Security Council (which makes up the Bismarckian Great Powers of today), so, yeah, I'd say Britain and France are pretty "great".

Gee, and I teach my students that it is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which about a country ago was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and before the Act of Union......

As for national power, the UK and France are not in the same league as the US, Russia and China...
 
Nope. It's a different form of prejudice than racism. Nobody in America will defend stupid Britain or stupid France. Nobody here likes you folks. How's that for clarity?

Don't listen to Albert on this. This statement most certainly is not true...
 
Huh??? He is a naturalized American. What I don't know is if he renounced his Austrian citizenship (or if Austria revokes citizenship upon acquisition of another nationality) or not...

He has dual citizenship.
 
Yes, my Liberal thinking places me in the minority.

Being born in a "foreign nation" should never place a man at an disadvantage, not any more so than being born in Arizona or South Carolina.
Its where and how well one is raised that matters.
 
Gee, and I teach my students that it is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which about a country ago was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and before the Act of Union......

As for national power, the UK and France are not in the same league as the US, Russia and China...

Not really, the European Union is the world's number one economy...for whatever that is worth..
England and France are more or less meshed parts. England has rust on its gear teeth.
But, then we have Arizona and South Carolina; and look at how small Russia has become, and China, what do we really know abort China ?
Language is the great unifier, we used to have but one, China and Europe have a great many.
 
Do those that think that America should allow foreign people to become our leader

I guess that I'm one of these people if you consider fully naturalized US citizens of foreign birth to be foreign person

think that Americans should be able to become leader in other foreign countries?

As long as they are naturalized citizens of those countries, I guess the nobility article of the Constitution would force them to renounce US citizenship in some cases, I don't care. That's up to the other country. In fact Éamon de Valera, one of Ireland's presidents and dominating political figures was born in the US.
 
Not really, the European Union is the world's number one economy...for whatever that is worth..
England and France are more or less meshed parts. England has rust on its gear teeth.
But, then we have Arizona and South Carolina; and look at how small Russia has become, and China, what do we really know abort China ?
Language is the great unifier, we used to have but one, China and Europe have a great many.

But the Eu is still far from a unified power.

I know quite a lot about China, but I am very concerned by what I see coming from over there...

As for languages in China, most of the local languages are dying or even approaching moribund status. The government has forced Mandarin on nearly the entire country. Only Cantonese and Shanghainese are robust among the "Han" people and even some of the minority langauges (i.e. Manchurian and Zhuang) are either dead or dying...
 
But the Eu is still far from a unified power.

I know quite a lot about China, but I am very concerned by what I see coming from over there...

As for languages in China, most of the local languages are dying or even approaching moribund status. The government has forced Mandarin on nearly the entire country. Only Cantonese and Shanghainese are robust among the "Han" people and even some of the minority langauges (i.e. Manchurian and Zhuang) are either dead or dying...

The UK and France, seperately, and even without the gridwork of the EU, are still two of the most powerful nations on Earth, militarily, politically and economically. It's a fact, mate. Check wikipedia some time.
 
Nope they must be natural born citizen of the U.S. It was worked for us so far way change it?
 
The UK and France, seperately, and even without the gridwork of the EU, are still two of the most powerful nations on Earth, militarily, politically and economically. It's a fact, mate. Check wikipedia some time.

Good Grief Charlie Brown... for years, there was an article on Wikipedia about a Y1C bug that never really was a concern anywhere... and it was there for years...
 
The U.S. has a presidential system of government rather than parliamentary. Typically, the head of government in such a system (who is also usually head of state, though in some countries, it is kind of muddled) has more power than the head of government in a parliamentary system...

Not really. The parliamentary system tends to have a much more integrated legislature and executive. Thus as long as a premier commands a parliamentary majority, which they often must to be premier, then they will pretty much have their own way. Heads of State in these type of democracies (UK, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Israel) are generally devoid of power.
 
conflict of interest. the only exceptions should be people who were born of american parents while the mother was temporarily out of the country or maybe people who immigrated to the US as a child

I would agree, but I'd add.. foreign born children who are adopted by American parents.

It's really common now that American family's adopt children from places like China and Russia... and I don't think that that should hold them back.
 
I see no reason to change the constitution to accommodate naturalized citizens, since as far as I know it's the only position in government that prohibits them. However, this brings up a question that I'm not certain how to research. How many countries allow naturalized citizens to be elected to the highest post in their nations? My suspicion is that few, if any, would allow it. Does anyone have evidence to the country? For example, non-Americans, what are the requirements for holding your country's presidential/prime minister/etc. positions?
 
Last edited:
I see no reason to change the constitution to accommodate naturalized citizens, since as far as I know it's the only position in government that prohibits them. However, this brings up a question that I'm not certain how to research. How many countries allow naturalized citizens to be elected to the highest post in their nations? My suspicion is that few, if any, would allow it. Does anyone have evidence to the country? For example, non-Americans, what are the requirements for holding your country's presidential/prime minister/etc. positions?

Since you asked, I will speak for Taiwan. Our country currently has a president who was not born here, he was born in Hong Kong. The law allows naturalized citizens to run for any political office once they have been a citizen for ten years.
 
Since you asked, I will speak for Taiwan. Our country currently has a president who was not born here, he was born in Hong Kong. The law allows naturalized citizens to run for any political office once they have been a citizen for ten years.

I was not aware that Hu Jintao was born in Hong Kong?
 
HUH?!?!? Hu is the president of China, not Taiwan...

Taiwan is a province of China and is recognized as such by most of the world, including the USA, through administrations both Democrat and Republican.

And Taiwan agrees to the principle that there is one China and not a separate "country" called Taiwan. They just think Ma is its president. So even according to Taiwan, its President was born in the country, Hong Kong being part of "one China".

I hope that Taiwan continues to be a democratic force for good within the People's Republic of China.
 
Taiwan is a province of China and is recognized as such by most of the world, including the USA, through administrations both Democrat and Republican.

Strictly in "official" terms. Why does the US then regard one as an erstwhile ally while another as a potential adversary? And establish the American Institute in Taiwan as its de facto embassy?

And Taiwan agrees to the principle that there is one China and not a separate "country" called Taiwan. They just think Ma is its president. So even according to Taiwan, its President was born in the country, Hong Kong being part of "one China".

Taiwan is not a person. Not everyone (in fact the vast majority of Taiwanese people don't) agree with the One-China principle.

They just think Ma is its president.

Taiwan exercises DE FACTO sovereignty over itself. Ma is the president. Hu is not the President of Taiwan in any realistic sense of the word.
 
Strictly in "official" terms. Why does the US then regard one as an erstwhile ally while another as a potential adversary? And establish the American Institute in Taiwan as its de facto embassy?



Taiwan is not a person. Not everyone (in fact the vast majority of Taiwanese people don't) agree with the One-China principle.



Taiwan exercises DE FACTO sovereignty over itself. Ma is the president. Hu is not the President of Taiwan in any realistic sense of the word.

Do you really think that the overwhelming will of the Chinese people to see Taiwan as part of the motherland is deflected by the USA supporting the Taiwanese?

Only to the extent that China values its trading relationship with the world. Taiwan's "de facto" sovereignty is largely permitted by a Chinese leadership that sees no self interest in forcibly occupying its rogue province. This can change at any time if China is pushed into a nationalist posture by other events and Americans should not underestimate the PRC's mindset on this issue. China is an emerging nation that still smarts from her historical (19th Century) humiliation at the hands of imperialist powers, inlcuding the USA. Maybe you and I think they should get over this, but China is a nation which values its face highly, maybe too highly.

Progressive elements in China see Taiwan as a potential Hong Kong... a territory which gives a lot of benefit to China's development through its democracy and free markets. This is why I support Taiwan and hope that its peaceful development of relations with the Mainland will continue. This is why Western democracies support Taiwan too.

Taiwan being a democracy should be seen as an entity whose official position is taken seriously, not just dismissed by you in favour of the minority on the island who favour independence.
 
Last edited:
Do you really think that the overwhelming will of the Chinese people to see Taiwan as part of the motherland is deflected by the USA supporting the Taiwanese?

What does it matter what the Chinese people want? China does not exercise any REAL sovereignty over Taiwan, and the vast majority of Taiwanese people don't want China to exercise sovereignty over them either.

Taiwan being a democracy should be seen as an entity whose official position is taken seriously, not just dismissed by you in favour of the minority on the island who favour independence.

I happen to be Taiwanese-American. And I can tell you, though many Taiwanese people favor closer economic ties with China, virtually nobody supports Chinese political control of Taiwan. They only support the idea of "one China" in a cultural sense.
 
I nowhere suggested that the PRC government should control Taiwan. I pointed out that the majority of Taiwanese and the Taiwanese government stand for one China, politically as well as culturally, which is why there is agreement on territorial disputes with Japan for example. This does not mean that Taiwan cannot exist for quite some time with its political system alongside China's. It does not rule out a one nation two (or three) systems approach at some future date. And given that Taiwanese people (the majority) see themselves as "Chinese" then clearly what the "Chinese people" think has some relevance. Of course I don't expect Taiwanese separatists to acknowledge any of this.

On the subject of this thread, the President of the "Republic of China" was born in the "Republic of China", by its own definitions. By the definitions of the international community he was also born in People's Republic of China where he rules an autonomous province.
 
Taiwan is a province of China and is recognized as such by most of the world, including the USA, through administrations both Democrat and Republican.

And Taiwan agrees to the principle that there is one China and not a separate "country" called Taiwan. They just think Ma is its president. So even according to Taiwan, its President was born in the country, Hong Kong being part of "one China".

I hope that Taiwan continues to be a democratic force for good within the People's Republic of China.

Ummm... on what basis did China gain sovereignty over Taiwan. And I have news for you, most Taiwanese people do NOT regard Taiwan as a part of China. Furthermore, the U.S. DOES NOT regard Taiwan as a Province of China. It says it "acknowledges" the position of the Chinese "on both sides of the strait" but it neither recognzies it nor does it say anything about what the Taiwanese say. Former President Lee Tung Hui called the relations "state to state" and under President Chen, the policy was "one state on each side of the strait" and even the current President Ma states that the Republic of China is an independent state and that Taiwan's future can only be charted by the people of Taiwan.

Please inform yourself before you parrot ChiCom propoganda.
 
Do you really think that the overwhelming will of the Chinese people to see Taiwan as part of the motherland is deflected by the USA supporting the Taiwanese?

The opinion of China's people (in reality shaped by the propoganda of the CCP in China) is completely irrelevant in terms of international law and the legitimate rights of the Taiwanese people under international law.

Only to the extent that China values its trading relationship with the world. Taiwan's "de facto" sovereignty is largely permitted by a Chinese leadership that sees no self interest in forcibly occupying its rogue province. This can change at any time if China is pushed into a nationalist posture by other events and Americans should not underestimate the PRC's mindset on this issue. China is an emerging nation that still smarts from her historical (19th Century) humiliation at the hands of imperialist powers, inlcuding the USA. Maybe you and I think they should get over this, but China is a nation which values its face highly, maybe too highly.

Taiwan is not a "rogue province" or "renegade province" as English language translations emergering out of China typically use (though either would be an acceptable translation from the Chinese). The problem is for China that no Han dynasty ever controlled the island. Only when BOTH China and Taiwan were conquered by foreigners (the Manchus) were both part of the same entity. Furthermore, the Qing Dynasty signed away its rights to Taiwan in 1895, never to regain them by its fall in 1911/12. Under international law, a signed and ratified treaty is required to transfer land from one state to another state. The San Francisco Peace Treaty did not effectuate a transfer of sovereignty.

Progressive elements in China see Taiwan as a potential Hong Kong... a territory which gives a lot of benefit to China's development through its democracy and free markets. This is why I support Taiwan and hope that its peaceful development of relations with the Mainland will continue. This is why Western democracies support Taiwan too.

However, Taiwan AND ONLY Taiwan and its people have the right to chart Taiwan's future.

Taiwan being a democracy should be seen as an entity whose official position is taken seriously, not just dismissed by you in favour of the minority on the island who favour independence.

The vast majority of Taiwan's people ALREADY regard Taiwan as an independent state and not a part of China. And those people DO NOT want Taiwan to be absorbed by China. You would perhaps note the drop in the fortunes of the KMT in recent elections. While its closer relations with Beijing is not the ONLY reason for their reversal of fortunes, but it is generally considered the most important reason.
 
Back
Top Bottom