why can't a naturalized citizen run for President? what is the logic behind that constitutional amendment?

Question

why does the President have to be born an American citizen?

Answer 1

The framers were very suspicious of government, with good reason. They saw first hand how unbridled power was used to overtax the people and make them suffer. I believe they would be horrified at today's monstrous government that recognizes no real limits on its power. The particular provision you are talking about was meant to keep a foreign nation from sending a loyal citizen over here to get naturalized then seek the presidency. Such a person could do great damage to our nation if a situation ever came up that would require action against the nation they were loyal to at heart. That is the reason why.

Answer 2

As a naturalized citizen, I am perfectly content with not being able to run for president. America is for Americans. If a naturalized citizen could run, then what would stop some megalomaniac from coming over and attempting to take over the country?

Naturalized citizens can run for positions of extreme power and influence in the US. That does not mean that they should be able to take the supreme position. I don't think that this is even a major question to address. Who are the potential foreign-born candidates? Arnold Schwarzenegger? One thing America is not short of is politicians.

Perhaps an ancillary issue that should be addressed is whether all children born within the boundaries of the US are American citizens.

Answer 3

I believe the origin was that the founding fathers did not want someone who had been born in the West Indies (I forget who) to gain the office so they came up with the clause in the Constitution.

Nowadays, one could argue that the post of President should only be held by someone who has no allegiance to any other country. I am Scottish but hope to take American citizenship very shortly. I am pretty well assimilated into American society but a little bit of me will always be Scottish. That is only natural, I think. To have someone with split loyalties like that as the Chief Executive of the world's most powerful nation is asking for trouble somewhere along the line.

Of course, even if I were qualified, I doubt I'd be President, but I'm sure you see the point I'm trying to make.

Answer 4

Not an amendment, it was always thus. Reason originally was to make sure that no one coming from Europe would gain power and use the US as a surrogate in an intra-European squabble. Don't forget, Europe was still sort of feudal back then, and for quite a long time beyond. The assumption was that someone actually born in the US would not be burdened by Old World allegiances and enmities.

I think it all still makes sense today. There is no one person from abroad who is so superior to anyone who is already eligible for the office, and there never will be - I'm talking statistically, not xenophobically. I just see no need to rock the boat on this one. If someone from abroad - say, Skip, above me here - is solid in their allegiance to the US, then they'll be happy with the prospect of their own native-born children becoming president one day.

------------

NOTE to JS (first answerer): Golda Meir, Prime Minister of Israel during the 1967 conflict, was born and raised in Wisconsin. In India, the head of the Congress Party is (or recently was) Sonia Gandhi, born and raised in Italy.

It's not that it's unusual elsewhere, it's just that it's American as it is.

NOTE to PATH2631: That's not true, as long as you filed the paperwork at your son's birth to ensure he's a US citizen. His rights are the same as mine. We've had military-brat candidates born overseas before (I just can't remember who right now).

Answer 5

The United States was formed to a new country, not following the attitudes and rules of prevous countries. Our founding fathers decided that a President should be born in the USA because of an apparent concern that someone born outside of the USA would have different values, concepts and a focus for the country.

Why change what is not broke and has been good enough for the USA to remain a world power for over 100 years!

Answer 6

Because John Connor went back in time and warned them about the Terminator's infiltration of the U.S. political system. He wanted the Article to include ALL government positions, but the Founding Fathers didn't believe the Federal government should have ANY authority over the States' Rights to regulate themselves. That, and they couldn't figure out what the hell a cyborg was. Consequently, you've got a T-101 as the governor of Cali, but he'll never rule the country.

Answer 7

I think its time to amend the Constitution. Someone like California Governer Arnold Schwarchenegger would make a good president. I don't think he is any less patriotic then any of the current candidates just because he was born in Austria.

Answer 8

Yes, it is very ridiculous. You could be a brilliant mind, very logical, qualified for president, and born in England, and came to the US just weeks old. You could not run. Is that fair at all? I'm not sure why we don't trust foreigners. Most of them are better qualified than half the presidents we've been through.

Answer 9

It's not an amendment.It was such a significant concept that it is in Section 1 Article II of the Constitution. Additionally to be President you have to be a Natural US citizen and have resided in the US for 14 years.

Answer 10

They will owe an allegiance to another country and be dual citizens so in theory could be potential traitors. George Washington and the founding fathers as citizens of the Great British Empire w. an allegiance to King George would have known that well as they fomented revolution and raised a guerrilla army against their home country and government.