• 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
Plato said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, the majority of Taiwanese do NOT stand for one China and most Taiwanese refer to themselves as citizens of Taiwan but NOT 中國人 (meaning Chinese in terms of state nationality) but rather as 華人 (Chinese in a racial/cultural sense).

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.
Click to expand...

Hong Kong was never part of the ROC, though one most note that there was a similar 'birther' phonemenon here as there is in the U.S., though not as prevalant and it is pretty much a dead issue now. He was not born in the PRC either as Hong Kong was a British colony at the time he was born.
 
ludahai

Maybe I was unfairly flippant with my initial remark. However on the narrow issue you have to admit that the President of the Republic of China was born in the Republic of China according to the territorial claims of the government of Taiwan.

I personally do not know the answer to the question as to whether Taiwan should be independent or not. It is not a matter for me, even though I am a resident and taxpayer in China. Personally I don't like nationalism and prefer the status quo when it comes to nation states, and look for democracy to devolve powers to local communities so that "sovereignty" is largely irrelevant. So I have no problem with the devolution of power to Taiwan. In fact, it being a democracy I would prefer the PRC to improve relations more and more acknowledging the status of Taiwan as an autonomous self governed island.

But it is clear that Taiwan still regards itself as the seat of the government of China and on this my views are clear. It is not. The Republic of China founded by Sun Yat Sen was superseded by the PRC. Whether peoples views were manipulated by Mao Zedong or Chiang Kai Shek, the overwhelming majority of the people of China embrace the PRC. And I think it is reasonable that, if Taiwan regards itself as the seat of the government of China, for the separatist position to be set aside in this dialogue until that changes in Taiwan. If there is one China as the ROC government asserts, then its leader is undoubtedly Hu Jintao and not Mr. Ma.
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
Actually, the majority of Taiwanese do NOT stand for one China and most Taiwanese refer to themselves as citizens of Taiwan but NOT 中國人 (meaning Chinese in terms of state nationality) but rather as 華人 (Chinese in a racial/cultural sense).



Hong Kong was never part of the ROC, though one most note that there was a similar 'birther' phonemenon here as there is in the U.S., though not as prevalant and it is pretty much a dead issue now. He was not born in the PRC either as Hong Kong was a British colony at the time he was born.
Click to expand...

Ma himself regards himself as the President of the ROC which includes China and Hong Kong according to the One China policy. You may disagree with him of course being a Tiawan separatist. He is the elected President.

I think that China (ROC and PRC) has always regarded ethnically Chinese (Han and Hakka in this case) people born in Hong Kong (or anywhere else) to be Chinese. Having said that you are right that Ma was born on territory which was at the time sovereign territory of the UK in perpetuity, it lying within Kowloon and so the matter is less clear than I suggested. Still he is the President of a country and he maintains that he was born within that country. Not really the same as Arnie.
 
Plato said:
ludahai

Maybe I was unfairly flippant with my initial remark. However on the narrow issue you have to admit that the President of the Republic of China was born in the Republic of China according to the territorial claims of the government of Taiwan.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is a matter of some controversy here. The ROC did NOT regard Hong Kong as ROC territory, so he technically was NOT born in the ROC. However, at that time, the ROC granted citizenship to people who came to Taiwan from either China or Hong Kong at that time. (though most of them were born in China when it was regarded as the ROC or the Qing Dynasty).

I personally do not know the answer to the question as to whether Taiwan should be independent or not. It is not a matter for me, even though I am a resident and taxpayer in China. Personally I don't like nationalism and prefer the status quo when it comes to nation states, and look for democracy to devolve powers to local communities so that "sovereignty" is largely irrelevant. So I have no problem with the devolution of power to Taiwan. In fact, it being a democracy I would prefer the PRC to improve relations more and more acknowledging the status of Taiwan as an autonomous self governed island.
Click to expand...

There is no need for devolution of power to Taiwan. Taiwan already is sovereign. The PRC has no authority here and our government has no authority in China, and I prefer it that way, as do most Taiwanese. Taiwan is not only self-governed, but in reality, China really doesn't have any legal claim to the island.

But it is clear that Taiwan still regards itself as the seat of the government of China and on this my views are clear. It is not. The Republic of China founded by Sun Yat Sen was superseded by the PRC. Whether peoples views were manipulated by Mao Zedong or Chiang Kai Shek, the overwhelming majority of the people of China embrace the PRC. And I think it is reasonable that, if Taiwan regards itself as the seat of the government of China, for the separatist position to be set aside in this dialogue until that changes in Taiwan. If there is one China as the ROC government asserts, then its leader is undoubtedly Hu Jintao and not Mr. Ma.
Click to expand...

But two years ago, that was NOT the case, and it is very likely two years from now we will elect a government that will resume the policies of the Lee/Chen era, where the government of Taiwan regarded relations with China to be one between states. Even Ma gives lip service to the notion that the ROC and PRC are two separate states and that the two are not the same. Hu most certainly is not the leader of Taiwan. He has no authority here and we don't pay taxes to Beijing, but rather to Taipei.
 
In HK we don't pay taxes to Beijing either. Anyway we have digressed enough. This was a conversation I learned from even if I haven't changed my views very much. I am not that much in disagreement with you on the substance. This is all about form.
 
Plato said:
In HK we don't pay taxes to Beijing either. Anyway we have digressed enough. This was a conversation I learned from even if I haven't changed my views very much. I am not that much in disagreement with you on the substance. This is all about form.
Click to expand...

But Beijing clearly has sovereignty over Hong Kong and chooses your chief executive... In Taiwan, the president is chosen by Taiwan's people...
 
ludahai said:
But Beijing clearly has sovereignty over Hong Kong and chooses your chief executive... In Taiwan, the president is chosen by Taiwan's people...
Click to expand...

Even if the Chief Executive were elected it wouldn't take away the status of Hong Kong as part of China.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, I think they're both naturalized.....:)
 
If someone is a citizen at birth, they should be eligible to be president of the United States, regardless of where they are born.

And DiAnna, I wish he were joking, but I highly doubt it...
 
ludahai said:
If someone is a citizen at birth, they should be eligible to be president of the United States, regardless of where they are born.

And DiAnna, I wish he were joking, but I highly doubt it...
Click to expand...

Really? I thought it was common knowledge that someone born on U.S. soil is a citizen at birth (Obama) is eligible to be president, whereas someone born in, say, Austria, who immigrates to the US and later becomes a naturalized citizen (Schwarzenegger) is a naturalized citizen, ineligible to be president.

I'm actually surprised that there is confusion about this. :doh
 
If they are loyal US citizens, then sure, why not?
 
DiAnna said:
Really? I thought it was common knowledge that someone born on U.S. soil is a citizen at birth (Obama) is eligible to be president, whereas someone born in, say, Austria, who immigrates to the US and later becomes a naturalized citizen (Schwarzenegger) is a naturalized citizen, ineligible to be president.

I'm actually surprised that there is confusion about this. :doh
Click to expand...

I was also referring to people born OUTSIDE the US who are also citizens at birth; either because both parents are U.S. citizens or because one parent is a citizen qualified to pass on citizenship to an offsping...
 
OscarB63 said:
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
Click to expand...

This is a reflection of my own opinion. Thanks for posting.
 
Not without a Constitutional Amendement.

Someone born in another country but who arrived here before school age would be fine with me. We've already seen the problem with someone raised in a foreign culture.
 
sure they should. they should be able to run for president of whatever country they were born in
 
Patrickt said:
Not without a Constitutional Amendement.

Someone born in another country but who arrived here before school age would be fine with me. We've already seen the problem with someone raised in a foreign culture.
Click to expand...

Saying what, Patrickt???????
Is caring about others "foreign" ?
 
My main objection is that people who are raised in foreign countries even if they are American Citizens should not be president.
 
Shadow Serious said:
My main objection is that people who are raised in foreign countries even if they are American Citizens should not be president.
Click to expand...

So military kids who travel with their parents and are raised in foreign countries should not be president? Interesting concept. Unconstitutional, unjust, and unfair... but interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom