Requirements for native-born citizenship

[I Am Herenow]

As you will probably be aware, there is a constitutional requirement in the United States that, in effect, all candidates for the Presidency or Vice Presidency must have been born in the United States.¹ Although this may seem logical at first, I would argue that it were anything but, and that it were an unjust law.

I say this because native-born citizenship, unlike citizenship in general, is not something a person can do anything about, rather like their race or gender.² Thus, by analogy, asking that someone be born in a particular location is just as unfair as instituting a law officially barring all women from politics, say.

Therefore I feel that this, and any other, requirements for native-born citizenship should be changed to ones of citizenship in any form, so that people may be able to achieve whichever goals they wish without such insurmountable obstacles in their way as not having been born in the 'right' place.

I Am Herenow

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1. This is the only example of obligatory native-born citizenship specifically known to me, although if there are any others, then my argument applies to those too.
2. For the purposes of this, at least. That someone can technically change their gender does not change the argument, as it is unfair to ask some people to change their gender in order to be eligible for a particular position, whereas others do not have to do anything to qualify for said position. Moreover, one's place of birth certainly cannot be changed.

[War&Politics]

I think this is a very relevant issue that was fairly important in the recent presidential elections. John McCain was born in the Panama canal zone, but qualified for natural born citizenship because the canal zone was under US control. However, I can easily imagine a scenario where history turned out just a little differently and John McCain ends up not being a natural born citizen. The same goes for Obama who was accused by certain lunatic fringe elements of not being a natural born American citizen. Sadly, this was controversial enough that the Obama campaign actually had to dig out Obama's birth certificate to prove them wrong. In both cases natural born citizenship was or could have been an issue. It's time to do away with such antiquated laws.

[Stavroforos]

I don't think any citizens should have more rights than other citizens, so native-born citizens should be just as eligible as people who acquired citizenship in their lifetime.

[Arjun]

@ topic
i agree!

I don't think any citizens should have more rights than other citizens, so native-born citizens should be just as eligible as people who acquired citizenship in their lifetime.

well said! there cannot be a hierarchy amongst citizens.

[Каие]

In Britain you don't even have to be a British citizen to be Prime Minister.

[conon394]

As you will probably be aware, there is a constitutional requirement in the United States that, in effect, all candidates for the Presidency or Vice Presidency must have been born in the United States.1 Although this may seem logical at first, I would argue that it were anything but, and that it were an unjust law.

I say this because native-born citizenship, unlike citizenship in general, is not something a person can do anything about, rather like their race or gender.2 Thus, by analogy, asking that someone be born in a particular location is just as unfair as instituting a law officially barring all women from politics, say.

Therefore I feel that this, and any other, requirements for native-born citizenship should be changed to ones of citizenship in any form, so that people may be able to achieve whichever goals they wish without such insurmountable obstacles in their way as not having been born in the 'right' place.

But it does grapple with an issue of divided loyalties a naturalized citizen is likely to retain some links to his or her home country - given when the law was put in place and relative life expectancy and travel difficulties a natural born citizen much less so...

[Boer]

This is an interesting topic. On the one hand, I understand about not wanting someone born in another country to run "our" country. But, couldn't some one born in America still have divided loyalty? Wouldn't that come out in a modern, media heavy campaign?

I think we should get rid of the natural born part, but keep the part about live in the United States for at least 14 years to be president, and maybe make it longer [I've always thought 14 was an odd number to pick].

[CtrlAltDe1337]

I think the US system is good as it is. I don't want some random guy from a different country running my government.

[Misery]

I think the US system is good as it is. I don't want some random guy from a different country running my government.

This is attitude that I expect from American... what kind of difference would it be if Obama was born anywhere else in the world then moved into America when he was 6 months old.

Plus if you change your law you might be governed by more intelligent leaders.

[War&Politics]

I think the US system is good as it is. I don't want some random guy from a different country running my government.

As I have argued earlier that "random guy" could easily have been Obama and McCain. Especially McCain who was not actually born in the USA but managed to get natural born citizenship because where he was born was at the time under US control, if it were not for some legal technicalities he could easily have been a natural born Panamanian. Is John McCain a random guy from a different country?

[YuriVII]

I am an immigrant in the USA and I think the law should stay. Divided loyalties and such. Plus I dont want Ahhhnold to become the gubernator von Amerika.

[I Am Herenow]

In Britain you don't even have to be a British citizen to be Prime Minister.

Interesting; I was told recently that you have to be a British national (is that the same thing as being a British citizen, by the way?) to work in the Foreign Office, so it's mildly amusing that you don't in order to become PM.

But it does grapple with an issue of divided loyalties a naturalized citizen is likely to retain some links to his or her home country.

Divided loyalties and such.

I'm not sure I'm buying it; this sort of generalisation smacks of the all-women-are-emotional-and-hence-shouldn't-have-the-vote arguments of early Twentieth Century Britain. If we now believe that the argument that all women are fickle is nonsense, then surely we must believe the same about the argument that all foreigners are traitors? Moreover, if a naturalised citizen were to come to power where you lived, what exactly do you imagine they would do? sell your country to their home country? make it a colony thereof? Be rational here. Unless you live in a nation governed by an absolute monarch or dictator, your political leader will not have the power to take such drastic action even if they wanted to - not that they would.

I dont want Ahhhnold to become the gubernator von Amerika.

what kind of difference would it be if Obama was born anywhere else in the world then moved into America when he was 6 months old

This is the other issue I have with such provisions: they seem to be used to stop people getting into power who might have a chance otherwise. It seems unfair to bar them from trying by law; simply vote for another candidate if you do not wish them to govern you. I feel that there is a clear difference between it being impossible for a non-native-born citizen to acquire a particular position de facto because of the mindset of the public, and them being stopped from doing so de iure.

I think we should get rid of the natural born part, but keep the part about live in the United States for at least 14 years to be president, and maybe make it longer [I've always thought 14 was an odd number to pick].

I would certainly not mind provisions such as these; indeed, I would support them. This is because anyone can do something about fulfilling these criteria (namely, by living in the US for long enough), and the criterion does seem logical as it ensures a thorough understanding of the country on the part of the candidate for high office.

I Am Herenow

[Yorkshireman]

Interesting; I was told recently that you have to be a British national (is that the same thing as being a British citizen, by the way?) to work in the Foreign Office, so it's mildly amusing that you don't in order to become

You can become a member of parliament if you are a British, Irish or Commonwealth citizen, but in reality if your in the country long enough to become an MP and then leader of one of the major parties and go on to become PM, its more than likely that you'll by then be a British citizen.

[Каие]

You can become a member of parliament if you are a British, Irish or Commonwealth citizen, but in reality if your in the country long enough to become an MP and then leader of one of the major parties and go on to become PM, its more than likely that you'll by then be a British citizen.

Exactly, there is actually an American dual national in the Tory front bench team and a pole in the backbenches, but by the time one Parliamentary term is up, 5 years, they are eligible for citizenship.

[Soulghast]

I'll have to agree that being a native born citizen should confer absolutely no additional privileges than those of a person who acquires citizenship later. The "divided loyalty" argument does not apply here at all. Being native born does not rule out anything, nor does it make a candidate more suitable. After all it's up to the voters to elect a president/prime minister, and they should be entrusted with making the right decision, by not electing someone that could prove to be troublesome. Such requirements really serve no purpose.

[Viking Prince]

I'll have to agree that being a native born citizen should confer absolutely no additional privileges than those of a person who acquires citizenship later. The "divided loyalty" argument does not apply here at all. Being native born does not rule out anything, nor does it make a candidate more suitable. After all it's up to the voters to elect a president/prime minister, and they should be entrusted with making the right decision, by not electing someone that could prove to be troublesome. Such requirements really serve no purpose.

or the sake of this discussion, let's concede for the moment that there should be no difference in being a native born to having been born elswhere and immigrated here when one month old. Not let us suppose that you are in your fifties and just qualified and received your naturalization papers. Divided loyalties can clearly be an issue in the second case. So where do you draw the line? The simple solution is to not bother and simply require natural born citizenship.

Remember that this is only for President. Unlike Rome's example from the UK where it is a parliamentary system with a special history of empire, the President is not subject needing a majority of his party in the legislature and thus continue with the support of the party as well. The president is in for 4 years regardless of popularity and can only be removed under special conditions.

The natural born requirement does not exist for the Supreme Court, cabinet officials, or legislative elected positions.

[I Am Herenow]

me and my father [who was born in England mind you] both agree that if your not born in America you should not be to become president as CtrlAltDe1337 said i don't want some guy from a different country running my government.

Making it possible for people to run for office and voting for them are two different things. To quote Soulghast:

After all it's up to the voters to elect a president/prime minister, and they should be entrusted with making the right decision, by not electing someone that could prove to be troublesome.

For instance, I doubt that many people would vote for a political candidate who is similar in appearance to this man, regardless of where that candidate was born, by virtue of their appearance. However, that is not to say that a law should be introduced explicitly forbidding all people with tattoos on their heads from running for high office. Conversely, if your prejudices prevent you from voting for "guys from different countries", to paraphrase, then a law giving them the possibility of running for office does not compel you to vote for them.

let's concede for the moment that there should be no difference in being a native born to having been born elswhere and immigrated here when one month old. Not let us suppose that you are in your fifties and just qualified and received your naturalization papers. Divided loyalties can clearly be an issue in the second case. So where do you draw the line? The simple solution is to not bother and simply require natural born citizenship.

As Boer and Soulghast have said, people should be given the choice to vote for who they wish and decide for themselves whether someone has "divided loyalties" or not; or do you think a law telling them who is acceptable is necessary because they are incapable of making that decision themselves?

The natural born requirement does not exist for the Supreme Court, cabinet officials, or legislative elected positions.

That is irrelevant: the fact that there should be any job restrictions which are literally impossible to overcome should be enough of a spur for people to try to argue against such a system.

I Am Herenow

[King dude man]

me and my father [who was born in England mind you] both agree that if your not born in America you should not be to become president as CtrlAltDe1337 said i don't want some guy from a different country running my government.

[Last Roman]

me and my father [who was born in England mind you] both agree that if your not born in America you should not be to become president as CtrlAltDe1337 said i don't want some guy from a different country running my government.

any particular reason why? if he's loyal to the country he's in now, then I don't see a problem

perhaps we make it a requirement that they've been in the states for a certain amount of time like representatives.

[I Am Herenow]

That already exists for US Presidential candidates (14 years), and, as I say, I'm not against that sort of provision as it is something anyone can achieve.

I Am Herenow