Presidential Eligibility - Page 3
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 52
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: Presidential Eligibility

  1. #21
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    I don't think that it's true that being born here automatically makes one-pro USA either. I've also seen the mentality among people that are born here that they think the US is crap and they wish they could move.

    My point is not "Let's just make any old immigrant President!" Obviously they would have to be vetted, run, be elected, et cetera, just like anyone else. My point is, if a (naturalized) immigrant wants to run and can be elected based on their own merits, (meaning people look at when they came to the US, what their history with the US is, as well as their ideas, their platform, et cetera) then why not? I guess I just don't see how that "leaves us vulnerable" or anyway, any more vulnerable than we are with any other president that we actually vet and elect.

    It reminds me of when people were saying that we can never elect a Catholic as a president because they might have a bigger loyalty to the Vatican than to the US people.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  2. #22
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,224

    Default

    I agree with you too that not everyone born here is pro USA either but I liken it to our family relationships. Majority of people tend to be closer to the families they grew up with vs. families they marry into for example. If you were forced to choose we would probably pick our mother vs. our mother in law. Does that make sense?

    I'm much more for naturalized citizen who has been a citizen for quite some time. I guess I just figure out a decent line for it.

  3. #23
    Super Poster
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Jeddah
    Posts
    680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacers View Post
    Wow, this is bringing back memories of 5th grade! I had a wonderful teacher, Mr. Mathews, who made learning about our country so much fun. I simply couldn't wait to learn about the next state on the list! One thing the very wise Mr. Mathews said about this issue was that people who come to this country should be vested enough in this country to want their kids to be born here, and they should be vested enough in this country to want to raise their kids here. Anyone can *come* to America, but to stay & raise your family means that you're truly committed to the long-term good of the country. It's not about you, it's about ensuring that people who love this country stick around to keep making it better for the next generation. And that's why it's so important for the POTUS to a natural-born citizen.
    I totally disagree. With the way people move around the world now, it's much different. Immigrants often DO come here, settle here, and stay here - and invest heavily and make a live for themselves.
    Aisha

  4. #24
    Super Poster
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Jeddah
    Posts
    680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacers View Post
    Yes, the kids benefit from the parents' commitment, but it's not like the kid is going to skate scot-free into the presidency. (Well, there is GW, but...) The kid himself needs to make other huge commitments to become qualified & experiences & get elected. I think there's definitely an allegiance to one's place of birth that isn't quite the same for a naturalized citizen. And I also think there's a good argument to be made along the lines of "institutional knowledge," that is the oral history & social values that are passed down from generation to generation, that a recent immigrant doesn't get from not growing up here.

    If, and this is a big "if," there was ever to be a constitutional amendment on this issue, then it should include a citizenship requirement of at least 30 years or more, which would allow adults who came here as children to be eligible but preclude famous wealthy people like Ah-nold from essentially buying the White House with their fame rather than working for it as everyone else has done. I'd also be delighted such an amendment would include a mandatory minimum number of years of public service to be eligible; it will be good experience in how our democracy works, and if you can't get elected to a city council or state assembly, you probably have no business running the country.
    I've heard of so many stories of teens being deported back to Mexico because they were illegal here. (another issue) but basically their heartbreak was they know NOTHING of Mexico and have grown up here their whole lives. They had no attachment to Mexico. they didn't even know long lost relatives in Mexico. Mexico to them is not the same as the U.S. is for them. I am sure there are other countries as well but the stories I remember reading were these.
    Aisha

  5. #25
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ethanwinfield View Post

    I would much rather see the 22nd amendment repealed than a amendment changing eligibility.
    I do not want the 22nd amendment repealed either. I confess I did a quick Google search to see which amendment it was. I think a 2 term limit is very wise for POTUS. I think term limits on Congress and The SC would be wise as well.

    ~Bonita~

  6. #26
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica80 View Post
    I agree with you too that not everyone born here is pro USA either but I liken it to our family relationships. Majority of people tend to be closer to the families they grew up with vs. families they marry into for example. If you were forced to choose we would probably pick our mother vs. our mother in law. Does that make sense?

    I'm much more for naturalized citizen who has been a citizen for quite some time. I guess I just figure out a decent line for it.
    Okay, but if you were adopted by a new mom when you were 3 and were raised to adulthood by the adoptive mom, who would you be closer to as an adult, bio mom or adoptive mom? Would it be fair if people assumed that you weren't as loyal to your adoptive family as other family members simply because you weren't born there?
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  7. #27
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,224

    Default

    Good point Alissa. As I said, I think it stinks that those that were "adopted" by the US as babies and young children when their parents came here cannot get to that position but I still don't know how or where we put the line. I don't think having this as a requirement is without some merit.

  8. #28
    Mega Poster mom3girls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,512

    Default

    There has to be some requirement. I dont believe that there is a way to draw the line without leaving somebody ineligible for the position.
    Lisa
    Molly, Morgan, Mia and Carson

  9. #29
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    Why can't the requirement be either citizen or naturalized citizen who also earns the trust and confidence of the American people through the campaign/election process (I assume it's a given that if the American people don't trust them and don't trust their commitment to the US, they won't be elected.)

    ETA: My point is, I don't think we need a constitutional requirement to protect us from someone who moved here 10 years ago as an adult and has questionable loyalties; I don't think that the American people would elect someone that had questionable loyalties.
    Last edited by Alissa_Sal; 09-11-2012 at 11:27 PM.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  10. #30
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ethanwinfield View Post
    I don't think that the American people would elect someone that had questionable loyalties.
    I disagree. You do not always know who someone's true loyalties are. I am sure there are many divorced people out there who thought they knew someone when they got married, only to find out they were a monster later.

    Being born outside of the US does not mean you are not loyal to the US. Being born in the US does not mean that you are. It is just one safeguard of many that tries to ensure that America is protected.

    I am thinking of many movies where the spy has lived in America years and years and no one knows.

    ~Bonita~

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions