Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Should a person who was born outside the U.S. be able to become President?????? Im asking the question because America is a land built on immigrants, yet our Constitution ( does not allow) non-American born citizens to become President... Is this a form of citizen discrimination????

No.... Just No.

American's should be the only one's allowed to govern America because it's their country. The whole question is quite preposterous. It's not "citizen discrimination" because the only people it's discriminating against are non-citizens of America.

hardly any presidents are american. they may speak the language but thats about it. they have european blood.

verify it yourself. its about bloodlines to these people

Originally posted by Deano
hardly any presidents are american. they may speak the language but thats about it. they have european blood.

verify it yourself. its about bloodlines to these people
Blood means jack shit. Everyone has the same blood (AB, A, B, O). Your nationality has nothing to do with ancestral lines.

Should someone like Arnold Swharwanigggger be allowed to become President?? ( yeah i know i got his last name wrong) .

Originally posted by Faceman
Should someone like Arnold Swharwanigggger be allowed to become President?? ( yeah i know i got his last name wrong) .

No. He isn't a natural-born citizen, and so he shouldn't be able to run.

That's the law anyways, so what was the point of this thread?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No. He isn't a natural-born citizen, and so he shouldn't be able to run.

That's the law anyways, so what was the point of this thread? Laws are meant to be changed, their called amendments....

Originally posted by Faceman
Laws are meant to be changed, their called amendments....

Not that one.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He isn't refering to nationality he's talking about how the aliens from the future use certain familes to control the world.
I should have guessed... Goddamn thee Deano and your crackpot conspiracy theories.

Originally posted by Faceman
Laws are meant to be changed, their called amendments....

Laws are meant to be followed.

Originally posted by Naz
Laws are meant to be followed.
petpet

Originally posted by Naz
Laws are meant to be followed. Thank God your not in government..

Originally posted by Faceman
Thank God your not in government..
It's spelt "you're"... R-Tard...

There are good reasons that people have to be Natural born citizens....It's kind of a self protection thing.

Originally posted by Faceman
Thank God your not in government..

what kind of govt doesn't think laws should be followed?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
what kind of govt doesn't think laws should be followed? So you think all laws are perfect, just look at how many amendments there are. Also their have been some fukkked up laws here in the U.S. that have been changed, Civil Rights laws...

Originally posted by Faceman
I knew i should have hit spell check... Anyways me and the boys are running a train on your mother, hope you don't mind...
It was less a spelling mistake and more of a grammar error... R-tard.

Originally posted by Faceman
So you think all laws are perfect, just look at how many amendments there are. Also their have been some fukkked up laws here in the U.S. that have been changed, Civil Rights laws...

Yes, it is sometime appropriate to change or even get rid of a law. But laws are not meant to be changed, like you stated.

Originally posted by Naz
Yes, it is sometime appropriate to change or even get rid of a law. But laws are not meant to be changed, like you stated. Sorry , i meant bad laws.....

Originally posted by Faceman
So you think all laws are perfect, just look at how many amendments there are. Also their have been some fukkked up laws here in the U.S. that have been changed, Civil Rights laws...

It is the place of the governement to enforce law not to change it.

Laws often need to be changed but that change should come from the people not the govt. If a government can change laws at will then it can do whatever it wants to citizens.

Originally posted by Faceman
Should a person who was born outside the U.S. be able to become President?????? Im asking the question because America is a land built on immigrants, yet our Constitution ( does not allow) non-American born citizens to become President... Is this a form of citizen discrimination???? Well, what other countries allow non-natural-born citizens to become President/Prime Minister?

I didn't think so

Originally posted by Strangelove
Well, what other countries allow non-natural-born citizens to become President/Prime Minister?


I know its called "Pleaseoverthrowourgovernmentstan"

Funny how TRUE americans( as in those who families go back more than 1000 years in the states) wont have a chance at being president.

AND I dont see why someone who wasn't born in the country cant be president /prime minsiter. If they are running for such a post then they have been there long enough to know what the country needs and want to help make it a better place. Location of their birth should have nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by fini
Funny how TRUE americans( as in those who families go back more than 1000 years in the states) wont have a chance at being president.

AND I dont see why someone who wasn't born in the country cant be president /prime minsiter. If they are running for such a post then they have been there long enough to know what the country needs and want to help make it a better place. Location of their birth should have nothing to do with it. Well, non-natural-born citizens can run for and hold every single other elected office in this nation, why have a tiff over one that they probably wouldn't win anyway?

welll you never know when they might win............ lol........... oh wait this is the same country that elected GW to office twice.

NM then.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Well, non-natural-born citizens can run for and hold every single other elected office in this nation, why have a tiff over one that they probably wouldn't win anyway? Why would they not win?

Originally posted by Faceman
Why would they not win?

Ever met a US voter? (or looked at US presidential history for that matter)

Originally posted by Faceman
Why would they not win? because it's very difficult to win. An immigrant would have every facet of his/her pre-American life picked apart. Not worth it. Run for Governor

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ever met a US voter? (or looked at US presidential history for that matter) I still think that it wont be a bad idea, as long as the person was ,

1. Qualified

2. Had the countries best interest at heart

Change is not always a bad idea, besides what makes the U.S. so great is the people, thats why the people rule not one President... I just think we should have more equality here in the U.S. If the nation can make an immigrant into a citizen, as in the case of ( Arnold Swchhhhhhhsssccinigggeerr) then why cant that person become President.

Originally posted by Faceman
I still think that it wont be a bad idea, as long as the person was ,

1. Qualified

2. Had the countries best interest at heart

Change is not always a bad idea, besides what makes the U.S. so great is the people, thats why the people rule not one President... I just think we should have more equality here in the U.S. If the nation can make an immigrant into a citizen, as in the case of ( Arnold Swchhhhhhhsssccinigggeerr) then why cant that person become President.

I didn't say they were incapable of being a succes as president or that change was bad. I just pointed out that EVERY president in the US has been a white man.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I didn't say they were incapable of being a succes as president or that change was bad. I just pointed out that EVERY president in the US has been a white man. i KNOW SHERLOCK, im just saying that this country would send a strong message in equality, and human freedom's , if a woman or an immigrant/ U.s. citizen would become President.

Originally posted by Faceman
i KNOW SHERLOCK, im just saying that this country would send a strong message in equality, and human freedom's , if a woman or an immigrant/ U.s. citizen would become President.

Oh you. Comparing me to a fictional detective.

And yes, equality in a nation founded on such a concept would be wonderful but it still isn't going to happen.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos


And yes, equality in a nation founded on such a concept would be wonderful but it still isn't going to happen. This is still a growing nation, we still have much to learn....

Originally posted by Faceman
This is still a growing nation, we still have much to learn....

On this I can agree

I don't see why the hell not, if more then 50% of the people believe that an immigrant is the best person to run the country then that immigrant should be able to run the country.

That's the nice thing about a democracy.

I think so, they are becoming like americans by making their proper home in america by citizenship!

Originally posted by Faceman
Should a person who was born outside the U.S. be able to become President?????? Im asking the question because America is a land built on immigrants, yet our Constitution ( does not allow) non-American born citizens to become President... Is this a form of citizen discrimination????

Are non naturally born citizens of other countries allowed to be presidents in that country?

Good question and I bet it is NO.....yet I really do not know myself, oh and why am I answering this?? Umm.....

Originally posted by debbiejo
Good question and I bet it is NO.....yet I really do not know myself, oh and why am I answering this?? Umm.....

Exactly my point, Deb. Why should it be considered discriminatory when other f'n countries don't allow it?

I don't know the answer, but it is my guess other countries don't do so either. So as an American I should find this discriminatory? Pfft.

Arnold Schwarzenegger will become President of the United States; it has already been foretold in "Demolition Man".

Can't wait to see Arnie give the "State of The Union" address with that thick accent.

Originally posted by Robtard
Arnold Schwarzenegger will become President of the United States; it has already been foretold in "Demolition Man".






thumbup

Yeah, right........It's Hillary...........

*Kicks stones with foot*

What's this shit about saying other countries don't allow naturalized citizens to become leaders so why should America? How about doing some research to find at least one country, perhaps, Australia? We've had a guy who was born in Chile of all places and he assumed the role of Prime Minister. If you think that only unnaturalized citizens should assume the role of leader I think that pretty ignorant. Because who's to say that a person can't "handle" the job better than someone who was simply was born in said country.

Originally posted by Kram3r
What's this shit about saying other countries don't allow naturalized citizens to become leaders so why should America? How about doing some research to find at least one country, perhaps, Australia? We've had a guy who was born in Chile of all places and he assumed the role of Prime Minister. If you think that only unnaturalized citizens should assume the role of leader I think that pretty ignorant. Because who's to say that a person can't "handle" the job better than someone who was simply was born in said country.

Whoa... I don't think anyone disagrees with you. And, kudos to Australia. I think that's fantastic.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Whoa... I don't think anyone disagrees with you. And, kudos to Australia. I think that's fantastic.

Thank you. That's an aspect of Australian politics that I am very proud of.

It's not about being able to handle the office of President/Prime Minister, it's just a matter of nationalism. It is written in the Constitution of the United States of America, the closest thing we have to a sacred document, that the President must be a natural-born citizen. Most other countries have this same provision, too (except Australia, apparently). The text of the Constitution has only been changed twice, to change the date of Election Day and when the President is inaugurated. Something that major should not be changed.

We have had an immigrant Secretary of State, the highest position in the U.S. Cabinet. We currently have immigrant Secretaries of Commerce and Labor. The Governor of California is an immigrant. We probably have several immigrant members of Congress. Innumerable immigrant government employees. I think immigrants are doing okay

And the only reason that this is being brought up is the possibility that Arnold Schwarzeneggar could run for President. Please. As a Republican, Schwarzeneggar would never win the nomination, he's way too liberal.

Give it a rest.

Originally posted by Strangelove
It's not about being able to handle the office of President/Prime Minister, it's just a matter of nationalism. It is written in the Constitution of the United States of America, the closest thing we have to a sacred document, that the President must be a natural-born citizen. Most other countries have this same provision, too (except Australia, apparently). The text of the Constitution has only been changed twice, to change the date of Election Day and when the President is inaugurated. Something that major should not be changed.

We have had an immigrant Secretary of State, the highest position in the U.S. Cabinet. We currently have immigrant Secretaries of Commerce and Labor. The Governor of California is an immigrant. We probably have several immigrant members of Congress. Innumerable immigrant government employees. I think immigrants are doing okay

And the only reason that this is being brought up is the possibility that Arnold Schwarzeneggar could run for President. Please. As a Republican, Schwarzeneggar would never win the nomination, he's way too liberal.

Give it a rest.

All I can say to that is, so? I don't see why the issue shouldn't be brought forward.

"all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights of which ... namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

Last time I checked this was somewhat part of your constitution, no? I'm not pretending to know a hell of a lot about American politics but how can you say all American citizens are equal (they all basically are, just trying to make a point) when they don't have the same opportunities as people born there. Namely, the one in question, becoming the American President.

Originally posted by Kram3r
All I can say to that is, so? I don't see why the issue shouldn't be brought forward.

"all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights of which ... namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

Last time I checked this was somewhat part of your constitution, no? I'm not pretending to know a hell of a lot about American politics but how can you say all American citizens are equal (they all basically are, just trying to make a point) when they don't have the same opportunities as people born there. Namely, the one in question, becoming the American President. You make a very good point

My point, however, is that this whole discussion is being brought up because of Gov. Schwarzeneggar. He was a sucky governor in his first term, and he would never win the nomination as a Republican.

There should be substantial national interest and a good reason to do so before we amend the Constitution so dramatically. And Arnold Schwarzeneggar is not a good reason. Come back when they have a better candidate, I say.

Originally posted by Strangelove
You make a very good point

My point, however, is that this whole discussion is being brought up because of Gov. Schwarzeneggar. He was a sucky governor in his first term, and he would never win the nomination as a Republican.

There should be substantial national interest and a good reason to do so before we amend the Constitution so dramatically. And Arnold Schwarzeneggar is not a good reason. Come back when they have a better candidate, I say.

I agree, I think that the American people should agree on it before any attempts are made. Regardless of what I think of it, it's your choice.

Originally posted by Kram3r
I agree, I think that the American people should agree on it before any attempts are made. Regardless of what I think of it, it's your choice. Agreed.

Hug?

Originally posted by Strangelove
Agreed.

Hug?

Yes, lets.

Originally posted by Kram3r
Yes, lets. hug

Originally posted by Strangelove
You make a very good point

My point, however, is that this whole discussion is being brought up because of Gov. Schwarzeneggar. He was a sucky governor in his first term, and he would never win the nomination as a Republican.

There should be substantial national interest and a good reason to do so before we amend the Constitution so dramatically. And Arnold Schwarzeneggar is not a good reason. Come back when they have a better candidate, I say. Schwarzeneggar, was only mentioned as an example. The original question still stands.....

Originally posted by Faceman
Schwarzeneggar, was only mentioned as an example. The original question still stands..... he's the only example present at the momentOriginally posted by Strangelove
Come back when they have a better candidate, I say.

Originally posted by Strangelove
he's the only example present at the moment There are many good examples in Congress .....

Originally posted by Faceman
There are many good examples in Congress ..... Who, exactly? I couldn't think of any when I was listing examples myself.

Of the top of my head i think Mel Martinez, would make one hell of a President.....

Originally posted by Faceman
Of the top of my head i think Mel Martinez, would make one hell of a President..... Well, after looking a little further, I found Mazie Hirono, who was just elected this past November, Ciro Rodriguez, and the Representatives of Puerto Rico and American Samoa.

And Mel Martinez? Please, that's a classic religious right neocon, and most of Americans are sick of them at this point.

Not sure if Bob Menendez is an immigrant, or a son of immigrants....

Originally posted by Strangelove
Well, after looking a little further, I found Mazie Hirono, who was just elected this past November, Ciro Rodriguez, and the Representatives of Puerto Rico and American Samoa.

And Mel Martinez? Please, that's a classic religious right neocon, and most of Americans are sick of them at this point. I still dont know where you stand on this issue???

Originally posted by Faceman
Not sure if Bob Menendez is an immigrant, or a son of immigrants.... He's a New Yorker

Originally posted by Faceman
I still dont know where you stand on this issue??? My position is that it's a dramatic move to amend such a crucial part of the Constitution. When the nation is serious about it, it's fine and dandy. And it should be addressed for the right reasons, not Arnold Schwarzeneggar

Originally posted by Strangelove
My position is that it's a dramatic move to amend such a crucial part of the Constitution. When the nation is serious about it, it's fine and dandy. And it should be addressed for the right reasons, not Arnold Schwarzeneggar Dude who said anything about Arnold? Again he was merely used as an example, as was Mel Martinez....

Originally posted by Faceman
Dude who said anything about Arnold? Again he was merely used as an example, as was Mel Martinez.... I'm not talking about you when I say Ahnuld is a bad idea, I'm referencing the fact that this subject came up after he was elected Governor, and no one else has been mentioned on the public level.

I believe that law was to prevent a foreign Dictator, King, General, etc. from becoming President and changing the political course of the USA with their own ideolgy.

Originally posted by Badabing
I believe that law was to prevent a foreign Dictator, King, General, etc. from becoming President and changing the political course of the USA with their own ideolgy. No one President can do that, cause here in the U.S. the people rule.... Hey Bada, what brings you to this neck of the woods????

Originally posted by Badabing
I believe that law was to prevent a foreign Dictator, King, General, etc. from becoming President and changing the political course of the USA with their own ideolgy. a) a foreign dictator, etc. would never run for president, they'd rather try to to bomb us sky-high
b) they wouldn't win

Originally posted by Faceman
No one President can do that, cause here in the U.S. the people rule.... Hey Bada, what brings you to this neck of the woods???? I check this forum out once in a while. Sometimes there are interesting topics to discuss.Originally posted by Strangelove
a) a foreign dictator, etc. would never run for president, they'd rather try to to bomb us sky-high
b) they wouldn't win
The Amendment was ratified in 1804 so there would be no bombing. Also, infiltration would have been a huge problem in the early 1800's.

Originally posted by Badabing
The Amendment was ratified in 1804 so there would be no bombing. Also, infiltration would have been a huge problem in the early 1800's. There was no amendment. It's in the very text of the Constitution, which was ratified in 1789

I dont think so because they simply dont experience America the same way.

Maybe a rule like they have to be under 5 when they moved here or something.....

Im very patriotic and I see enough trouble with foreigners to have a biased opinion on this particular issue.

Originally posted by Strangelove
You make a very good point

My point, however, is that this whole discussion is being brought up because of Gov. Schwarzeneggar. He was a sucky governor in his first term, and he would never win the nomination as a Republican.

There should be substantial national interest and a good reason to do so before we amend the Constitution so dramatically. And Arnold Schwarzeneggar is not a good reason. Come back when they have a better candidate, I say.

Well what if a good candidate shows up? Would that mean a good person that people like and respect can't become president?

The fact is any law that prevents anybody from creating a political party or becoming the leader of a nation limits democracy.

There is no law like that over here, it just never happened (yet). We do however outlaw some political party's and I can't entirely agree with that either.

Still point stands, in a democracy if the majority feels one way then their wish should be followed. And if their wish is to allow a foreigner to become president then that should be done.

What difference does it make who occupies the white house? Corporations call all the shots anyway.

I think people from other countries as well as immigrant citizens should have the possibility to get elected as president. After all you not only cut their freedom to be elected, you also cut your own to elect who you want. I don't see why that makes any sense.

How is cutting their freedom from being prohibited from becoming president??

They can still vote, they still have the rights of everyone else, its just they can't lead the country

Originally posted by Grimm22
How is cutting their freedom from being prohibited from becoming president??

I thought you were a noob, but you've got 10,000 posts! Where were you hiding, the comic book forum or something?

Originally posted by Grimm22
How is cutting their freedom from being prohibited from becoming president??

They can still vote, they still have the rights of everyone else, its just they can't lead the country

...which is one freedom less.

But as you might not have noticed I took a different approach anyways. It limits your freedom. You can't vote for them to lead the country. You lose freedoms for no reason. That is kinda stupid.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...which is one freedom less.

But as you might not have noticed I took a different approach anyways. It limits your freedom. You can't vote for them to lead the country. You lose freedoms for no reason. That is kinda stupid. You know hoe many Presidents the U.S. has had in its 200-odd years of existence? 43. How many politicians are there currently? 535. How many U.S. citizens? 300 million. If you think about it, it's difficult enough to be elected president anyway, so why complain?

Originally posted by Strangelove
You know hoe many Presidents the U.S. has had in its 200-odd years of existence? 43. How many politicians are there currently? 535. How many U.S. citizens? 300 million. If you think about it, it's difficult enough to be elected president anyway, so why complain?

Other question, why take away the possibility?

edited

Originally posted by Strangelove
Well, what other countries allow non-natural-born citizens to become President/Prime Minister?

I didn't think so

While it has likely already been mentioned - Australian Prime Ministers:

Joseph Cook: Emigrated from England

Andrew Fisher: Emigrated from Scotland.

John Gorton: Possibly born in New Zealand.

William Hughes: Emigrated from England

George Reid: Emigrated from Scotland

Chris Watson: Emigrated from Chile

Likewise I know there is at least one European country that doesn't prevent immigrant citizens from holding "head of government" (that is it is legally possible though I don't know if it has ever happened) - I am thinking Belgium, but can't be 100% sure that is the one. From what I know of politics there are likely more, amongst the "newer" democracies. And of course the fact many of the surviving monarchies have pasts where people were becoming monarchs through marriage, not by being born in the country they were marrying into.

As to my opinion? I don't see why such a limitation is necessary in this day and age. It seems a quibbling matter for two citizens to be set apart thusly "citizen one: Born in nation/citizen two: immigrated to nation = Both citizens, but one can dream of becoming president because he has been a citizen longer where as two can't. Even though two might have actually worked to become a citizen out of a conscious desire to be a part of the nation, rather then merely being born there by way of luck/fate/circumstance." A citizen is a citizen, if they have moved to the US, integrated into the society, work and pay taxes why not?

Me, when I vote I'm not voting for race or where the candidate hails from (and as shown above it is possible to have immigrant Heads of Government in Australia) or whatever but what he is offering the nation and his/her fellow citizens - be they born citizens or adopted.

Originally posted by fini
If they are running for such a post then they have been there long enough to know what the country needs and want to help make it a better place. Location of their birth should have nothing to do with it.

Exactly.

Being born in U.S. is a big difference to just immigrating here. Would people who have immigrated here still hold the values of what this country stands for?

Possibly....


I think that the U.S. has become very closed minded when it comes to politics. There might come a time when an ammendment is put though to change the system, and therefore allowing an immigrant to lead this country, but as it stands right now, you must be U.S. born to even run.

Furthermore, I suggest that we don't cast out the good presidents after two terms or 10 years! There should be an ammendment so that if we have a good President again, we can keep re-electing him/her so that we can continue to be lead greatly.

Yes, that's very true. The two term limit seems weird. As 'The West Wing' said, there already is a safeguard against someone staying in power too long, and that's the public.