just because someone was born in another country then 5 minutes later came to the U.S. is not allowed to be president. There is nothing that keeps a native born citizen who has spent 90% of their time out of the country, from being president. I think people who oppose changing the law havn't thought it through. The law is outdated and hypocritical. It was written when it took 6 months or more to cross the atlantic, Canada was still part of the UK and noone expected a south american would have a chance. I'm not suggesting that Arnold Schwartenegger would be a good president, but there are plenty of others who could be.
2007-07-01 03:06:23 · 8 answers · asked by wisemancumth 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
to the second answer, ever heard of the amendment process. To the third answer, how is a 5 year old kid turning his back on his country?
2007-07-01 03:22:49 · update #1
to the 7th answer, I think your simple mind is refering to the 14 yr residency requirment. Being a resident doesn't require that you be in the country, so try again.
2007-07-01 03:37:33 · update #2
Those born in other countries have indelible allegiance to their country of origin and might be a threat to national security when becoming a President. Likewise, under the Constitution only natural born citizens can become President.
Thus, even when someone was born and was transferred to the US after five minutes, this person is either a Mexican or Canadian and not a US citizen.
2007-07-01 03:20:08 · answer #1 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
why not allow non-native americans to be President?
Because it is against the law. (US Constitution). There is a procedure to change the law. (Article V of the US Constitution) If you believe you can get a majority of Americans in 3/4 of the states to go along with you, have at it. The bar for altering the US Constitution is intentional high so temporarily popular ideas are forced to stand up to crucial debate and scrutiny.
There is nothing that keeps a native born citizen who has spent 90% of their time out of the country, from being president
Uh, no. Unless you thing someone is going to run for the presidency at the age of 140. (See article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution, specifically qualifications for the presidency.)
2007-07-01 10:25:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I've wondered the same thing. The reason behind the law though, is that a foreign-born citizen might still be loyal to his native land so he would show some kind of bias towards that country. However, I find the rule as flawed because many people were born in other countries but spent 99% of their lives in the U.S. The rule should be changed. You should have to live in the country for at least 20 years. That would weed out the un-sincere people.
2007-07-01 10:19:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because the Constitution says so, and should remain that way. We have enough problems with immigration, the last thing we need is an immigrant leader. We have enough native born people qualified to lead, let's not screw it up.
I come from a very short line of immigrants, so I am not anti-immigrant. I just think the American President should be born an American. Then there is NO question of his loyalty in a crisis.
2007-07-01 10:21:39 · answer #4 · answered by MajorTom © 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This article was written in to the constitution to ensure that no foreign agent could become president and to make sure no president ever had to decide between the old motherland and the new fatherland ( us ). While it might not seem fair it has worked. No American president has ever had to decide between America or his native land in the event of war. The closest was the civil war when President Buchanan failed to act against the southern states ( including his home state ) allowing them to organize. Costing America 600,000 lives. So you see the article is in the constitution for a reason.
2007-07-01 10:52:03 · answer #5 · answered by old-bald-one 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I like the law myself. I believe if you ar going to turn your back on your home country you should not have the priviledge to work for your new country. You are probably not the most sentimental person about where you are and may not be the most devoted. You might be the best candidate in some ways but I think the devotion will always be questionable.
2007-07-01 10:12:14 · answer #6 · answered by eldude 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The U.S. Constitution
2007-07-01 10:10:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Whaaaaat? Machiavelli said "never heed the advice of immigrants."
2007-07-01 10:10:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋