If you could, would you repeal the law that prohibits non-U.S. born citizens from running for President?

Question

We say we're a free country. A democracy. A land where any person can be anything if they work hard enough and have the talent.

In America, things you can't change about yourself should never be a technicality that prevents you from doing something. If you're not smart enough to be President, or if you were once convicted of a certain crime, or if you're not a citizen then of course you can't run. But should any citizen in good standing be able to run for ANY office including the Presidency?

You could get a great, talented person who came here when they were a week old and they would be prohibited from running. That's just silly.

My suggestion for the law is this: You don't have to be born in the USA to run. You have to be a citizen and at least 25 years old. And you have to have lived in the USA for a minimum of 15 years continuously.

Hey folks, if you don't like someone, then just don't vote for them.

What do you think?

Answer 1

Yes I would. Any citizen of this country should be able to lead it. The requirement to be born here is an anachronism from an entirely different age. Why would we want to prevent someone who could do the job from doing so solely because of an accident of birth?

Answer 2

Not surprisingly I find myself in total agreement with the replier ¨sage-an...¨(somewhere above me) who always makes a good case for any opinion expressed.

As things stand,a child born on an Indian Reservation,let's say in Arizona or Florida,can never be the president of the U.S. because, technically, Reservations are not U.S. soil. If a woman were visiting a reservation and went into labour and if her child were born on the reservation,that child would automatically be excluded from ever becoming president - even if he were a direct descendant of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson,Princess Pocohantas,and Martin Luther King.

The son of Douglas MacArthur could never have become president,for example,because he was born in the Philippines.

The U.S. is a world power - an economic world power as well as a military one. We have citizens working all over the globe both in a private as well as an official capacity. It stands to reason that these men and women will mate and breed and that their progeny will often be born outside the U.S. where their parents are engaged in business,the arts,academia etc etc. Why should these children have less rights than the child of an illegal alien who made it across the border into the U.S. 5 minutes before going into labour?

I'm a conservative in that I believe that anything that works should probably not be tampered with without long and considered thought.
But a law makes no sense when our society doesn't benefit from it. We should not be restricting the pool from which our future leaders will come.

MEG(just below me): I am sorry to have to correct you but ONLY an American born on U.S. soil can become the president. I know. It is precisely my own case and that of my brothers and sisters and many other Americans with whom I grew up and went to school with in different countries.

Please read what I wrote re MacArthur. I said his SON,not he himself. It was his son who couldn't ever run for president.

Answer 3

The Founding Fathers were wise men and did not want the old motherland to send someone here, finance them and have them take control.

This should definitely stand and not be changed.

Although something like this could happen with a citizen born here it is less likely and there should be some high standards for President. I can think of nothing higher than being born and raised in the United States. At least this gives us some extra measure of safety.

I also think that children born here in the United States from people that are not legal citizens should not be granted citizenship. This was never the intent of those that came before us and is simply a ridiculous interpretation of our laws.
This needs to be addressed immediately.

God Bless America

Answer 4

You do not have to be born in the US, you have to be born a citizen of the US. There is a difference.
I do not like constitutional changes unless there is a compelling reason, and I do not find that there is a shortage of candidates that meet the constitutional requirement.

Note: The previous post is in error. MacArthur not only could run for president but he did. His name was on Republican Party primary ballots in a number of states prior to the 1948 election.

Answer 5

I disagree, respectfully of course. The leader of the free world, the leader of our country needs to be a natural born citizen. An born American leading America. Sure, some one brought here a week after they were born may be a great choice but I want no other country claiming one of their own is our leader. Let him or her run for Congress but not the Presidency.

Answer 6

Around 3,000,000 people are born in this country every year. Three hundred million people live here. Somewhere in there we should be able to generate a viable presidential candidate every four years. I know, it doesn't seem like it, but why should we have to look to Austria (just an example) for president?
Besides, it would open the door to all kinds of possibilities. I think the guys that invented this country had the right idea.

Answer 7

Currently you have to be at least 35 years old to run for president, why would they lower it to 25?

Answer 8

there is no I.Q test for the presidency, and you can run if you have been convicted of a crime,.....but you must be a U.S. born citizen to run,.....that is the constitution, and that's the way it is,.....

Answer 9

No, I don't think it should be changed.
Being born in America means that a person is raised with certain assumptions about personal freedom and rights from their first memory forward.
This is a requirement.

Answer 10

I think it might be good idea to repel it- its not a priority for me right now though