BookTalk.org

To the question posed above, I would say "NO." This constitutional provision has never made sense to me. I haven't been able to find a justification for it and wonder if anyone else has one. (Probably has historical roots reaching back to post-revolutionary times.) Madeline Albright and Henry Kissinger should have been able to run for president had they wanted to; Arnold Swartzenegger should be able to run for president. For political reasons, I suppose Barack Obama is not the one who could push to change this pointless restriction, but the next president should.

Considering that we could find one cheaper in say China than we do here, what do you think of outsourcing the presidency? More seriously, I'm not too fond of allowing non US-born citizens be eligible to be POTUS. We could find ourselves being led about by an idiot whose greatest recommendation is that he's someone we'd like to have a beer with! Oh and we'd admire his pluck and determination to rise above his savage beginning... you give one person freedom and pretty soon the whole darn world wants freedom! It's better to keep this prize as close to home as possible. I see no reason to lower our standards. EDIT: Kissinger as president! What a thought! , , and at the same time!

Nations tamper with their Constitutions at their peril. A seemingly small change can have big effects. I think the USA would be mistaken to consider any change in the birth requirements for the Presidency. For the same reason I see no benefit in Australia severing its monarchical ties with the United Kingdom by becoming a republic. Incidentally, my brother Peter was born in Chicago (same month as Obama) and is a US citizen, so would be eligible.

Interesting responses from Kevin and Robert. I wasn't saying that Henry Kissinger should have tried for the presidency, only that he should have had as much status to do so as some of the forlorn natives who have thrown their hats into the ring over the years. But really, what difference does it make that a man or woman wasn't born here? Why should a foreign-born politician be able to govern a state (California) with an economy larger than that of most countries in the world, yet be barred from the next level? And no, I'm not pimping for "Ah-nold" for president!

I don't know. I don't see this as being an important issue - no offense intended. Here is another whimsical thought - corporations are considered as being persons. Why not drop the middleman, which I will say are the politicians, and have direct rule by the corporations? To bring this into a literary setting - a William Gibson, Neal Stephenson cyberpunk world. I really don't see that it matters much where a person is born since I am convinced that regardless of the point of origin they will be bought by the moneyed interests.

I've become quite cynical about the US political system; particularly over these past 10 years I've considered it a hopeless situation. A US-born president or one from say Lithuania, to transplant a Republican-Democrat metaphor, form just both cheeks of the same behind. I saw a reading of parts of Howard Zinn's book A People's History of the United States last night on teevee, and was reminded of his contetion that great positive changes (from his POV, and mine as well, that being what I'll term the advancement of liberalism, though it's a suitably vague term) come from the bottom rather than the top. I don't care if a president was born here or not. So in a way I guess I agree with you.

DWill wrote:Interesting responses from Kevin and Robert. I wasn't saying that Henry Kissinger should have tried for the presidency, only that he should have had as much status to do so as some of the forlorn natives who have thrown their hats into the ring over the years. But really, what difference does it make that a man or woman wasn't born here? Why should a foreign-born politician be able to govern a state (California) with an economy larger than that of most countries in the world, yet be barred from the next level? And no, I'm not pimping for "Ah-nold" for president!

One reason that occurs to me why the founding fathers might have chosen to restrict the presidency to native citizens of the US is that, especially 200 years ago when travel and communication were much more limited, people raised in other countries would be less familiar with the issues relevant to this country that confront any president.

I'm not advocating the Constitutional position, just offering a possible explanation for the decision.

tbarron wrote:One reason that occurs to me why the founding fathers might have chosen to restrict the presidency to native citizens of the US is that, especially 200 years ago when travel and communication were much more limited, people raised in other countries would be less familiar with the issues relevant to this country that confront any president.

I'm not advocating the Constitutional position, just offering a possible explanation for the decision.

I decided not to speculate on why the framers inserted the "natural-born" requirement. I got this reasonable explanation from slate.com:

"Natural-Born Citizens: The Constitution's rule that the president be "a natural born citizen" focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date. At the founding, a special constitutional clause provided that even those who had not been citizens at birth could nevertheless become president, if they were citizens circa 1787. Thus, Alexander Hamilton, born in the West Indies, was clearly eligible. All those already in America in 1787 could be trusted; but the framers fretted that an Old World earl or duke might someday sail across the Atlantic with a boatload of gold and bribe his way into the presidency. (Rumor had it that George III's second son, the Bishop of Osnaburgh, would soon head this way.) Thus, the "natural-born" clause's main target of concern was not immigrants generally, but wealthy European aristocrats who might wreak havoc in an America lacking strong campaign finance laws."

It seems clear that these fears don't apply today.

The explanation I remember learning in school was that the "Natural-Born Citizens" clause exists because of fears that a foreign born person might maintain a loyalty to his/her homeland that would interfer with the president acting in the best interest of the USA. I have no idea if this is anywhere near the truth.

That might be in the category of "things I should have learned in school, if I'd been paying attention." It does make some sense, I mean as a reasonable fear in those times.

The argument that one born in a country will have a deeper and more complete understanding of it seems much less likely in the information age. It wouldn’t be hard for a relative newcomer to become very well informed over a period of a few years, if they were so motivated. And clearly just the time spent in a location is not a free ticket to knowledge and understanding. How do you think GW Bush would do in an American citizenship exam, for example?

One could also make the argument that those who grew up in a country would likely have a stronger emotional bond to that place. That seems to me more of a possibility, but probably not a certainty. There are many immigrants who become very enthusiastic about their new status, I believe.

Incidentally, Canada is of course a constitutional monarchy, which currently is represented in the form of Queen Elizabeth 2nd. She is represented by the Governor General in Canada. We only began getting locally born GG’s in 1952, and have since had two that were foreign born: Adrian Clarkson, born in Hong Kong, and the current GG Michaelle Jean, who came to Canada as a refugee from the impoverished country of Haiti in 1968.