• 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

Solace

Banned
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
685
Reaction score
36
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think so.
 
I think so.

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 mean like they are born in another country, and come here and are a US citizen for like 10 years. They should be able to run for president.
 
Yes, they should. Let the voters decide if there is a conflict of interest on a case-by-case basis, instead of just having a constitutional restriction on EVERYONE born out of the country. There are plenty of foreign-born Americans who would make good presidents, and plenty of natural-born Americans who would make ****ty presidents. It should be, at most, just one more piece of information that the voters can use to evaluate candidates...not a constitutional requirement.

I think the only constitutional restrictions should be that the person is at least 18 years old and is a US citizen at the time they run for office.
 
I mean like they are born in another country, and come here and are a US citizen for like 10 years. They should be able to run for president.

they should have spent the majority of their life here. some guy who is 50 and only been in the US for 10 years should not be allowed to run for POTUS
 
I mean like they are born in another country, and come here and are a US citizen for like 10 years. They should be able to run for president.
I might be okay, but it would have to be like 50 years, not 10.

Even that...

The current rules prevent a long-term mole being trained at an early age, immigrating to the US, and running for president late in life. Or in your scenario, within 10 years…

The current limitation demands that someone be a natural-born citizen to hold presidential office - and I think this is a good setup, in a generalized way.
 
The current rules prevent a long-term mole being trained at an early age, immigrating to the US, and running for president late in life. Or in your scenario, within 10 years…

But the problem is that they are a long-term mole, not that they immigrated to the US. I'm not seeing the connection between the two. And in any case, is this really a big enough worry that it needs to be a constitutional requirement? Why not let the voters judge that on a case-by-case basis?
 
Last edited:
Naturalized citizens are often more patriotic than natural-born citizens. I have no problem with allowing anyone who has demonstrated leadership and service to their country to run for any office.

Is Governor Schwarzenegger any less of an American than President Obama?
 
But the problem is that they are a long-term mole, not that they immigrated to the US. I'm not seeing the connection between the two. :confused:
True.

But it would make recruiting a long-term mole harder for a rival state, if they had to recruit a natural-born citizen.

Still, that's not the only reason.

A life-long citizen who has grown and lives in the USA is more likely to understand many aspects of the country than a recent immigrant - and we're asking them to lead the country.
 
True.

But it would make recruiting a long-term mole harder for a rival state, if they had to recruit a natural-born citizen.

Still, that's not the only reason.

A life-long citizen who has grown and lives in the USA is more likely to understand many aspects of the country than a recent immigrant - and we're asking them to lead the country.

The American people would NEVER vote for a recent immigrant though.
 
But it would make recruiting a long-term mole harder for a rival state, if they had to recruit a natural-born citizen.

Ehh, maybe a little. Still, is this really a big concern? The only time I've ever seen anything like this is in The Manchurian Candidate. Has it ever actually happened in the real world? It strains the limits of my imagination to believe that A) a foreign nation would take the trouble to train a mole, B) this would go unnoticed by the voters, and C) precisely this person would become one of only 43 people to ever hold the office of President of the United States. If a foreign nation was so inclined, it would be far easier to just buy off whoever was already the president.

The Mark said:
A life-long citizen who has grown and lives in the USA is more likely to understand many aspects of the country than a recent immigrant - and we're asking them to lead the country.

But voters can take that into consideration anyway. If they feel that the candidate (regardless of his place of birth) doesn't understand many aspects of the country, they won't elect him. There are plenty of personal characteristics that I personally think the president should and should not possess...but I wouldn't enshrine any of them into the Constitution. There can always be exceptions, and the voters should be able to decide for themselves.
 
The American people would NEVER vote for a recent immigrant though.
You say that now - but I'm sure there is or at some point will be at least one out there charismatic enough and a good enough actor to pull it off.
 
If this individual is true Christian, true Patriot, true Conservative, true Republican ( not a RINO ), why not?
 
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:

“ No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Has worked well so far. Why change?
 
You say that now - but I'm sure there is or at some point will be at least one out there charismatic enough and a good enough actor to pull it off.

Obama.
Wait for it. Wait for it....
 
If this individual is true Christian, true Patriot, true Conservative, true Republican ( not a RINO ), why not?

head_asplode.jpg
 
I would say no because excluding nationalized citizens makes our system of election simpler. Xenophobia and isolationism both have played out culturally in this country before and adding these elements to our current (Birther aside as an aberration) elections would just add more sludge to think about.
 
The Founders of this country weren't stupid, they made the requirement for a reason. We have plenty of Americans to chose from, no need for foreigners.
 
If this individual is true Christian, true Patriot, true Conservative, true Republican ( not a RINO ), why not?

No, I disagree.
 
:shrug: I don't see how it's a problem, people won't elect someone who became a citizen yesterday anyway, and for the people suggesting a long term mole, it's just as equally likely they'll recruit a citizen. Our PM here was born in Wales, she's doing as expected, and, if trends continue, our next PM (current leader of the opposition) was born in England.
 
:shrug: I don't see how it's a problem, people won't elect someone who became a citizen yesterday anyway, and for the people suggesting a long term mole, it's just as equally likely they'll recruit a citizen. Our PM here was born in Wales, she's doing as expected, and, if trends continue, our next PM (current leader of the opposition) was born in England.

Just because yall do something dumb, doesn't mean have to. :lol:
 
Obama.
Wait for it. Wait for it....
What, are you a birther?

I was under the impression that it has been proved Pres. Obama is a natural-born citizen beyond any except an extremely unlikely possibility - which would, in turn, require many other supporting conspiracy theories in order to be true.

Something like a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance or less…
 
The Founders of this country weren't stupid, they made the requirement for a reason. We have plenty of Americans to chose from, no need for foreigners.

You're so ignorant and xenophobic it hurts. If a Frenchman or a Brit could lead your country to greatness, why refuse out of sheer fear? If he's willing to become the leader, he's quite clearly an adoptive patriot of the US, and if people like him enough that the issue has come up on a national level, it must be that he's got some good ideas. Why let abject fear of the unknown get in the way? It's a very fundamentally stupid thing to do.
 
You're so ignorant and xenophobic it hurts. If a Frenchman or a Brit could lead your country to greatness, why refuse out of sheer fear? If he's willing to become the leader, he's quite clearly an adoptive patriot of the US, and if people like him enough that the issue has come up on a national level, it must be that he's got some good ideas. Why let abject fear of the unknown get in the way? It's a very fundamentally stupid thing to do.

America doesn't need leaders with dual loyalties, potentially or actually.
 
Back
Top Bottom