• 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
Every "citizen" of the United States should be eligible to be president. People who migrate to here from other countries should be given the staus of "legal resident." A court could decide if certain acts of heroism or philanthropy entitled an immigrant to citizen status.
 
What we have ain't broken, there's no need to "fix" it.
 
I honestly don't see much of a difference between someone who was born in the US, or someone whose family moved here, looking for a better life, when they were 3 years old. American life will still be the only life they've ever really lived. If anything, they'll appreciate what we have in this country even more, since they won't take it for granted like we do. I wouldn't want adults coming here just so they could run, but I think the important part is being raised with American values, which really amounts to growing up here, not being born here.
 
What we have ain't broken, there's no need to "fix" it.

I disagree - I think it is broken since citizens are being denied the equal chance to run for presidency purely on the basis of not being naturalized - regardless of how long ago that was [as in, while somebody who only recently became a citizen should have to wait a little bit longer before being able to, somebody who moved here,. and lived here for 10 years for example should have the full right to run].
 
Sure, why not. Let's remove borders and educational requirements for jobs, too.
 
Sure, why not. Let's remove borders and educational requirements for jobs, too.

Wow, could you miss the point and / or be any more blatantly disingenuous?

How the hell is removing, or more likely modifying a requirement to have been BORN in the U.S so that those who were brought here as an infant, or those whom have lived here for a long period of time can run for presidency anywhere close to that? :roll:
 
I think that we should keep this requirement of the president of the US!
(A natural born citizen is a person born in the US to parents (plural) who are citizens)
I think this is the best way to assure unity and allegiance.
 
Anyone should be able to run for president. Just a matter of them getting elected.

Does being born in Texas exclude you from running for governor in... Alabama? New York? Rhode Island? Seems there'd be just as large a conflict of interest there as there would be between someone born in the UK/Australia/whatever running for President of the US.

Of course they should be able to.
 
I disagree - I think it is broken since citizens are being denied the equal chance to run for presidency purely on the basis of not being naturalized - regardless of how long ago that was [as in, while somebody who only recently became a citizen should have to wait a little bit longer before being able to, somebody who moved here,. and lived here for 10 years for example should have the full right to run].

We do not need to outsource our Presidency. There are plenty of natural born citizens capable of doing the job; we need not look elsewhere. The system is fine.
 
We do not need to outsource our Presidency. There are plenty of natural born citizens capable of doing the job; we need not look elsewhere. The system is fine.

There are also immigrants that could do the job just as well, if not better. How is allowing people to duly elect someone who is just as much an American citizen as you or me "outsourcing"? I understand the original rule. The Founding Fathers did not want foreign governments using our head of government as a puppet like they did in Poland, but I do not see why haven't moved past this.
 
There are also immigrants that could do the job just as well, if not better. How is allowing people to duly elect someone who is just as much an American citizen as you or me "outsourcing"? I understand the original rule. The Founding Fathers did not want foreign governments using our head of government as a puppet like they did in Poland, but I do not see why haven't moved past this.

We do not need to open ourselves up to rule by foreigners. It's not necessary. There are enough people to draw from here to find someone who can do the best job. We haven't moved past that because it is still a concern. It's like asking why we haven't moved past gravity.
 
John Mccain was allowed to run...

I think when people are born in a foreign country, but adopted by American parents, they should be allowed to run too
 
John Mccain was allowed to run...

I think when people are born in a foreign country, but adopted by American parents, they should be allowed to run too

Gah... still?
 
We do not need to open ourselves up to rule by foreigners.

Ok, why do we need natural born citizens? If there is a qualified candidate, why should an accident of birth bar him as long as he is a United States citizen?

It's not necessary. There are enough people to draw from here to find someone who can do the best job. We haven't moved past that because it is still a concern. It's like asking why we haven't moved past gravity.

So you are saying that there is a realistic chance of an agent of another country coming here, being elected, and then allowing his homeland's government influence us?
 
Ok, why do we need natural born citizens? If there is a qualified candidate, why should an accident of birth bar him as long as he is a United States citizen?



So you are saying that there is a realistic chance of an agent of another country coming here, being elected, and then allowing his homeland's government influence us?

really, any chance of that happening should be quashed.
 
really, any chance of that happening should be quashed.

Did you use a car this morning? You could have died in a car accident!! What were you thinking?

We take risks everyday. We accept the possibility of a negative outcome, but what are the chances of this actually happening without their political allies, voters, and media noticing?
 
Various pundits' claim that Barrack Obama is a natural-born citizen, but his upbringing and Kenyan father still managed to make him "anti-colonial." I see this as ridiculous, but it is at least possible. What if he did have these opinions? Should he have been allowed to run? If "anti-American" feeling can be engendered in a natural-born citizen, why are naturalized immigrants different in their ability to run?
 
Last edited:
Ok, why do we need natural born citizens? If there is a qualified candidate, why should an accident of birth bar him as long as he is a United States citizen?

There are typically assimilation times necessary for immigrants to become "Americanized" for lack of a better term. I do not want to be beholden to the ideals and needs of other States. The POTUS needs to be concerned with American ideals and needs. Nothing prevents any given individual candidate from being able to know and understand it. Perhaps someone who is a first gen immigrant can understand that and uphold those ideals. But that's not a given. In fact if you look at the aggregated statistics you see that it is not the generalized case. Given this fail mode and the fact that we have plenty of individuals born and raised here whom are equally qualified, it seems unnecessary to me to open up the process to foreigners.

So you are saying that there is a realistic chance of an agent of another country coming here, being elected, and then allowing his homeland's government influence us?

There is that off chance, but I'd be more willing to say that there is a time necessary for growing up in this country to become aware of all the American idiosyncrasies. Our ideals and values and what we wish to uphold. These sorts of ideals vary widely across nations. Someone "fresh off the boat" may not grasp those finer details (just as we may not be able to understand the ideals of other places). The idea of having natural born citizens only being allowed to run for POTUS is, in part, to isolate ourselves from some of those affects. I see no reason why we should remove the interlock. We have plenty of qualified individuals already here who can do the job just as well; we do not need to open ourselves up to foreign influence.
 
There are typically assimilation times necessary for immigrants to become "Americanized" for lack of a better term. I do not want to be beholden to the ideals and needs of other States. The POTUS needs to be concerned with American ideals and needs. Nothing prevents any given individual candidate from being able to know and understand it. Perhaps someone who is a first gen immigrant can understand that and uphold those ideals. But that's not a given. In fact if you look at the aggregated statistics you see that it is not the generalized case. Given this fail mode and the fact that we have plenty of individuals born and raised here whom are equally qualified, it seems unnecessary to me to open up the process to foreigners.

And as shown by the hypothetical Obama example it is entirely possible that natural-born citizens will have the same handicap. "American Values" is a nebulous term that varies wildly from region to region. This reasoning means that a person is being barred from the Presidency due to what they might think instead of their qualifications. Should we ban FDLS Mormons or Amish from running, because their culture is so different from the American Mainstream?


There is that off chance, but I'd be more willing to say that there is a time necessary for growing up in this country to become aware of all the American idiosyncrasies. Our ideals and values and what we wish to uphold. These sorts of ideals vary widely across nations. Someone "fresh off the boat" may not grasp those finer details (just as we may not be able to understand the ideals of other places). The idea of having natural born citizens only being allowed to run for POTUS is, in part, to isolate ourselves from some of those affects.

As I stated, a person growing up in one part of the country may still be unable to understand the idiosyncrasies of the entire country. A person who has lived their entire life in Berkley, CA will have a difficult time adjusting the the culture of West Virginia.

I see no reason why we should remove the interlock. We have plenty of qualified individuals already here who can do the job just as well; we do not need to open ourselves up to foreign influence.

I do not see it as a huge issue, and a Constitutional Convention on just this issue seems like a waste of time, but the restriction can hold out some well qualified candidates as well.
 
And as shown by the hypothetical Obama example it is entirely possible that natural-born citizens will have the same handicap. "American Values" is a nebulous term that varies wildly from region to region. This reasoning means that a person is being barred from the Presidency due to what they might think instead of their qualifications. Should we ban FDLS Mormons or Amish from running, because their culture is so different from the American Mainstream?

I missed that thing with Obama. I think that it becomes well tougher to restrict from office naturally born Americans even though there is still the possibility of value confusion. That's a good term, I should use it a lot more. Heheh. Anyway, people naturally born you can't really say "well take this test and we'll see if your values are proper enough to run for this office". However, it is possible to make that clear cut distinction between naturally born and naturalized. It's a lot harder for someone born and raised in central Colorado to be influenced by the idealism and politics of say France. But a French citizen who becomes naturalized as a US citizen may not have fully divorced him/herself from the idealism and politics of their native country. While on the individual level it could happen, aggregated over the whole we see that it doesn't. In the end because we have enough capable and qualified candidates already here, it doesn't seem prudent to confuse the matter.

As I stated, a person growing up in one part of the country may still be unable to understand the idiosyncrasies of the entire country. A person who has lived their entire life in Berkley, CA will have a difficult time adjusting the the culture of West Virginia.

Until we Lex Luthor California. Then it won't be a problem. Heheh. But yes, values can vary across the States wildly yet even more so nation to nation. That in and of itself, though, does not prove the point. It's already difficult to corridnate ideals and values between the many states. It would be even harder if we start enveloping foriegn values and political agendas into our own.

I do not see it as a huge issue, and a Constitutional Convention on just this issue seems like a waste of time, but the restriction can hold out some well qualified candidates as well.

It may hold out some well qualified candidates, but we are not hurting for well qualified candidates. We already have enough well qualified candidates as stands. This is just something we don't need to outsource.
 
Anyone should be able to run for president. Just a matter of them getting elected.

Does being born in Texas exclude you from running for governor in... Alabama? New York? Rhode Island? Seems there'd be just as large a conflict of interest there as there would be between someone born in the UK/Australia/whatever running for President of the US.

Of course they should be able to.

The principle that the people should decide who is president seems to be a difficult one for some people.

Is that Tom Paine as your avatar? The man who was credited by several founding fathers as being the inspiration for the American Revolution was of course too "foreign born" for some and remains so today.
 
The principle that the people should decide who is president seems to be a difficult one for some people.

Is that Tom Paine as your avatar? The man who was credited by several founding fathers as being the inspiration for the American Revolution was of course too "foreign born" for some and remains so today.

All of the founding fathers were "foreign born", since the USA didn't exist before it was founded. However, the founding fathers understood that and added this little jewel to the constitution:

"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."

Pretty simple to me. No reason to change it.
 
Back
Top Bottom