Posted on 12/04/2004 11:31:33 PM PST by Sensei Ern
Friday night, I was listening to AM 630, WMAL Talk Radio. They are the radio station in Washington, DC that has both Rush and Hannity.
The local host at night is Chris Core. Most of the time, I get the feeling he really isn't as set in his opinions, as stated on the air.
Last nigth was not an acception. He was arguing that the Constitution should be changed to allow naturalized citizens to become president of the United States. No one even brought up the one reason I will never support such a change.
No matter how long a person has been in the US, they could still possibly be loyal to another country. Core was in favor of naturalized citizens who have been such for 20+ years to be allowed to run for president.
Although some may scoff at me as being paranoid, I worry that naturalized US citizens could be imbeds for other countries. How long were Japanese and German spies living in the US, prior to World War 2?
Three years ago, we saw the destruction nineteen guys who have been in this country, lying dormant until activated. There are suspicions that some may still be in the US, waiting for orders.
I realize that even US citizens can be bought, for a price. But, the constitutional requirements help keep a vigil on our country.
I simply think someone should be raised an American to be eligible to be president of the United States. I suppose I could see an argument for someone who moved here at, say, two years old, but if you have to select an arbitrary distinction place of birth works best.
In fact, I would tighten the amendment so that not only must one be born a U.S. citizen, but that both parents must also be U.S. citizens at the time of birth.
Every time this question comes up I think of the little Corsican and the little Austrian. I dont know why.
erm.. Tighten the requirement, that is. (It's not in an amendment).
This is true of people born here too and not a valid argument. There are plenty of people born here, then move away for 20-30 years and then return.
My preference would be that you needed to live in the US for 35 years, and not just be born here. It is not where you were born, but where you have lived that counts.
I would never want to see it changed for the same reason. I am put off by people like Rep. Lantos of CA too.
Would a mexican imigrant close the border? (SmartAss Comeback: Would a Texan?)...
This provision has served us well, and ought not be abandoned just at that point in history when it will come to be important. The world has a very mobile population.
I am not promoting the loyalty argument. I am simply stating that I believe that the president should be raised as an American. In short, I think the president should be American on a visceral level, rather than an acclimated level.
That's just how I feel about the matter. As far as I'm concerned 35 years isn't enough if the person was 25 when he or she moved here. Let 'em be Secretary of State, or whatever. LOL
That would take a constitutional amendment. Here's what the Constitution says about qualifications to be President.
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.
John Kerry Is a Prime example of even an American born can be a traitor and almost be president.
The problem you have underlined is concrete. Remember that if Rats will support this measure it is not for California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (a Rat), but especially for set on foot a Bill Clinton nomination in '08, bargaining their support of this Amendament with another one on a par! We must stop these subtle games with US Constitution.
I absolutely support deporting illegal immigrants en masse without exceptions. I would let them retain the right to pursue legal entry, and that's my only concession.
I have not the slightest problem with legal immigration.
"I am simply stating that I believe that the president should be raised as an American."
That makes all Democrats ineligible. They may be raised IN the US, but they surely aren't imbued with patriotism.
There are many immigrants who volunteer for the military and give the ultimate sacrifice.
You can find dedicated loyal Americans among those who immigrated here, because they want to live here and appreciate the US, rather than just being born here by accident, and spend their time and life bashing America.
I am not in favor of changing the Constitution, because it's just more trouble, than it's worth, to make it possible for those not born here to become president.
Well, my only hope is that the voters will exercise the wisdom not to elect the unworthy but otherwise qualified. As I said, they can be Secretary of State and their children can be President. That seems good enough to me. The line must be drawn somewhere and I think where it's at now is just fine.
This is not an immigration thread. Please stay on topic. Further, at one time in US history, all healthy, mexican, and south american immigrants were "legal". Besides, there is way to stop illegal immigration completely, that is have open borders. That way, everyone is "legal". What is legal and what is illegal immigration is mostly a matter of arbitrary definition.
Uh huh. Me too.
I'm for changing the Constitution.
I like Arnold, but he's just not Biblically eligible to be the supreme leader of the land. BTW, the framers based a LOT of the Constitution on Deuteronomy or commentaries on Deuteronomy, and the Constitutional requirement for a native born President is undoubtedly derived from this Biblical passage.
Besides, this proposed change is madness even on purely secular grounds. No slam intended on Arnold, but hasn't anyone ever heard of "sleeper agents"?
"Deuteronomy 17:15 Be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite. "
Does that mean that only Jews should be President?
"I suppose I could see an argument for someone who moved here at, say, two years old,..."
This idea has been proposed before, and gotten the same lukewarm reception it is getting now. And Arnold, of all people, he came here as an adult, he served in the Austrian army! I love Arnold, I think he's a great Republican, certainly a great American, and he can do everything in this country, except be President or Veep, and that should be enough for him.
The Deuteronomy verse you choses is an interesting one.
Do you know the how this verse applies to the laws regarding the qualifications and identity of Moshiach as explained by Maimonides ?
I didn't make it an immigration thread, but merely responded to someone who posted to me on the topic.
And, since you bring it up, I absolutely do not support an open borders policy. The immigration laws were established precisely so that all healthy, able-bodied Mexican, and South American, and Norwegian, and Australopithecine migrants who wandered across the border would not be "legal" immigrants. I certainly don't regard the statutes as some abstract rhetorical exercise..
The immigration restrictions are necessary and proper in my view and the illegal migrants who violate them should be returned to their point of origin.
Schwarzenegger still had Austrain citizenship. We could have a citizen of another country as president?
"I think what rytwygnr means is that if we let foreigners lead us astray, we will lose righteousness and the support of God as a result, in the manner that has happened to Israel."
Support of God?
Does the bible mention the USA then?
I find it hard to oppose the constitutional amendment to allow naturalized citizens to serve as president.
I submit the following list of requirements for naturalization, from uscis.gov:
http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/general.htm
Most interesting is the requirement that naturalized citizens be of "good moral character." This requirement would disqualify a good chunk of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government from becoming citizens, most notably Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy!
I'd go even further: I propose that the requirements for naturalization be met by all citizens before they are allowed to vote or to hold public office.
(from uscis.gov)
>>> General Naturalization Requirements
Age
Applicants must be at least 18 years old.
Refer to the section, Naturalized Citizen's Children under Waivers, Exceptions, and Special Cases for information on applicants who are less than 18 years old.
See Also INA 334
Residency
An applicant must have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. Lawfully admitted for permanent residence means having been legally accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws. Individuals who have been lawfully admitted as permanent residents will be asked to produce an I-551, Alien Registration Receipt Card, as proof of their status.
See Also INA 316
Residence and Physical Presence
An applicant is eligible to file if, immediately preceding the filing of the application, he or she:
has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence (see preceding section);
has resided continuously as a lawful permanent resident in the U.S. for at least 5 years prior to filing with no single absence from the United States of more than one year;
has been physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the previous five years (absences of more than six months but less than one year shall disrupt the applicant's continuity of residence unless the applicant can establish that he or she did not abandon his or her residence during such period)
has resided within a state or district for at least three months
Good Moral Character
Generally, an applicant must show that he or she has been a person of good moral character for the statutory period (typically five years or three years if married to a U.S. citizen or one year for Armed Forces expedite) prior to filing for naturalization. The Service is not limited to the statutory period in determining whether an applicant has established good moral character. An applicant is permanently barred from naturalization if he or she has ever been convicted of murder. An applicant is also permanently barred from naturalization if he or she has been convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Act on or after November 29, 1990. A person also cannot be found to be a person of good moral character if during the last five years he or she:
has committed and been convicted of one or more crimes involving moral turpitude
has committed and been convicted of 2 or more offenses for which the total sentence imposed was 5 years or more
has committed and been convicted of any controlled substance law, except for a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana
has been confined to a penal institution during the statutory period, as a result of a conviction, for an aggregate period of 180 days or more
has committed and been convicted of two or more gambling offenses
is or has earned his or her principal income from illegal gambling
is or has been involved in prostitution or commercialized vice
is or has been involved in smuggling illegal aliens into the United States
is or has been a habitual drunkard
is practicing or has practiced polygamy
has willfully failed or refused to support dependents
has given false testimony, under oath, in order to receive a benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
An applicant must disclose all relevant facts to the Service, including his or her entire criminal history, regardless of whether the criminal history disqualifies the applicant under the enumerated provisions.
See Also INA 316
Attachment to the Constitution
An applicant must show that he or she is attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States.
See Also INA 316
Language
Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language. Applicants exempt from this requirement are those who on the date of filing:
have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for periods totaling 15 years or more and are over 55 years of age;
have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for periods totaling 20 years or more and are over 50 years of age; or
have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant’s ability to learn English.
See Also INA 312
United States Government and History Knowledge
An applicant for naturalization must demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history and of the principles and form of government of the United States. Applicants exempt from this requirement are those who, on the date of filing, have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant’s ability to learn U.S. History and Government
Applicants who have been residing in the U.S. subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 20 years and are over the age of 65 will be afforded special condsideration in satisfying this requirement.
See Also INA 312
Naturalization Test Questions for Applicants Meeting 65/20 Exception
Test Yourself on U.S. History
100 Sample U.S. History Questions with Answers
Oath of Allegiance
To become a citizen, one must take the oath of allegiance. By doing so, an applicant swears to:
support the Constitution and obey the laws of the U.S.;
renounce any foreign allegiance and/or foreign title; and
bear arms for the Armed Forces of the U.S. or perform services for the government of the U.S. when required.
In certain instances, where the applicant establishes that he or she is opposed to any type of service in armed forces based on religious teaching or belief, INS will permit these applicants to take a modified oath.
Read the Oath of Allegiance
See Also INA 337 <<<
That's not exactly what I meant. A foreigner may be no more or less likely to lead the nation astray spiritually than a native: I know plenty of immigrants who are a lot more moral than Bill Clinton!
However, God had his reasons for telling Israel only to have Israeli kings, and the Founding Fathers of America -- some who were Christians, others Deists with a Christian background, and all of whom had surely read that Deutoronomy passage -- evidently thought it wise to place the same limitation on our own presidency. One can speculate several reasons, the danger of sleeper agents being among them. But whatever the reason, there it is in the Bible.
For one thing, it's hard to understand some of them. I heard Arnold say that the purpose of Christmas was to "celebrate the birth of cheeses" the other day. Cheeses? What the hell man?
Biggest reason. Hitler was Austrian and look what he did for Germany. That's a risk you take when you allow a foreign born national to be president.
Given the choice to amend the Constitution I would place the following requirements on the Presidential Nominee and the same for VP or a member of the Presidential Cabinet.
Parents: Both US born, Christian, raised and educated,
Nominee: US born, Christian, raised and educated with four years active military service. (preferably one who has seen combat on the ground and the fighting from a foxhole when an enemy was trying to kill him.)
I want a President who knows and understands that America was founded under the Christian philosophy, not Hindu or Muslim.
I want a President who was raised amongst American children in American schools where the immigrants (or their parents) were accepted because they hadn't broken our laws.
Before a President sends our troops off to war, I want him/her to have a damn good idea of what they are doing. I want a President who gets angry about the numbers of dead soldiers climbing by 1, 2 or 5 each day, not one who needs 100 dead each day to have an idea what's happening.
I am not in favor of pilots who fought the war from 10 or 20 thousand feet and have never had the enemies blood on them or know what the smell of a firefight is.
No, I am not against war but I am against any type of appeasements while the troops are in the field. A guy or a gal who has been there would understand how I feel and why.
>>We would have 'Manchurian candidates' from every enemy political society infiltrated into our political system.<<
We already have them. The Communist Party was protected from having to show who contributes to them again last year!
No, no, a thousand times no. I know foreigners who have been is this counry 25 years who are just here. When they say "my country" they really mean the country they came from. Too many are just here for the money and comfort. They're hearts are elsewhere. Besides, could we ever really trust a foreign born president? Would he be working for us or his motherland?
One more thing, let's not forget John Kerry. He spent many of his formative years in Europe and was privately more French in his beliefs and habits than American. That was one of the major reasons why he could not relate to normal Americans.
Maybe because they aren't native americans.........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.