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 Bardock42You 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?
...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 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?
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.
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.