What are your thoughts on amending the US Constitution in order to allow naturalized US citizens to become US President?

WolfBear

Well-known member
What are your thoughts on amending the US Constitution in order to allow naturalized US citizens to become US President? Or, alternatively, using the 14th Amendment to declare that any US state legislation enforcing the natural-born citizen requirement for the US Presidency would itself be unenforceable because it's a violation of the 14th Amendment's ban on discrimination based on national origin?
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Well for the second part, Imma say no, just no. You can't declare that the constitution is unconstitutional.

As far as the ramifications, I don't see any serious problem with allowing naturalized citizens to become president, though most likely there should still be a certain time limit to keep somebody from becoming a citizen and running a week later. However the latter scenario I find unlikely, unless there's also a massive influx of immigrants at the same time intended entirely to support said candidate, and this is likely to be fairly obvious.


I would actually lay long odds that the current democratic party would act against allowing though, because if you allow naturalized citizens you're going to have Arnold Schwarzenegger running for president soon after. He basically only quit winning everything in politics because he'd hit all his term limits in California and couldn't reasonably run for any higher office after. And... none of their candidates are going to win against him.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Well for the second part, Imma say no, just no. You can't declare that the constitution is unconstitutional.

As far as the ramifications, I don't see any serious problem with allowing naturalized citizens to become president, though most likely there should still be a certain time limit to keep somebody from becoming a citizen and running a week later. However the latter scenario I find unlikely, unless there's also a massive influx of immigrants at the same time intended entirely to support said candidate, and this is likely to be fairly obvious.


I would actually lay long odds that the current democratic party would act against allowing though, because if you allow naturalized citizens you're going to have Arnold Schwarzenegger running for president soon after. He basically only quit winning everything in politics because he'd hit all his term limits in California and couldn't reasonably run for any higher office after. And... none of their candidates are going to win against him.

Sure you could. Had the original US Constitution (purely hypothetically) explicitly allowed for segregated schools and/or anti-miscegenation laws, then the 14th Amendment could have nullified this part of the original US Constitution. Heck, the 14th Amendment could have done this even if it would not have been originally intended to do this.

Yeah, a 35-year US citizenship requirement for everyone seems ideal, frankly.

FWIW, I don't think that Arnie would actually win the GOP presidential nomination in today's GOP. And with the Democrats having gone Woke, it would be extraordinarily difficult for them to oppose this amendment.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Call it an exercise in paranoia in that we want to make sure that our President is loyal to the US.

Then you'd already fail in that regard since a child born in the US to Russian or Chinese birth tourists and who'd be raised in Russia or China would be eligible to run for the US Presidency after they met the residency requirement.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Which is one of the dumbest mis-interpretations of law that's come out of the Supreme Court.

Frankly, we need to get rid of that law. You should NOT become a citizen simply b/c you were born in the US.

Not sure that it's a misinterpretation. Illegal aliens are also subject to the jurisdiction of the US, are they not?

But Yes, I do agree with your general premise here.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Which is one of the dumbest mis-interpretations of law that's come out of the Supreme Court.

Frankly, we need to get rid of that law. You should NOT become a citizen simply b/c you were born in the US.
No, that isn't a misinterpretation at all. That's the constitutional amendment working as designed.

As for needing to be a citizen at birth, I'm fine getting rid of that. Immigrants, especially the successful ones, moved here because they wanted to be Americans. At the very least, they won't be bad mouthing it every ten seconds like some do.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
No, that isn't a misinterpretation at all. That's the constitutional amendment working as designed.

As for needing to be a citizen at birth, I'm fine getting rid of that. Immigrants, especially the successful ones, moved here because they wanted to be Americans. At the very least, they won't be bad mouthing it every ten seconds like some do.
No, this requirement must be maintained.

Trying to play the 'discrimination by national origin bit' like the OP is doing is an obvious bad faith argument meant to make it easier for foreign nations to influence US POTUS's, or install one if they play the long game.

Our Founders put that requirement in the Constitution to keep foreign powers from even attempting to get a 'Manchurian Candidate' into office via immigration schemes.
Which is one of the dumbest mis-interpretations of law that's come out of the Supreme Court.

Frankly, we need to get rid of that law. You should NOT become a citizen simply b/c you were born in the US.
No to this as well.

Birthright citizenship is imperfect, but the best way to fix it is to enforce existing laws against 'birth tourism' and to actually clamp down on illegal immigration.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
No, this requirement must be maintained.

Trying to play the 'discrimination by national origin bit' like the OP is doing is an obvious bad faith argument meant to make it easier for foreign nations to influence US POTUS's, or install one if they play the long game.

Our Founders put that requirement in the Constitution to keep foreign powers from even attempting to get a 'Manchurian Candidate' into office via immigration schemes.
No to this as well.

Birthright citizenship is imperfect, but the best way to fix it is to enforce existing laws against 'birth tourism' and to actually clamp down on illegal immigration.
Why would they even bother to do that though, when it's so much easier to simply bribe our political elites? Besides; I think setting a minimum of about twenty years of living in this country, before one can run for presidential office, is more than enough to make employing such a tactic impractical at best.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Why would they even bother to do that though, when it's so much easier to simply bribe our political elites? Besides; I think setting a minimum of about twenty years of living in this country, before one can run for presidential office, is more than enough to make employing such a tactic impractical at best.
The Founders were worried about foreign royalty (at the time of the writing that meant the Brits mostly) trying to play the long game, and get one of their scions into the nations highest office, which would make annexing/upsurping the Constitution that much easier.

It ensured that POTUS's would not have any lingering loyalty to a 'homeland' they came from, because POTUS's could only be native born citizens.
 

ShieldWife

Marchioness
I would personally lean against foreign born citizens being allowed to end for president, because as it is now we already have way too big of a problem with immigration, divided loyalty, and foreign influence. Honestly though, it probably doesn’t matter that much. We can have a traitorous president even if he’s born in the USA, we should know that all too well, and if there was a foreign born candidate who I really thought had the best interests of America at heart and whose politics I agreed with, if vote for him without hesitation.

I would gladly trade foreign born presidents to get rid of birthright cutizenship.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
No, this requirement must be maintained.

Trying to play the 'discrimination by national origin bit' like the OP is doing is an obvious bad faith argument meant to make it easier for foreign nations to influence US POTUS's, or install one if they play the long game.

Our Founders put that requirement in the Constitution to keep foreign powers from even attempting to get a 'Manchurian Candidate' into office via immigration schemes.
I don't think being natural born really impacts loyalty to the US much anymore (there was definitely good reason for it in the past, but not so much now). I'd rather have someone who swore a citizenship oath than some asshole who acts like the US is shit because they were born in it and it feels entitled. Though I am up for replacing it with a ban on dual citizens in politics generally.

I really don't think that in today's world an immigrant who got citizenship and ran for political office is more at risk of being a foreign stooge than a regular citizen who ran for office. On top of that, if they get elected, that means that a significant amount of citizens have judged them not to be a foreign threat.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
I don't think being natural born really impacts loyalty to the US much anymore (there was definitely good reason for it in the past, but not so much now). I'd rather have someone who swore a citizenship oath than some asshole who acts like the US is shit because they were born in it and it feels entitled. Though I am up for replacing it with a ban on dual citizens in politics generally.

I really don't think that in today's world an immigrant who got citizenship and ran for political office is more at risk of being a foreign stooge than a regular citizen who ran for office. On top of that, if they get elected, that means that a significant amount of citizens have judged them not to be a foreign threat.
The rule is the only thing keeping dipshits like Prince Harry from trying to run for POTUS using his vast network of royal connections.

Same with keeping the House of Saud from trying it as well.

The rule is necessary to keep foreign powers from trying to play a long game and gain direct control of the highest office in the US.
 

SpaceOrbis

Well-known member
What are your thoughts on amending the US Constitution in order to allow naturalized US citizens to become US President? Or, alternatively, using the 14th Amendment to declare that any US state legislation enforcing the natural-born citizen requirement for the US Presidency would itself be unenforceable because it's a violation of the 14th Amendment's ban on discrimination based on national origin?

My thoughts are so long as you're a citizen of the United States you should have the right to be its leader. I don't care all that much about if you were born here or become a citizen at a later point in life. Just be a lawful citizen and have no major crimes on record.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top