Should people not born in the United States be allowed to run for president?

Question

Many of us know that the constitution states that to run for president, one needs to be at least a 35 year-old person who was born in the US and has lived here for at least 14 years. So, if you were born in, let's say, Canada, and moved to the US when you were one year old, you can't run for president, regardless of if you lived in the United States for the rest of your life. Is the policy that you have to be born in the United States to run for president fair? Should we amend the constitution?

Answer 1

I think that if person was raised in the united states they should be able to run for president, where you are born has no impact on where your are raised. And you patriotism

Answer 2

I think that if someone legally immigrated to the US as a child and is a citizen and meets al of the other requirements then they should be able to be president. It would require a constitutional amendment but it's hard to see that happening in the foreseeable future.
UPDATE - A person who is born here isn't necessarily any more loyal than someone who moves here when they're 5. My grandfather and his brothers were all born in Italy. They all either served in the armed forces during WW2 or worked in defense plants even though we were at war with Italy. Where you live and grow up influences you're loyalties more than where you were actually born.

Answer 3

I think this should be amended, but not throw it wide open. Right now, people born to Americans outside the country (born on vacation or on a military base) cannot run for president. But someone (not naming anyone!) could sneak into the country and have a kid here, who could become president.
Also, being born here doesnt necessarily mean that you are more patriotic than a foriegn-born person that has lived here for 50 years.
I dont know the best compromise, but it should be something along the line of allowing for foreign-born with a residence of 30 years and military service, and foriegn-born to at least one American parent (solve the military base problem).

Answer 4

'No" the reason is, for Security of the United States. If it were up to me, it would not even be that, but a lot longer. like your parents will have to live here at least 20 years. before you were born. and then to reach the age of 35.

It is all about Security.

Answer 5

Absolutely not. This is one of the basics set up when this country was founded. The people who wrote and ratified the constitution wanted to make sure that the President would be ABSOLUTELY loyal to this country and no other.

Sorrry Arnold. You can run for Senate if you want, but that's about it.

Answer 6

No, we don't need to amend the Constitution. It's a fair policy and it should never be changed.

Answer 7

The U.S. Consititution states you would be wanting to be a "organic born citizen" to be president. modern State branch coverage reads: "regardless of well-known well-known concept, U.S. protection stress installations out of the country and U.S. diplomatic or consular centers are no longer portion of us of a of america in the meaning of the 14th exchange. a baby born on the premises of this form of facility isn't concern to the jurisdiction of us of a of america and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by potential of reason of beginning." As such, it McCain is a citizen by potential of regulation (becasue his mothers and dads are U.S.) yet no longer by potential of beginning, and is to that end no longer allowed by potential of the form to run for President. regardless of the undeniable fact that, as in many different circumstances, the Constitiution merely isn't accompanied, because it fairly is against the activity of the powerfull, who see the Consistution as in basic terms somewhat paper for use in basic terms whilst handy.

Answer 8

Its a requirement that I do not think needs to be changed. You are only eligible if you were born here. Pure and simple.

Answer 9

Not a chance.

Answer 10

NO!!!!!!!!