Re: Should non-Americans?????
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?
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.
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. 🙂
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 ... [they cannot divest;] 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 Kram3rYou make a very good point
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 ... [they cannot divest;] 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.
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 pointMy 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 StrangeloveSchwarzeneggar, was only mentioned as an example. The original question still stands.....
You make a very good pointMy 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.