• 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
I missed that thing with Obama.

Didn't say that he was "anti-colonial". I do not consider him any less "American" than you or me. I used the hypothetical to show that a person born in this country can still have the same mindset that you want to keep out of Presidential politics. However, Obama was raised in a foreign country during a very formative time in his life. His situation is in many ways similar to those of an immigrant, but he is acceptable to run.

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.

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 would say that an FDLS member is far more out of touch with the American mainstream than a typical Canadian-American. You cannot draw a distinct line. The campaign cycles are dragging out to be be almost two years long at this point. This should be ample time for people to be able to tell if an immigrant is well integrated or not.

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.

I certainly beg to differ.
 
You can beg to differ, but I think it's maybe a bit hyperbole to say that in the over 300 million people we have that we don't have enough well qualified players to play the field. We do. Now we may be picking out the jerks and liars and scumbags right now to run. But that doesn't mean we don't have a lot of well qualified candidates; we just don't choose them. So why open ourselves up to foreign influence when what would most likely happen is that we just take foreign jerks and liars and scumbags?
 
You can beg to differ, but I think it's maybe a bit hyperbole to say that in the over 300 million people we have that we don't have enough well qualified players to play the field. We do. Now we may be picking out the jerks and liars and scumbags right now to run. But that doesn't mean we don't have a lot of well qualified candidates; we just don't choose them. So why open ourselves up to foreign influence when what would most likely happen is that we just take foreign jerks and liars and scumbags?

And why limit ourselves to natural-born citizens, if immigrants can do the job just as well? Voters can pick candidates that are unqualified for a whole of reasons, but I do not see why a potential handicap warrants barring the candidate, but a whole mess of others do not.
 
And why limit ourselves to natural-born citizens, if immigrants can do the job just as well? Voters can pick candidates that are unqualified for a whole of reasons, but I do not see why a potential handicap warrants barring the candidate, but a whole mess of others do not.

Why? Cause there's no need to do otherwise. There are plenty of native born Americans who can do the job. Why outsource?
 
Why? Cause there's no need to do otherwise. There are plenty of native born Americans who can do the job.

Why ban immigrants? It seems odd that a Libertarian such as yourself use this argument to keep a government restriction in place.

Why outsource?

It's not outsourcing if they are naturalized citizens.
 
You can beg to differ, but I think it's maybe a bit hyperbole to say that in the over 300 million people we have that we don't have enough well qualified players to play the field. We do. Now we may be picking out the jerks and liars and scumbags right now to run. But that doesn't mean we don't have a lot of well qualified candidates; we just don't choose them. So why open ourselves up to foreign influence when what would most likely happen is that we just take foreign jerks and liars and scumbags?

How does stopping foreign-born citiens keep out foreign influences? It seems a bit redundant that someone who's born in America, but spends most of their life in another country can run for president, but a person who's spent almost their entire lives in America can't.
 
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.

If you say so.

What exactly did you say?

You just confirmed Tom Paine's ineligibility for the Presidency.

You offer no argument to exclude from the presidency the man who made the American Revolution.

It's a sort of "it says so in the Bible" justification. Forgive us if we ridicule such irrational nonsense.

The democratic principle us clear. The people should be free to choose whomsoever they wish, unless there is a good reason to limit this prerogative of the people.

No-one puts any cogent reason forward. It is likely that the reasons put forward at the time were to protect a young democracy from a foreign power rather than a foreign individual. The FF would turn in their graves at the thought that their presumptions in the 1770s had been turned into biblical dogma.
 
Last edited:
How does stopping foreign-born citiens keep out foreign influences? It seems a bit redundant that someone who's born in America, but spends most of their life in another country can run for president, but a person who's spent almost their entire lives in America can't.

It doesn't stop it, it lowers probabilities in it. I've addressed this sort of issue already in previous posts.
 
Why ban immigrants? It seems odd that a Libertarian such as yourself use this argument to keep a government restriction in place.

It's not a government restriction. The government does not say that foreigners cannot run for office. Otherwise, the government could just remove that restriction. But they can't. I say that foreigners, no matter how smart or how much potential they have of doing a good job, cannot run for office of my government. It's my government, and I aim to keep it that way. There are necessarily assimilation times necessary for people to come into the country and learn the ideals and culture and to adopt our methodology. Before they do that, they retain their previous experiences and ideas of government and law. I do not see the need to open our system up to that influence when what we have works just fine. And it works just fine.

It's not outsourcing if they are naturalized citizens.

Yeah, but until they assimilate; it's functionally the same.
 
Almost everyone I have ever spoken to is opposed to the massive legal and illegal immigration of today and the horrible effect on job markets, but Congress is deaf to our pleas. Their only concern seems to be more people means more taxes for them to use to get votes. Dems especailly love gaming the immigration system because immigrants vote overwhemingly Democratic.

If politicians could suffer job competition from massive immigration themselves,they might have some understanding and end the massive and harmful levels of today. We haven't needed any immigrants since the 19th century when we needed boots on the ground to steal land from Indians and Mexicans. The greater the population of a nation, the less sustainable it is. The challenges of the future are in natural resources.
 
If you say so.

What exactly did you say?

You just confirmed Tom Paine's ineligibility for the Presidency.

You offer no argument to exclude from the presidency the man who made the American Revolution.

I don't have to offer such an argument. The constitution is quite explicit. All presidents shall be born in the USA with the exception of those persons who were citizens at the time the USA was founded... which includes the founding fathers, Washington, Jefferson, et al.

It's a sort of "it says so in the Bible" justification. Forgive us if we ridicule such irrational nonsense.

The democratic principle us clear. The people should be free to choose whomsoever they wish, unless there is a good reason to limit this prerogative of the people.

Well, the constitution is basically "the bible" of government (although since I'm non-religious, I find the comparison rather puerile). Ours is a constitutional republic, which means that we cannot violate the constitution and have a host of supreme court justices around to decide what does and does not violate it. Thus far they have opined that the natural-born president rule is in accordance with the constitution.

No-one puts any cogent reason forward. It is likely that the reasons put forward at the time were to protect a young democracy from a foreign power rather than a foreign individual. The FF would turn in their graves at the thought that their presumptions in the 1770s had been turned into biblical dogma.

I doubt the FF would turn in their graves to know that the clause "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." is still being properly interpreted and enforced.

If the people of the USA want to amend the constitution to revise that clause they are free to do so. Until that time, however, the clause remains in effect.
 
It's not a government restriction. The government does not say that foreigners cannot run for office.

Text in the Constitution explicitly stating that the President must be a natural born citizen is not a government restriction on who is allowed to run?

Otherwise, the government could just remove that restriction. But they can't. I say that foreigners, no matter how smart or how much potential they have of doing a good job, cannot run for office of my government. It's my government, and I aim to keep it that way. There are necessarily assimilation times necessary for people to come into the country and learn the ideals and culture and to adopt our methodology. Before they do that, they retain their previous experiences and ideas of government and law. I do not see the need to open our system up to that influence when what we have works just fine. And it works just fine.



Yeah, but until they assimilate; it's functionally the same.

I do not have a problem with voting against a candidate that has not completely assimilated. What I have a problem with is the government keeping a blanket restriction based on an arbitrary statement that immigrants cannot integrate enough to run for President. If some can, why not let them run?
 
Text in the Constitution explicitly stating that the President must be a natural born citizen is not a government restriction on who is allowed to run?

No, it's a restriction by We the People on who can run. The government cannot just get rid of the rule, you'd have to amend the Constitution to do so. Thus it is not a government restriction, it is a restriction placed on the government by the founders.

I do not have a problem with voting against a candidate that has not completely assimilated. What I have a problem with is the government keeping a blanket restriction based on an arbitrary statement that immigrants cannot integrate enough to run for President. If some can, why not let them run?

I have no problem with denying foriegners the ability to run for our highest office. Until we get to the point where we ourselves cannot field a proper team of qualified politicians, there is no need to change it.
 
i think the president should be someone who has lived here his whole life and knows what americans want and what america needs to do. i dont think some foreigner should be able to come over and reach top level in our government. nothing against foreigners, just let americans run america.
 
I think the majority of people in this thread would agree that, in general, they have nothing against people who are not natural-born citizens of the US.

It is simply that, until some way of completely examining a person’s mind (and for that matter, laws that allow such) exists, one of the best stays against a person who has designs against America becoming president is to bar any but natural born (which I think means born of at least one citizen, in general?) citizens.

In no way does it prevent a someone who is a highly skilled actor, a natural-born citizen, and who has plans negative towards the USA from becoming president, but restricting presidential potentials in such a way does cut down on the possibility.

Which is probably why the restriction was put in place on only the presidency (I think?), and not all federal elected positions.

Less individual power, and thus less potential for damage, among senators and congressmen.
 
If you say so.

What exactly did you say?

You just confirmed Tom Paine's ineligibility for the Presidency.

That raises the question -- who was a citizen at the time the colonies became independent. Is there anything definitive by that? There were many other founding fathers who were not born in the 13 colonies. I suppose it COULD be argued that as an English citizen, being a resident of the colonies at the time of independence would result in the conferrence of citizenship in the new country when the Constitution was ratified in 1788.
 
I don't have to offer such an argument. The constitution is quite explicit. All presidents shall be born in the USA with the exception of those persons who were citizens at the time the USA was founded... which includes the founding fathers, Washington, Jefferson, et al.



Well, the constitution is basically "the bible" of government (although since I'm non-religious, I find the comparison rather puerile). Ours is a constitutional republic, which means that we cannot violate the constitution and have a host of supreme court justices around to decide what does and does not violate it. Thus far they have opined that the natural-born president rule is in accordance with the constitution.

...

If the people of the USA want to amend the constitution to revise that clause they are free to do so. Until that time, however, the clause remains in effect.

If the people of the USA wanted to amend the constitution they would first have to do something that you are refusing to do: discuss it's merits. How bizarre that a thread which questions whether the constitution is right or not is met with a response from you: "well that's the Constitution and that's all there is to say".

It's as if you don't realize that it's actually allowed to challenge the constitution, that in democracies debating our systems is a healthy thing and that democratic countries, including the United States, develop and refine their constitutions and laws all the time, benefiting from the skepticism and continuous instinct for progress that drive free peoples.

I am 100% sure that Paine, Franklin and Jefferson would be horrified at the the thought that the Constitution was seen as a "bible", not to be challenged, questioned or discussed, to be accepted as some sort of dogma and cited as some sort of authority that could legitimately stifle debate on it's own merits or demerits.

Surely it is the old Toryism that just accepted things - because that's the way it has always been - and the whole essence of the American and other democratic revolutions was that their protagonists questioned, debated and developed the status quo.

It is obvious, as has been pointed out here, that the constitution was written for a young democracy surrounded by more dominant military powers and that this "rule" was for a time long gone. No-one has given the slightest justification for barring Arnie from being POTUS, should the people choose him, other than just grunting "it says so in the Constitution" which I am sure everyone knew before they raised the question: "should it?".
 
Last edited:
That raises the question -- who was a citizen at the time the colonies became independent. Is there anything definitive by that? There were many other founding fathers who were not born in the 13 colonies. I suppose it COULD be argued that as an English citizen, being a resident of the colonies at the time of independence would result in the conferrence of citizenship in the new country when the Constitution was ratified in 1788.

Did Paine actually spend enough time in the colonies? He is widely acknowledged as the man who did the most to create the concept of America and yet he was not born or bred in the continent of America. In fact his radicalism was totally international. He participated enthusiastically in the French revolution as well and was really an internationalist revolutionary. The USA would not exist in the same way without this man who was essentially an anti-monarchist rather than someone with a special attachment to the American continent. The man who wrote the book that defined the birthright of America saw the USA as "the cause of all mankind" and his country as "the world". The continuous support of this olde world nationalism in America is the continuous denial of the radicalism of the American ideal as a supra nationalist ideal, a blueprint for a new world.
 
Did Paine actually spend enough time in the colonies? He is widely acknowledged as the man who did the most to create the concept of America and yet he was not born or bred in the continent of America. In fact his radicalism was totally international. He participated enthusiastically in the French revolution as well and was really an internationalist revolutionary. The USA would not exist in the same way without this man who was essentially an anti-monarchist rather than someone with a special attachment to the American continent. The man who wrote the book that defined the birthright of America saw the USA as "the cause of all mankind" and his country as "the world". The continuous support of this olde world nationalism in America is the continuous denial of the radicalism of the American ideal as a supra nationalist ideal, a blueprint for a new world.

That is what I would like to know. He had been there since 1774 and the Constitution was ratified in 1788. I would guess that would be long enough, but I am not sure. Also, again, it could be argued that as the colonies were actually British territory until 1783, anyone who was a British citizen residing in the colonies at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Paris would conceivably be a citizen.. but I am far from an expert on this...
 
No, it's a restriction by We the People on who can run.

So the document that is primary document of United States government and was signed by a small group of men (not "the people") is not a government restriction?

The government cannot just get rid of the rule, you'd have to amend the Constitution to do so.

When did I propose that the government just scrap this rule without going through the amendment process? I thought that this was a given, especially coming from me.

Thus it is not a government restriction, it is a restriction placed on the government by the founders.

It does not matter who or what it restricts. It is still the law, which was put into place by our government. In fact the clause that you refer to, very much does restrict individuals who want to run for President. If you have to be a 35 year old, natural-born citizen to run for President, then what does the document say about young immigrants?

I have no problem with denying foriegners the ability to run for our highest office. Until we get to the point where we ourselves cannot field a proper team of qualified politicians, there is no need to change it.

Who is to say that an immigrant could not do the job even better. This is not the most pressing matter, but it seems unfair that a person can be legally restricted due to an accident of birth. The voters can pick candidates that are inept for a near infinite amount of reasons, but are denied because one quality might negatively affect their Presidency, they have to be booted.
 
That is what I would like to know. He had been there since 1774 and the Constitution was ratified in 1788. I would guess that would be long enough, but I am not sure. Also, again, it could be argued that as the colonies were actually British territory until 1783, anyone who was a British citizen residing in the colonies at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Paris would conceivably be a citizen.. but I am far from an expert on this...

But that is a legalistic argument. Clearly someone like Paine was born and brought up far away from America. Even after 1776 he spent a lot of time in Europe, particularly France. He rejected the concept of citizenship altogether with his "the world is my country...". And yet he defined the American Revolution and was probably the single individual who contributed the most towards it (even according to John Adams who regarded him as a dangerous radical).

The spirit of the Revolution was not one of the narrow chauvinism that is portrayed in this thread where people continuously define naturalized Americans as "unAmerican" and somehow liable to disloyalty and treachery as a result of this. This is a Toryism twisted to suit a nationalism that is of this century, not the Age of Enlightenment where to seek America was an act of political disloyalty to the Old World and commitment to the new ideals. It is similar to the Tory arguments that bound the American continent to Britain: irrational, based on "because I say so" dogma, and riddled with xenophobia (such as the anti Catholic fear of Spain, or alien France, that British Tories had always propagated in colonial America). Such irrational twaddle was comprehensively demolished in Paine's Common Sense, the pamphlet that lit the fuse of American independence..

It is obvious that the constitutional requirement was not a "universal principle" but a short term defence against domination by the foreign powers that were all around, whether France, Britain or anyone else. The constitution was right for its time. It was never a timeless principle. You could even argue that the "thirty five" rule is out of date because now people live longer, acquire "seniority" and wisdom later in life, and therefore should be increased to reflect this. To argue that the "years" and "age limits" put in place in the eighteenth century are exactly the same today is to demonstrate a major misunderstanding of (or stubbiorn refusal to consider) how life has changed in the last two hundred years.

The concept that someone who chooses America - the country which represents ideas and principles in contrast to all other countriues which arose from the power struggles of aristocrats - is less "American" than someone who finds themselves American through an accident of birth, is bizarre. Converts are always more zealous. To leave your country and embrace a new one is surely the most patriotic act to the new country that one can commit, short of dying for it.

This debate is about abusing the American Constitution and using it as an infallible piece of dogma to trump democratic principles and the primacy of democracy. It is part of the exceptionalist agenda to define America as a political ssytem to be frozen in time as a chosen paradise ordained from above. It fits an agenda which defines progress as bad and to be opposed. It is quite extraordinary to see such superstition and irrationality being employed towards a document written by men who made their lives about facing down such things and taking the world (not just the USA) on a journey away from dogma and "unquestionable edicts" towards one that debates, questions, develops and changes with progress.
 
Last edited:
So the document that is primary document of United States government and was signed by a small group of men (not "the people") is not a government restriction?

No more than the Bill of Rights is a government restriction. The Constitution was created and signed by a small group of men, but ratified by the many States (of course back then, who could vote was limited). It is not the government, it is in fact a contract between We the People and the government they created. It is thus a restriction on government, not a restriction by government.

When did I propose that the government just scrap this rule without going through the amendment process? I thought that this was a given, especially coming from me.

I was just pointing out why it wasn't a government restriction. It's not a restriction which was created by the government. It is a restriction by We the People, the creators and ratifiers of the Constitution, on the government.

It does not matter who or what it restricts. It is still the law, which was put into place by our government. In fact the clause that you refer to, very much does restrict individuals who want to run for President. If you have to be a 35 year old, natural-born citizen to run for President, then what does the document say about young immigrants?

It was not put in place by the government. It was put in place by the people who created the government. There's a difference.

Who is to say that an immigrant could not do the job even better. This is not the most pressing matter, but it seems unfair that a person can be legally restricted due to an accident of birth. The voters can pick candidates that are inept for a near infinite amount of reasons, but are denied because one quality might negatively affect their Presidency, they have to be booted.

An immigrant could very possibly do the job. But we have enough qualified candidates for the job already so we're not hurting for it. Plus by removing the restriction, we do open ourselves up to greater control by outside interests. Thus it does not seem prudent nor necessary at this time to scrape the rule.
 
No more than the Bill of Rights is a government restriction. The Constitution was created and signed by a small group of men, but ratified by the many States (of course back then, who could vote was limited). It is not the government, it is in fact a contract between We the People and the government they created. It is thus a restriction on government, not a restriction by government.

The states were not government's? The government can have laws restricting itself.

I was just pointing out why it wasn't a government restriction. It's not a restriction which was created by the government. It is a restriction by We the People, the creators and ratifiers of the Constitution, on the government.

Let's not put the document on a pedestal. It was a brilliant framework, and may have represented the "people," but when you have a representative democracy pretty much every action by the government is "representative of the people," at least in theory. That's what a representative government is, by definition. If the Constitution isn't a series of laws, because it is "representative of the people," then we would have no laws.

It was not put in place by the government. It was put in place by the people who created the government. There's a difference.

And ratified by state governments, enforced by the government, and is the framework of the government. This argument goes past the point I was making. I was pointing out the silliness of restricting the immigrants, because it's already the rule. It's not important what you call it, but the qualifications for President are restrictions.

An immigrant could very possibly do the job. But we have enough qualified candidates for the job already so we're not hurting for it. Plus by removing the restriction, we do open ourselves up to greater control by outside interests. Thus it does not seem prudent nor necessary at this time to scrape the rule.

If an immigrant could do the job, why is there an issue? Sure we have plenty of candidates, why not let the people pick more? This is like saying I have 500 channels, but if I should not get this other good channel at no extra charge, because I already have so many. You already had a lot, but why not more?
 
It is simply that, until some way of completely examining a person’s mind (and for that matter, laws that allow such) exists, one of the best stays against a person who has designs against America becoming president is to bar any but natural born (which I think means born of at least one citizen, in general?) citizens.

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.
 
The states were not government's? The government can have laws restricting itself.

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.

Let's not put the document on a pedestal. It was a brilliant framework, and may have represented the "people," but when you have a representative democracy pretty much every action by the government is "representative of the people," at least in theory. That's what a representative government is, by definition. If the Constitution isn't a series of laws, because it is "representative of the people," then we would have no laws.

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.

And ratified by state governments, enforced by the government, and is the framework of the government. This argument goes past the point I was making. I was pointing out the silliness of restricting the immigrants, because it's already the rule. It's not important what you call it, but the qualifications for President are restrictions.

Yes, there's lots of restrictions on government.

If an immigrant could do the job, why is there an issue? Sure we have plenty of candidates, why not let the people pick more? This is like saying I have 500 channels, but if I should not get this other good channel at no extra charge, because I already have so many. You already had a lot, but why not more?

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom