Changng The Constitution For The Governator

[7960]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

We're a nation of immigrants, so why shouldn't an immigrant be president? All citizens are supposed to be equal under the law, regardless of where they came from. I don't support creating a 2nd class of naturalized citizens.

We're no longer a nation of immigrants, but ignoring that....... the "immigrants" who defined the country thought it was a good idea. Who are we to say they were wrong? And btw, all citizens are not equal under the law. A 34 year old can't run for president and a 29 year old can't run for senate. Should we allow a 16 year olds to be president? Should 12 year olds be allowed to buy beer? Should blind people not be refused driver's licenses so that we can say everyone is "equal" under the law?

To those talking about immigrants having conflicting loyalties, how does prohibiting them from holding an office encourage loyalty? It doesn't. It does the opposite.

Do you think I could go to mexico and be president? Nope. Their requirements are even more strict than ours...even my KIDS born in mexico can't be a mexican president (to run for president you must be a Mexican citizen by birth, with a father or mother who is Mexican by birth, and having resided in the country for at least 20 years). Why is it unreasonable to have requirements for our highest office?

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by 7960

We're no longer a nation of immigrants, but ignoring that....... the "immigrants" who defined the country thought it was a good idea. Who are we to say they were wrong?

The immigrants who defined the country also owned slaved, so it's apparent they had issues with valuing the worth of certain citizens.

Originally Posted by 7960

And btw, all citizens are not equal under the law. A 34 year old can't run for president and a 29 year old can't run for senate. Should we allow a 16 year olds to be president? Should 12 year olds be allowed to buy beer? Should blind people not be refused driver's licenses so that we can say everyone is "equal" under the law?

I think once you're legally classified as an adult, you should be able to hold whatever office you want. Any practical concerns you have about wisdom or whatever will be addressed by the voters simply by not electing a person they think is too young.

But even if the age requirements are legitimate for certain offices, I can at least see the rationale behind them. I don't see the purpose in not allowing a naturalized citizen to hold an office, provided he's been here for a while.

Originally Posted by 7960

Do you think I could go to mexico and be president? Nope. Their requirements are even more strict than ours...even my KIDS born in mexico can't be a mexican president (to run for president you must be a Mexican citizen by birth, with a father or mother who is Mexican by birth, and having resided in the country for at least 20 years).

So we're modeling ourselves after Mexico now?

Originally Posted by 7960

Why is it unreasonable to have requirements for our highest office?

It's not. But I think those requirements should serve a purpose, and I don't see how this does. In fact, the only thing I think it does is communicate to naturalized citizens that they're not of equal worth...something that discourages loyalty, when everyone is so concerned about assimilation.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

It's not. But I think those requirements should serve a purpose, and I don't see how this does. In fact, the only thing I think it does is communicate to naturalized citizens that they're not of equal worth...something that discourages loyalty, when everyone is so concerned about assimilation.

The purpose is, is that it lessens the chances of us getting duped into voting someone into office, who has an agenda that's loyal to another country.

[motivez]

Can you tell me what a President who has "loyalty to another country" before the US could do that wouldn't be able to be kept in check by Congress and the Judiciary?

It seems like sort of a straw man arguement honestly, but maybe I haven't thought of something bad they could do.

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

Can you tell me what a President who has "loyalty to another country" before the US could do that wouldn't be able to be kept in check by Congress and the Judiciary?

It seems like sort of a straw man arguement honestly, but maybe I haven't thought of something bad they could do.

Have you not heard of what Bush has done?


In today's world, a President can almost do as he pleases.

[motivez]

He's a 'loyal American' though, so my question is what can this fictional immigrant actually do that would be so bad if he were to become President that couldn't be kept in check if the system were working?

Also, I agree.. but if we had the Congressional oversight we required and Bush gave a shit about the courts decisions.. it wouldn't be an isuse.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by motivez

Can you tell me what a President who has "loyalty to another country" before the US could do that wouldn't be able to be kept in check by Congress and the Judiciary?

It seems like sort of a straw man arguement honestly, but maybe I haven't thought of something bad they could do.

It's really a conflict of interest argument. If our Pres was born in Mexico, he might consider the effect of his actions on Mexico in addition to those effects on the US. It could be a divided loyalty, rather than a wholly US loyalty.

IMO this could go either way, but I kind of like the idea of a President born in the US. I know and have worked with many, many immigrants, and I can tell you nearly all of them, even naturalized citizens hold their former countries in high regard.

[motivez]

I'm not sure why holding them in high regard is a bad thing though?

And yeah, while it'd be a conflict of interest, it'd also be impossible to prove.. I dunno, I just don't ever see it happening. I think any immigrant that would run for President and have the financial backing to do well would be loyal to America and have the countries best interests at heart.

We were founded by immigrants and we continue to depend on immigration for national success, so while I completely understand the sentiment (and agree to an extent, in the best case scenerio), I'm not sure there's really this practical problem you guys think would exist.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by motivez

I'm not sure why holding them in high regard is a bad thing though?

And yeah, while it'd be a conflict of interest, it'd also be impossible to prove.. I dunno, I just don't ever see it happening. I think any immigrant that would run for President and have the financial backing to do well would be loyal to America and have the countries best interests at heart.

We were founded by immigrants and we continue to depend on immigration for national success, so while I completely understand the sentiment (and agree to an extent, in the best case scenerio), I'm not sure there's really this practical problem you guys think would exist.

The conflict is there though.

I don't question Arnold's loyalty. I don't think he's an especially qualified President, but I've seen nothing to question his loyalty.

As for others, I think most immigrants will pause before they choose to do something that unquestionably helps the US but might hurt their country of birth. This could be something as simple as a comment at the state dinner or as grand as treaty negotiations, but the conflict is there. In my experience, persons born in the US are much more loyal to the US than persons not born here, and to me that is enough to justify the bar on foreign born Presidents.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

How is barring immigrants from one aspect of the democratic process different from another? If we tell immigrants they can't hold certain offices, then why not tell them they can't vote for certain offices either? Democracy doesn't work with restrictions...I thought we learned this with Jim Crowe laws and whatnot.

good thing we arent a democracy.



And many other governments were taken over by immigrants coming to power then giving the country over to their real loyalty.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by motivez

Can you tell me what a President who has "loyalty to another country" before the US could do that wouldn't be able to be kept in check by Congress and the Judiciary?

It seems like sort of a straw man arguement honestly, but maybe I haven't thought of something bad they could do.

Or even better, given how Presidential candidates are put under a microscope, how would someone with conflicting loyalties ever be selected by his party to run, much less be voted in by the people?

Furthermore, people who become presidents are career politicians. If someone were disloyal to the country, then it'd be apparent from his political history. I doubt someone would be so sly to pretend to be a loyal American, gain the trust of the people, then upon election roll out his sinister agenda.

I just can't see this ever happening, except if we were so full of disloyal Mexican immgrants that they'd want to nominate someone with conflicting loyalties...but if we were that full of Mexican immigrants, they'll just change the constitution anyway.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

I also question the logic that if someone is born here, he's more likely to be loyal than someone who immigrates here. If someone has left his home country, attained citizenship here, denounced his home citizenship, and has lived here for 20 years or whatever...that's rock solid proof that the guy is a loyal American. On the other hand, being born here is not evidence of anything whatsoever.

I mean, in all seriousness, leftist are always accused of "hating America," and most are born here. If someone really does hate America or favors another country, he wouldn't immigrate here in the first place, much less make a life of public service and work his way up to president.

It's a pretty absurd argument.

[Kytro]

I'm not a US citizen, but I think the limitation is flawed reasoning.

Where one is born has little bearing on suitability for a role.

I think demonstartion of commitment to the nation is far, far more important.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I'm not a US citizen, but I think the limitation is flawed reasoning.

what are the requirements for being an australian PM?

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 7960

what are the requirements for being an australian PM?

Interesting question. I'm not exactly sure what the restrictions are.

Wiki has this:

The Prime Minister is appointed by the Governor-General under section 64 of the Australian Constitution. Section 64 of the Constitution empowers the Governor-General to appoint Ministers of State, and requires such Ministers to be members of the House of Representatives or the Senate. These Ministers are ex officio members of the Federal Executive Council and constitute the Cabinet. The Prime Minister in practice is the leader of the Cabinet. By convention, he or she will always be a Member of the House of Representatives.

The Prime Minister is, like other ministers, normally sworn in by the Governor General and then presented with the Commission (Letter patent) of office. When defeated in an election, or on resigning, the Prime Minister is said to "hand in the commission" and actually does so by returning it to the Governor General.

Despite the importance of the office of Prime Minister, the Constitution does not mention the office by name. The conventions of the Westminster system were thought to be sufficiently entrenched in Australia by the authors of the constitution that it was deemed unnecessary to detail them.

In rare circumstances, the Governor-General may appoint someone other than the leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives to be Prime Minister.

I'm assuming you have to be of voting age.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Interesting question. I'm not exactly sure what the restrictions are.

Wiki has this:



I'm assuming you have to be of voting age.

there is no citizenship requirement? they must be a member of the house or senate...are there citizenship requirements for those?