Posted on 05/04/2007 8:15:43 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
And my argument (as I’ve pointed out above) is that the purpose of those requirements can be met by immigrants as well as natural born citizens. In fact, I think it is hardly a guarantee to having a loyal President. Remember that Bill and Jimmy are considered to have a vested interest in protecting and defending the Constitution though they did nothing more than being born within the US borders. Every naturalized citizen has sworn to obey the US Constitution, serve in the military if required, or perform other works of national importance if required. Bill and Jimmy never had to swear that before officially taking the oath of President (and we saw how that turned out).
If this all comes down to loyalty to the US, I find it kind of insulting that we will let immigrants perform every kind of act that you would normally expect of someone declaring their fealty to our Constitution (including fighting and dieing in wars) yet we will not allow them to lead us. It almost sounds as if you think that immigrants can’t be loyal to the US to the standard that is required to be the President. Of course if that were true, then you would be suggesting at least the same rigor in a standard for US citizens (who we also know can be disloyal even if they are over 35 and have lived 14 years in the US).
That is curious. Why do you think the Framers built in the ability to allow the Constitution to amend itself then? Do you consider the Amendments to the Constitution to all be in error?
Let me be more specific. I will not vote for someone that wants to change THIS item in the constitution. (the item in question)
Sounds a bit like ethnic antagonism in that post of yours.
He was a populist, not necessarily popular. Most populists aren’t popular because they don’t stand for anything other than saying that they stand for whatever the people want most at the time (even if it isn’t true). He claimed (as do all communists) that he was trying to make life better for the poor and oppressed. Thus he could oppress the minority of rich kulaks because the poor (with his urging) were convinced that the kulaks were oppressing them. And in another act of populism he created his workers councils or soviets (which he later deprived of power when they didn’t do what he thought the people wanted).
I don’t think it’s loyalty so much as ties. A lot of immigrants maintain a certain level of fondness for their old countries, often with relatives still living there. Many of the founders were of the strong belief that America should avoid foreign entanglements, having your mother or your grandmother or your sister still being a full citizen of a foreign country is an entanglement. Now maybe it’s a slight entanglement, maybe it’s not as worrisome as they thought, but really I’d rather not find out.
They weren’t being oppressed. The poor won their October Manifesto and Duma after the error of the Winter Palace Massacre.
Lenin tried to overthrow that with another revolution because it wasn’t what HE wanted. Lenin had to flee to Switzerland to avoid being arrested. Those actions are not for anyone but his own power grab.
No, not at all. I didn't imply any racial or ethnic characteristics nor will I when I discuss who is qualified to be the President. The President can be any sex, race, or ethnicity as far as I'm concerned, and I don't think any sex, race, or ethnicity deserves any particular help from the government as to how the President is selected.
While it is certainly possible that some people think of ethnic characteristics when they talk about immigrants in general due to historical and current immigration patterns, this doesn't really apply when you are talking about a person. To be able to even run for President you must have some trait that is not normal for society at large as the average citizen certainly isn't running for President. So it really doesn't make sense to generalize an abnormal (but not necessarily bad) person to some generalized characteristic of sex, race, or ethnicity. And as far as I'm concerned, this applies to whether the citizen is an immigrant or a natural born citizen as well.
I didn’t say they were being oppressed. But all that is required to be a populist is to think it whether it is true or not. More often than not it appears that populists are those who are a little screwed up in the head as they tend to see oppression in every trivial aspect of human life.
Fujimori was born in Lima, Peru. Try again.
Let’s think about your suggestion for a moment.
You would like to see foreign born nationals run for president.
What would be the terms for foreign born?
Countries we trade with? Any country?
What would stop a person that was born in an enemy country from running?
How would background checks be done?
What would stop someone from Cuba, China, North Korea, Iran or Serbia from running?
Okay, fine. It’s only statute. But it does interpret the constitution to allow those born on foreign soil, of parents serving in the military, to be considered “natural born.”
For you to use that as a justification to somehow completely eliminate the foreign-born exclusion seemed dishonest to me. Because that statute could be overturned, we should totally abandon the foreign-born exclusion? The logic falls short.
Good point, but I would object that you can’t generalize a particular person with the population in general. See post #28.
I think you and I are using the word populist in two different definitions. I meant the term in referencing crowds of people.
Nothing. They have sworn fealty to the US and we have accepted it. Even those who flee from oppressive regimes aren't automatically granted citizenship. They still have to apply for it and swear fealty (which we can grant at a whim). If they are a bad candidate, we have to do what we've been doing for over 200 years: we let the federal election weed them out. It doesn't always work (we get Jimmys and Billies) but it is the only system we know. And as I've pointed out before, I don't see how we can ascribe a greater probability in an immigrant to be a freak like Jimmy Carter than to be a real leader like Ronald Reagan. Intuitively I would think the real leaders would be more like Reagan than Jimmy since winners would feel a force to come to the US and losers would feel a force to go somewhere where socialists reign. But it is just intuition since it is not really possible to ascribe a general set of characteristics to someone who is obviously not an average person.
You are right. If we amended the Constitution to fix that exemption, it wouldn't necessarily support my more significant point on naturalized immigrants and the Presidency. But I still believe my argument still stands without it (because it was only a side point to my argument that immigrants can meet the purpose of the requirements for the presidency).
But of course for matters of law you have to generalize. You can’t really put something in that says “these kind of people can’t do this, unless they’re really cool”. The Founders were pretty paranoid about foreign entanglements, and would probably be aghast at the number of treaties and aliances we’re involved in, there is a stronger potential amung immigrants to have serious emotional ties to other countries than for naturally born citizens, it’s not a universal truth I know immigrants who can’t stand their original country, but that is the general trend of that group.
And since the system doesn’t even weed out the Billies and Jimmies, that right there should show you why foreign born nationals aren’t qualified for the title of presidency.
Every job has qualifications. Not everyone fits those qualifications. Karl Marx wrote the Manifesto to the World in 1847. His followers have been trying to implement it since. Priming a candidate on foreign soil would be harder to track than the Billies and Jimmies that have slipped through the system.
I can stand the 35 years of age and 14 years in the US requirement, because anyone could meet them. But if you weren't born in the US then there is nothing you can ever do to meet that requirement. I'm not arguing so much against generalized requirements, but more on requirements that can possibly be met. I think it is possible for an immigrant to be an excellent President and I think there should at least be some possibly arduous pathway for it to become a reality (like requiring a Presidential Medal of Freedom or a Congressional Gold Medal for example though I wouldn't set requirements nearly that high).
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.