Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Not a good idea: In the news: Lawmakers weigh foreign-born for presidentIt's not about Arnold, lawmakers indicated. But the California governor was certainly one of the rising stars on many minds Tuesday as a Senate panel talked about amending the Constitution to let immigrants occupy the White House.
Measures discussed by the senators would remove the prohibition against foreign-born presidents, opening the job to Arnold Schwarzenegger and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, along with millions of others.
"This restriction has become an anachronism that is decidedly un-American," said Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Count us as a skeptic on this one. Why? Look at some famous non-native leaders in history: In the three instances above, the leader came from an outlying region (Georgia), a historically disconnected territory (Corsica), or a border state (Austria). It's interesting that all three ended up being dictators, and powerful ones at that. There is something about a foreigner becoming the leader of another state. We don't know what it is, but there must be an aspect to a person's character that makes him unsatisfied with being a leader in his native land - and looking to advance somewhere else - typically a stronger state (militarily or economic). Why take the chance?
posted by Quiddity at 10/05/2004 09:10:00 PM
11 comments
I thought the American Dream was that any American boy or girl can grow up to be president...not any foreign-born boy or girl?
To me, it doesn't seem like such an equal-opportunity issue as Hatch would like to make it. Arnold should go run for Chancellor of Austria. Or King of Prussia.
Keep it up you guys at uggabugga!
Wow...that was hugely offensive. First of all, many people immigrate, yes, in hopes of a better life and more opportunities. I wasn't aware this was a negative trait. When my parents left Communist Romania, they did hope for a better life, and thank goodness, in Canada,
Your assumption that immigrants who want to become leaders in their adopted nations are dictators-in-waiting, with some unnatural compulsion to power, is preposterous. It's a very disturbing nativist, xenophobic point of view.
Why stop at barring access to the Presidency? Why not nar foreigners from any elective office? Or hell, even from voting in elections? Because, you know, you can never be sure about those foreigners....
So what about Mao or Pol-Pot or Saddam Hussein? They were "native" as far as I know. On the other hand the named "foreign" dictators came from regions with quite a bad reputation for sociopaths. So I think, that if there is a rule at all, it would be: Don't elect an Austrian (nothing against Arnold personally) as supreme ruler. The "no unnative" rule has its merits but should not be an absolute (What if you become citizen at the age of 2 or 5 or 10, where is the natural limit?)
And when Jerry Garcia died people said "Garcia was not the Greatful Dead" but guess what...he was. Of course this is about Arnold and the other Repugs his election would pull along with him. It is a poor argument to say that dictators are foreign born but there is some merit to saying that you shold be of your country to run it. Just as you see with deregulation that there are good erasons ot have some things regulated the same would be true for this. And don't forget, you would have this amendment forever, past any term Arnold would serve. (who's to say he is an effective leader anyway. This aint a movie and he hasn't shown much more than a facade.)
Ps. Yeah, it does undercut the argument if you mention that Bush is American but lets think beyond him ok.
There's nothing offensive at all about having reservations to this BS, nor is there anything inherently racist in thinking that maybe you ought to be born, and have spent significant time here, in order to be our head Of State. It's a really, really big deal who leads us.
The fact is, there is a substantial difference in cultural understanding, between people who grew up understanding the ins and outs of American (and by extension, western) culture, and those who came here as adults, that I think ought to be considered when considering qualifications to be the leader of a nation. A foreign born citizen understands policy and therefore is fully qualified to be in the cabinet or congress, but frankly, I shouldn't be allowed to move to Spain and become their PM, and I'm distinctly uncomfortable with the idea that an Austrian would represent us to, say, Austria. Or an English President representing us to England. Etc etc. Other countries don't allow such nonsense, so how is it bigotry for us to act likewise?
There's nothing wrong with reserving at least one thing strictly for people born here, who grew up here, who are in every aspectculturally American, either. Sure, immigrant parents might not be able to be president, but their kids can. That's not exactly bigotry. Hatch's little amendment would completely the process of limiting the presidency to the highest bidder only. It would forever end the possibility that you could come from humble beginnings to be the leader of the nation. And it would allow us to be represented by people who have a dual understanding of national identity, not something I want in my president.
I might support such an amendment if it included a provision limiting the expansion of the right to become president only to those foreign born citizens who spent the bulk of the childhood in the US. The point is, in my estimation, to ensure a soley American outlook on leading the nation. People who came here as very young children would, in this view, be equally qualified as people born here. but people who moved here as young adults or older? Too bad, wait for your kids.
I'm not questioning the Loyalty of foreign born citizens, just their ability to effectively be a voice for the entire citizenry. This isn't Ancient Rome, and I don't want an imperial system where the leadership is effectively selected by voting blocks of foreigners who have no real clue what it's like growing up here. I think it isn't beyond the pale to suggest that we do things differently than lots of other places, and perhaps we ought to make sure our President fully understands that. Besides, we're perfectly capable of electing Native Born dictators, why outsource the job to republicans from other countries?
rupert murdoch. s.y. moon. ahnold. the list goes on and on.
for all those defending good immigrants: you're right to point out that most are just that. but the simple fact is that only those with money may rule in america, and the last thing we need is a rich wackjob like any of the above mentioned ruining this nation further. our own emperor is doing just fine, and i can't worry about anything worse these days.
"The fact is, there is a substantial difference in cultural understanding, between people who grew up understanding the ins and outs of American (and by extension, western) culture, and those who came here as adults, that I think ought to be considered when considering qualifications to be the leader of a nation."
Please, are you saying that the current candidates have any more cultural understanding of middle class America than someone who grew up in a different country? Our current president buys $40k pairs of boots and the other candidate isn't much better with his $20k worth of ties.
I could easily see somone who grew up in a different country have more of an understanding of what being an average American is than these uber-upper-class career politicians.
It's not a wild supposition to consider a child raised in the US by foreign-born parents (and foreign-born him or herself) and being a sleeper agent for a belligerent power. It's not at all farfetched. The same law that protects Ahnuld and his rich Repugnican friends would allow the sleeper agent to grow up here, thrive, and make his or her way into a position of power.
There's a reason the framers did what they did. I'd prefer not to tinker with the mix just to help a few right-wingers with a wet dream.
Curse you! You've seen through my evil dictator-from-an-adjacent-nation ploy!
Sincerely,
Jennifer Granholm,
Governor of Michigan, naturalized Canadian, and the orgasmic party-unifying blowout runaway landslide victor in 2012 or 2016 elections if that proposed amendment passed.
I find the framing of this requirement as a civil rights issue to be absurd. It's a red herring. As if this were somehow about how a citizen's (in this case naturalized) rights are being infringed upon. Look, this isn't you, OK? It's about the right of the entire citizenry of the US to be confident that any fellow citizen they elect to the highest and most powerful office in the land be above the suspicion that they may have a conflict of interest, a conflicted sense of loyalty. This should not, and does not impugn the patriotism or loyalty of any single individual naturalized citizen.
There's also a requirement for the office of the presidency that the president be at least 35 years of age. One could likewise argue that this is completely arbitrary and unfair and is infringing on the rights of citizens who are under 35. We all know people who are younger than 35 who possess the wisdom and maturity of those many years older. And we also know people who are over 35 who are completely immature, foolish and irresponsible. Just think of the hard-partying, drunkard that George W. Bush was until he was 40.
This is some very silly but potentially dangerous bit of demagoguery for short term political gain.
It's not a civil rights issue.
-Barry Freed
While I would not want Arnold as President I am not sure the born here thing is that critical anymore. I have a friend in Thailand, who was born here although he never lived here. Great guy, but doesn't speak English well or really know much about American culture or politics. In theory he could be elected, while Madeline Albright could not.
Maybe it could be adjusted like the Olympics rules. You can run for President in the country of your citizenship, your parents citizenship, or your grandparents citizenship, but only for one at a time.
|
