Changng The Constitution For The Governator

Diamond Cross · 09-25-2006, 06:38 PM

Do you support changing the Constitution so that naturalised Citizens especially Arnold, can run for President or should the Constition not be changed?

motivez · 09-25-2006, 06:40 PM

I think if someone is a citizen and meets the other critera, there's no reason we shouldn't allow them to run for President.. There should be a minimum amount of years as a citizen though if they weren't born in the country, though..

JaJae · 09-25-2006, 07:00 PM

I think the idea that you have to be born here is dated and I'm willing to allow it to change. I wouldn't want to see Arnold anywhere on the federal level, but I have no problems with changing the constitution for this reason.

As motivez said above I think there should be time requirements before one can run.

IminWonderland · 09-25-2006, 07:03 PM

I actually say NO. I think that's a valid tenet of being President. I think that it has a reason to be there. I think seeing Mexican Americans in SO Cal for all these years, and their nationalist attitudes and feeling like they are still loyal to Mexico than the States, makes me realize why we have that statute...

ballz2wallz · 09-25-2006, 07:05 PM

I say no.

motivez · 09-25-2006, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

I actually say NO. I think that's a valid tenet of being President. I think that it has a reason to be there. I think seeing Mexican Americans in SO Cal for all these years, and their nationalist attitudes and feeling like they are still loyal to Mexico than the States, makes me realize why we have that statute...

But would you be okay with a child of an illegal immigrant running, even if they've been raised in that type of household with those same loyalties?

I mean, I think it's a case by case basis. I think if it weren't for the immigration debate or it were limited to non-hispanics, way less people would have a problem with it.

I also don't think that anyone who holds loyalty to Mexico over the US is ever going to be in a position to run for the US.. or, at least not for another 50 years.

kinggovernor · 09-25-2006, 07:51 PM

nega-tron

7960 · 09-25-2006, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

I actually say NO. I think that's a valid tenet of being President. I think that it has a reason to be there. I think seeing Mexican Americans in SO Cal for all these years, and their nationalist attitudes and feeling like they are still loyal to Mexico than the States, makes me realize why we have that statute...

nope.

7960 · 09-25-2006, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

But would you be okay with a child of an illegal immigrant running, even if they've been raised in that type of household with those same loyalties?

I mean, I think it's a case by case basis. I think if it weren't for the immigration debate or it were limited to non-hispanics, way less people would have a problem with it.

I also don't think that anyone who holds loyalty to Mexico over the US is ever going to be in a position to run for the US.. or, at least not for another 50 years.

We can't change it to have a required number of generations here in the US, so being born here is enough for me. <generalization ahead> I know plenty of adults who came here and are still 'stuck' in their former country. I also know their kids, and for the most part their kids are of *this* country. Sure they have sympathies to the parents and their heritage but mostly they lean way toward the US side. </generalization>

lew · 09-25-2006, 09:54 PM

Hell no.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-25-2006, 09:57 PM

Publius · 09-25-2006, 11:26 PM

nope. Hamilton was the only foreign-born American that ever should've been President... sucks that Burr murdered him first

IminWonderland · 09-26-2006, 12:34 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

But would you be okay with a child of an illegal immigrant running, even if they've been raised in that type of household with those same loyalties?

I mean, I think it's a case by case basis. I think if it weren't for the immigration debate or it were limited to non-hispanics, way less people would have a problem with it.

I also don't think that anyone who holds loyalty to Mexico over the US is ever going to be in a position to run for the US.. or, at least not for another 50 years.

I would be OK with them running, because that's their right.

But I wouldn't vote for them.

I wouldn't vote for Arnold for President, but I'd vote for him again for Govenor.

And sure, TODAY people who had loyalty to another country would not get elected, but I wonder about 50 years from now, when my kids are grown up, and I wonder what it would be like for them, if our country elected someone with loyalty to Mexico, as if So Cal isn't mexican enough already....there are already cities here that want to be "harbor cities" or what ever...they might as well suceed from us. I don't want my kids to live in Mexico.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 09-26-2006, 01:05 AM

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.

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.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 09-26-2006, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

And sure, TODAY people who had loyalty to another country would not get elected, but I wonder about 50 years from now, when my kids are grown up, and I wonder what it would be like for them, if our country elected someone with loyalty to Mexico, as if So Cal isn't mexican enough already....there are already cities here that want to be "harbor cities" or what ever...they might as well suceed from us. I don't want my kids to live in Mexico.

IMO, this problem should be dealt with via immigration controls, so that there is never a situation where there are so many immigrants they turns us into a colony of Mexico. It's anti-American and sends the wrong message to immigrants that they're not full citizens. We should be careful with how many we let in, but once they're let in, they should be citizens without qualification, period.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 09-26-2006, 01:10 AM

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.

IminWonderland · 09-26-2006, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

IMO, this problem should be dealt with via immigration controls, so that there is never a situation where there are so many immigrants they turns us into a colony of Mexico. It's anti-American and sends the wrong message to immigrants that they're not full citizens. We should be careful with how many we let in, but once they're let in, they should be citizens without qualification, period.

For the South West...you might be too late for that.

We have this problem RIGHT NOW.

kinggovernor · 09-26-2006, 07:30 AM

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.

it is in our Constitutation, Jim Crow laws were passed by the states.

WickedLou9 · 09-26-2006, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

it is in our Constitutation, Jim Crow laws were passed by the states.

The constitution can be ammended. Simply because it's in there does not mean that it was handed down by god and is irefutable.

Scrum · 09-26-2006, 09:29 AM

I would have to say no.