Now that it has nothing to do with current politics...

[Ken Burch]

It's time to start the process of passing a constitutional amendment removing the requirement that a president of the U.S. be a U.S. citizen-by-birth.

Most countries don't have that kind of official insult to immigrants in their constitution...why should we?

It's not as though we still need to worry about an agent of the British crown or the Soviet Union coming to power, or anything remotely like that.

It's time to admit that naturalized citizens are just as much Real Americans as are any other American citizens.

(on edit)

There should, of course, be a ten-to-fifteen year residency requirement before a naturalized citizen can seek the presidency, in order to prevent international bazillionaires from seeing the U.S. presidency as just one possible path to personal global domination(so there wouldn't be, say, a Murdoch in '16 campaign).

[kickysnana]

1. There are times when I miss the "unrec" button (sigh)

Because in the real world there are sleepers who are worse than the Republicans. I know, I knowm hard to believe but there are a hell of a lot of people who want what we've got, would like a short cut to get it and there are some that could fool the majority of us quite well.

Yeah it can happen with native born but it is harder to have a covert allegiance to someplace you have never been and devote your life to that without being found out.

[Ken Burch]

4. The last thing a "sleeper" would do would be to seek the presidency.

Such people prefer to be as inconspicuous as possible.

[hay rick]

2. Rec.

You seem to have misplaced your patriotic paranoia.

[Ken Burch]

3. There was more than enough of that in post#1

That post is almost an unintentional DUzy.

[Angry Dragon]

5. NO!!

[dem4ward]

6. Sorry I disagree. I like it the way it is thank you.

I like my Presidents "Made in USA".

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. This was actually suggested by Republicans...

Back when Arnold Schwartzenegger was the apple of Republican eyes, Republcans suggested laws that would define natural born as someone who had been a citizen for 20, 25, or 30 years.

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/immigration/arnold-schwarzenegger-president

The fight to change that, however, has already begun. Several legislators have proposed constitutional amendments, but ratifying them will be no easy task.

Amending the Constitution requires, first of all, that a bill be introduced in Congress. Senator Orin Hatch has introduced a bill that would allow immigrants who have been citizens for 20 years or more to run for president. In the House, Representative Rohrbacker proposed a similar bill, as did Representatives Sherman and Conyers. Additionally, Representatives Snyder, Frank, and Issa proposed an amendment that requires 35 years of citizenship for a naturalized citizen to run for president.

Any one of these proposed amendments could be adopted, but only after it passes both the House and the Senate by a two-thirds majority vote. After that, the bill would go to the state legislatures. If three-fourths (38) of the states vote to adopt the amendment, it would then become part of our Constitution.

[Ken Burch]

8. I remember that.

Lucky for them that they didn't get their wish on that one.

[GeorgeGist]

9. word

Schwarzenegger

[Comrade_McKenzie]

10. Nope. A nation's leader should be bred in the nation. nt

[Brickbat]

43. So you want to dictate where the candidate's parents had sex?

[pampango]

11. Great idea though it will never happen. Way too much nativism in the US to expect that naturalized

citizens will ever be considered to be 'real' Americans. We may may have an immigrant-oriented, multicultural society on many levels, but there is still too much of the mentality - "one a 'them', always a 'them'.

[99Forever]

12. Yeah ... WTF, right?

We outsource everybody else's jobs, why not the Top Job too, eh?

[Ken Burch]

13. I said let naturalized citizens be president.

I didn't say "Move the White House to Bangalore".

[99Forever]

15. Well golly gee Ken...

... that's much fucking better.

[Ken Burch]

34. It is, actually, since allowing naturalized citizens to be president

has nothing in common whatsoever with outsourcing.

Naturalized citizens are as American as native-born citizens. Why pretend otherwise? It's not as if there's something inherently suspicious or evil about moving TO this country.

[WinkyDink]

36. Well, in point of fact, no, they are not. That's why we have a special term for the former.

[99Forever]

37. That's your opinion.

From what I can see, you are outnumbered many times over and this isn't a rightie site.


Good luck with your tilting at windmills.

[Ken Burch]

40. Why do you have an issue with immigrants?

The worst traitors in American history were old-stock Wasps, like Aldrich Ames.

[99Forever]

42. Why do you have an issue with Americans..

... born in these United States?


Some of the worst tyrants, torturers, and genocidal maniacs were born in other parts of the world.

[Ken Burch]

44. I have no issue at all with Americans who were born here(being one myself).

It's just that I don't accept the notion that we native-born citizens have any inherent claim to superiority on any level over anybody else.

Also, I trust people here to be able to suss out a potential tyrant, no matter what that tyrant's origins.

Oh, and what Andrew Jackson, a native-born citizen(IIRC)did to Native Americans and helped do to African Americans was as vile as the work of any foreign-born dictator. Jackson was the Hitler of this continent. And people such as Kit Carson and William Tecumseh Sherman were on the same level as any Gestapo or KGB agent.

You do realize that it's incredibly bizarre for someone whose icon is of John Lennon to be posting Millard Fillmore Know-Nothing Party-style rhetoric about immigrants, don't you?

[99Forever]

48. You don't quite get what ...

.. mocking someone else's silliness is all about, do you?

[Ken Burch]

49. Are you just satirizing anti-immigrant talking points?

If so, that's a relief...you were close enough to the actual hate rhetoric to make it hard to tell.

(hint...the "sarcasm" smilie helps at times like that).

[99Forever]

52. No..

.. I'm merely holding a mirror up to your arguments.

[Ken Burch]

57. Except for the fact that my arguments aren't silly and don't deserve to be treated as such

If you think I'm wrong, you have an obligation to make a serious effort to show why. Nothing I said in response to you was silly at all.

So that exchange on your part was all about condescension. How unworthy of you and how unworthy of John Lennon.

[quinnox]

14. not just no, but hell no

I don't want some foreigner coming here with a billion bucks and buying the presidency.

Also, to kill two birds with one stone, I am not in favor of admitting Puerto Rico as a state. Since you said only post in that thread if you supported it, this is a good place to post my opposition. No to statehood of Puerto Rico!!

[Egalitarian Thug]

18. Why are you opposed to Puerto Rico statehood? n/t

[quinnox]

20. for a few reasons

One, and my main reason - I'm sick of the colonialism of the United States. I think we should even let Hawaii go back to being their own nation, if they want to.

That ship of acquiring new territory sailed a long, long time ago. No more imperial land expansion and land grabs. We have enough fucking land in North America already.

Two, I don't see any benefit we would gain of having them as a state. How would it benefit us? I can see how it would benefit them. Big time.

Three, I just don't like the idea of having Puerto Rico as a state. It just seems weird to think some island in the Caribbean would be part of the United States. I also think the same way about Hawaii. I think a country should be located on one continuous land mass.

[surrealAmerican]

22. You do know, don't you ...

... that Puerto Rico is already part of the US, and has been so for rather a long time?

[quinnox]

23. I know they aren't a state

and that is what I'm against. Yea, we got territories like Guam, I knew that. But Guam isn't a state either. And I want to keep it that way.

[surrealAmerican]

38. Surely being a non-state is more like ...

... "colonialism" than being a state would be.


I find your position on this to be inconsistent with your stated objectives.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Hmmm

Do we give California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico Texas Wyoming, Colorado, Oklahoma and Kansas back to Mexico?


And Alaska is not part of the continental United States. Do we give it back to Russia?

[Sgent]

29. I don't see those as good reasons to deny statehood

I would certainly give Puerto Rico the right of self-determination, but if they choose to apply for statehood, I don't see refusing their request as reasonable. I would also support them forming their own country if they wanted. The imperialism argument sailed long ago, and adding them as a state or letting them form their own country doesn't change what the Spanish / US did 100's of years ago.

As for the benefits to us:
-- The most important IMHO is that we fulfill the spirit of our own country -- remember no taxation without representation. Puerto Rican's have no representation in their government except what congress / the president (which they vote for neither) chooses to give them. In fact, their individual citizenship can be revoked by congress at any time if it chooses.

Also, I'm not sure but its likely that our tax collections will go up. Due to the islands exemption from federal taxation for citizens and corporations.

[calico1]

31. I find it rather odd.

Not connected to the mainland so that disqualifies them?

So we should get rid of Nantucket, Long Island, Block Island?

As for benefitting us, plenty of young men fought in wars dating back to the last century. A few of my relatives died, one has dealt with agent orange effects since he left Vietnam.

They aren't totally useless.



edited for typo

[Ken Burch]

33. My thread wasn't anti-independence, it was pro-self determination.

If Puerto Rico develops a pro-independence majority(a stance that probably gets you beaten by the cops and put on lists of subversives at the moment, I suspect) I'd support that too.

Mainly, the commonwealth thing has to change, since it's the same thing as being a colony-no say in your destiny and all the wealth is stolen by the anglos on the mainland.

[Egalitarian Thug]

39. Thanks for answering. I would agree with you except for the fact that being a territory

is horribly detrimental to them and the Puerto Ricans want to become a state. As it is they are perpetually victimized by American business while being the unwilling accomplice to corporate fraud.

Besides, look at how much cooler our flag would be.

[cherokeeprogressive]

46. I think Puerto Rican statehood, if it ever becomes a real issue, should be put to popular vote here.

[pampango]

21. Puerto Ricans are already US citizens. Why should they not become a state if they so desire? It's

clear to me that they do.

"I don't want some foreigner coming here with a billion bucks and buying the presidency." - Good that you specified 'foreigner'. If you had instead posted:

"I don't want some Black coming here with a billion bucks and buying the presidency" OR "I don't want some woman coming here with a billion bucks and buying the presidency" OR "I don't want some gay coming here with a billion bucks and buying the presidency", you might get a different reception here. Just goes to show that nativism is still acceptable to many on the left, while we have, thankfully, moved beyond racism, misogyny and homophobia.

Somehow I don't think that a "foreigner coming here with a billion bucks" will have any more luck than romney had with his billion bucks.

"All men (and now women) are created equal." All citizens - whether native born or naturalized - should have the same rights. There are not and should not be different classes of citizens.

[calico1]

32. +1000

[calico1]

30. Why not?n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

16. As soon as we address the other 10,000 things that are more important. n/t

[Ken Burch]

41. I didn't say this was more important than everything else, for the record.

n/t.

[MineralMan]

17. First, such an amendment would never be enacted.

Last edited Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Beyond that, there is no earthly reason to make that change whatsoever. This is one of your most scatterbrained propositions ever. Uff da!

[Agnosticsherbet]

25. That is the problem with all of these suggestions to amend the Constitution...

It is very difficult, and even where there appears to be a real public demand for such, there are always enough votes against the idea to stop it in its tracks.

The Equal Rights Amendment was passed in 1972 and has yet to ratified. And if the tenor of the past election is any indication, it won't be in the foreseeable future.

[MineralMan]

27. Yes. Amending the Constitution is very

difficult, and should be. The process is extremely complex and requires an extraordinary amount of nationwide support. If any Amendment should have been ratified, it is the ERA. That it wasn't indicates just how difficult the process is.

The native born citizen requirement to be eligible to be President is one of the very fundamentals of the Constitution. There is absolutely zero chance that will ever be changed.

Why do we waste our time with such things, when there are real issues that actually can be dealt with? I've never understood that about DU.

[Agnosticsherbet]

28. It is because we are a large group of individuals, each with his or her own set issues.

DU does better than many at hearding cats.

[LiberalAndProud]

54. Discussing ideas is what we do on DU.

If this is wasting time, then all of our time here is wasted. Beyond that posit, I won't venture.

[gravity]

19. Make it like the dream act.

If you become an American citizen at a young enough age, you should be eligible to be president.

[Ken Burch]

50. Or simply with a requirement that you live in the country say, at least fifteen years first.

n/t.

[closeupready]

24. I would not support that. No need to change

that which is not broken.

[WinkyDink]

35. I'd wager a bet that it is decidedly NOT "time to start the process." WEIRD.

[cherokeeprogressive]

45. Nnnnnnnnnope.

[liberal_at_heart]

47. where someone was born has just as little to do with loyalty as religion does

All these people who think there is a sleeper cell just waiting to become president sound as ridiculouse as people who said Kennedy couldn't be trusted because he was Catholic or Romney can't be trusted because he is Mormon or an atheist can't be trusted because they have no God and no moral compass.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

51. Arnold, is that you?

[TheKentuckian]

53. What a jacked up priority in our present situation.

I just see such a thing as a complete distraction and culture war flotsam to gum up the works.

I'm sure the intent is good but I don't get the value to our people, how it cools the planet, or how it fixes a present problem.

[LiberalAndProud]

55. If I really thought that any US ciitizen can grow up to be President,

I'd probably be on board with your initiative. However, I think the path is barred to most ordinary citizens, naturalized or otherwise. Before we take this issue on, I'd far rather see us tackle campaign finance reform, and especially the Citizens United travesty. Unbarring naturalized citizens from the post just isn't on my list of things to do right now.

[Ken Burch]

59. Again, I never said this issue mattered more than all others...just wanted to get the ball rolling.

Getting rid of Citizens United is far more important, as is electoral reform.

[Shankapotomus]

56. And what's to prevent power hungry wealthy people

from running in one country's election after another until they win? It seems your idea would invite those who love power with little to no loyalty to country.

[Ken Burch]

58. You'd have a residency requirement...say ten years or fifteen...

That would discourage such people.

Why assume that it would be RICH immigrants that would run? It's not as though poor immigrants aren't interested in being of service to the country.