raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Nov 10, 2008 17:29:23 GMT -4
My problem with a Schwarzenegger administration has really very little to do with his previous profession. Likewise my problems with the Reagan administration. True, but does any of it have to do with where he was born? I don't want to make this a discussion of the political merits of Reagan or Schwarzenegger, I just want to know why it could be important that a former colony, would have such (in my mind) close minded restriction on how it selects it's Commander in Chief.. It's almost as bad, to me, as if they actually was some kind of law prohibiting a Muslim from being President. What is bigoted about the original post, Dead Hoosiers is the insinuation that a Muslim shouldn't be president, purely on the basis of being a Muslim. Whether Mr. Obama isn't or is, is another question, also asked by the post.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 10, 2008 18:30:54 GMT -4
Presumably, the reasoning has to do with knowing the country. Now, it is now true that non-native born citizens end up knowing more about US history and civics than the average US citizen (for the citizenship exam), but presumably there are nuances even so. I know, for example, that the east of the western states tends to be more conservative than the west of them--in our case, it's which side of the mountains you live on. Were I running for national office, I think I would work to learn that sort of thing anyway, but never mind. That, at least, is the reasoning.
Is this true of Schwarzenegger in particular? I don't know; I don't know his political savvy well enough to say. I haven't researched him as much as I research people for whom I am actually planning to vote. I know his political stance is very much at odds with that of his in-laws, but it doesn't take much research to know that, only to know what his wife's mother's maiden name was. (Kennedy, for those who don't know. And, yes, those Kennedys.)
But let us take a generic immigrant; let us not discuss Schwarzenegger or Obama (not that he's an immigrant, but whatever) or anyone else in particular. Let us merely discuss Hypothetical Immigrant X. Say the Constitution has been amended so that Hypothetical Immigrant X can now run for President. It is generally true that Presidential candidates have gone through some aspect of the US electoral system already, though only three have ever been sitting Senators. (Harding, Kennedy, and now Obama.) But suppose our Hypothetical Immigrant X also managed to, oh, become governor of a state. (I don't know about citizenship requirements for most states, because it's never come up for me.) That gives them knowledge of how the system works, and it tends to suggest that they've been around long enough to understand the problems of at least that region.
It should be noted that I am not entirely sure how I feel about the restriction as it stands. I think I would rather prefer a "you must have lived in the US X number of years," which I think is close to the original intent of the thing.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 10, 2008 19:25:56 GMT -4
I'm sure the reason for the rule is that they were concerned about where the Presidents loyalties would be. They wouldn't want Schwarzenegger (for example) giving Austria special treatment that is not in the best interests of the United States. That is understandable, I guess.
But now you have Presidents and Vice Presidents whose loyalties to oil companies and weapons makers (and their own pocketbooks) seem to outweigh their loyalty to their country. I think that is far more dangerous than Obama's connection to Kenya.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Nov 10, 2008 19:33:45 GMT -4
It should be noted that I am not entirely sure how I feel about the restriction as it stands. I think I would rather prefer a "you must have lived in the US X number of years," which I think is close to the original intent of the thing. But that isn't what it says. I agree, 'living in the US X years' makes moresense, along with citizenship, it shows that you have a stake in what happens to the country, and that your not just an 'import talent'. But the law says differently, and I think that's wrong. I guess the founding fathers didn't want any of them foreign types running the country. [edit] I'm sure the reason for the rule is that they were concerned about where the Presidents loyalties would be. Your right, it makes a tad more sense now, or at least it would have then. Now, not so much.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 10, 2008 20:15:33 GMT -4
I know that isn't what it says; I, for one, have read the entire document in question. I'm saying that it's at least part of what was meant.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 10, 2008 22:27:51 GMT -4
If an American president didn't need to be born in the States, there's a good chance that Henry Kissinger might have been President instead of Jimmy Carter.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Nov 10, 2008 23:34:15 GMT -4
I know that isn't what it says; I, for one, have read the entire document in question. I'm saying that it's at least part of what was meant. That scrap doesn't look very ambiguous to me in its meaning. Its intent much more so however. Some context would be appropriate. Do you know where I can find an online copy of the entire document?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 10, 2008 23:38:12 GMT -4
The prohibition against naturalized citizens serving as president is simply an artifact of the constitution that no one has gotten around to ammending out yet. Though there is a proposed ammendment to remove the requirement, nobody has thought it worth the trouble up to now (it takes a lot of work to ammend the Constitution). The reason it was there in the first place is that the founding fathers were worried about foreign nations turning us into a puppet state - back when the U.S. was relatively weak.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Nov 10, 2008 23:48:32 GMT -4
The prohibition against naturalized citizens serving as president is simply an artifact of the constitution that no one has gotten around to ammending out yet. Though there is a proposed ammendment to remove the requirement, nobody has thought it worth the trouble up to now (it takes a lot of work to ammend the Constitution). The reason it was there in the first place is that the founding fathers were worried about foreign nations turning us into a puppet state - back when the U.S. was relatively weak. Well, it should be amended. I think I'll become an American citizen just so I can complain. What's the fastest way besides getting married or joining the military?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 11, 2008 0:23:28 GMT -4
Well, it should be amended. I think I'll become an American citizen just so I can complain. What's the fastest way besides getting married or joining the military? Being born here.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Nov 11, 2008 0:36:39 GMT -4
Well, it should be amended. I think I'll become an American citizen just so I can complain. What's the fastest way besides getting married or joining the military? Being born here. If that was an option, I wouldn't be asking. ;D And yes, I do believe I have seen what you did there.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 11, 2008 1:21:58 GMT -4
Well, it should be amended. I think I'll become an American citizen just so I can complain. What's the fastest way besides getting married or joining the military? Applying for a visa at your local embassy, I believe. I'm not entirely sure of the process, I must admit. However, I don't think an amendment is in the offing any time soon. The people who want it changed so there could be a (shudder) President Schwarzenegger wouldn't want just any old immigrant to be President, after all, and I don't think enough of the US population is interested in a change to vote it in over the objections of the anti-immigration crowd. Oh, and Wikisource appears to have the entire document online. A search on Wikipedia under "US Constitution" bears much fruit.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Nov 11, 2008 7:46:08 GMT -4
On a (not entirely on-topic) related note, how is Schwarzenegger doing as Governor of California? Is he a good politician?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 11, 2008 8:49:28 GMT -4
He managed to get reelected, so at least he was thought better than his opponent by a majority of voters. California is a very politically diverse state with groups at the far ends of the political spectrum and some that are just plain wacko. From what I've read, Schwarzenegger manages to find coalitions among his party and the more moderate and pragmatic Democrats.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 11, 2008 13:32:23 GMT -4
However, I don't think an amendment is in the offing any time soon. The people who want it changed so there could be a (shudder) President Schwarzenegger wouldn't want just any old immigrant to be President, after all, and I don't think enough of the US population is interested in a change to vote it in over the objections of the anti-immigration crowd. It's not an anti-immigrant attitude, it's simply apathy - few people view the ardous process of ammending the Constitution as worth the effort in this case.
|
|