DescentBB

I was watching the news the other morning and they were talking about how statistically Arnie is doing a pretty good job, and many are surprised. The anchor was asked about his future and she said, "who knows, congress, senate, maybe even president!" Then the other anchor corrected her, "he can't be president."

I am not sure if this is a bi-partisan issue, if it is I don't know where "my party" lies. But I do think that the "native born president only" law has out lived its necessity. Before the massive media force that we have today, it could have easily gone unnoticed that someone wasn't born here. But now a days there is no doubt in my mind that if a Republican foreigner ran for President, whoever it was, that the Dems would make sure that everyone in America knew that he wasn't born here, and Vice versa.

I think the bottom line is, for me, the American population still has to vote him in. So I guess I no longer see any need for the restraint on who "the people" can elect.

I definitely see a problem with it. I also have a problem with Hillary Clinton moving into my state 30 days before being elected to the Senate. She has no clue what it's like to live in New York, much less the overpopulated population center that is the NYC metro area (she and Billy-boy moved upstate). I think that opening the presidency up to foreigners would create a dangerous vulnerability to outside control. Can you imagine the outrage if an American were selected as the British Prime Minister or the German Chancellor, for example?

there is enough loopholes and problems with the current systems to allow anyone from anywhere to control any country by proxy.

regarding US politics; keeping an american as "the friendly american face to the administration" is just pandering to the stupidity of the lowest common denominator who vote with their white hoods.

"american interests" arn't per-se in control of america. it's always "the money" or "the influence" in control, just so happens america is where "the money" is currently living . "the influence" is not quite as centralised around america, but it generally DOES follow the money.

"the money" and "the influence" know no borders, and hold no loyalties. and since they are the ones really in control, the xenophobic throwback laws only act to draw attention away from the REAL here and now problem of:

"who controls our country, do we?".

(note: for those who missed the metaphors, "the money" is big business, and "the influence" is big media)

I think the door should be maybe let open to those people who move here, are naturalized, and live here for say, 25 years straight, and get involved politically during that time.

I also think theres something wrong with someone moving to a state 30 days before an election and winning it. Isnt there a provision in the constitution mandating that any senator must have been a resident of the respective state for X years? Al Franken is considering a run against Norm Coleman for the Senate here in MN, and hes been talking about how he has to make his decision soon because he would need to move back here to be eligible.

I do see your concern DCrazy. But still the bottom line is that, that is who we would want to run our Country. He would still have to be voted in. Also keep in mind that we all come from immigrants here.

A Mexican women sneaks over the boarder, has a baby, he can be president! Arnold went through the legalization process, did things by the books, has expressed a deep love for this country, and he can't be!

Saying it "can happen" doesn't mean it ever will, we would just be opening a closed door. And the only person who would have a chance would be someone like Arnold who has spent the majority of his life in the United States. You disliked New York voting in Hilary, but she is whom New York wanted.

I am not saying we need a foreigner President. But if Lincoln reincarnate is running and he happens to be from another country, why can't 'the people' vote for who they want?

I see this issue as just as much of a constraint on any voter as it is on an imigrant.

I believe Arnold has been an American longer then you have, (maybe me too)! Can you really say that you know what â??being an Americanâ?? is more then he does just because you were born here?

comparing aaaaahnold and hilary won't work in this case anyway. aaaaahnold has lived here a long time and knows as much if not more about our country than anyone else that can run for president. hilary lived in NY for 30 days and moved upstate, it's not close enough to relate.

The reason it was introduced was to stop first-generation americans who hadn't been assimilated into american culture from electing a similar person, thus putting a new culture in charge.

With the way mexican immirgration's looking, I advise you yanks keep hold of that law for now. The last thing you need is Castro Junior getting put in charge because of his latinoness (I'm aware that Castro is not mexican).

Castro was not elected in, and he was born in Cuba. He lead guerilla warfare movements that eventually over through the existing government. I don't believe your analogy works.

Even still, how does being born here prevent you from wanting to be a fascist dictator? A mexican women can still sneak over the boarder, have a baby, and he can be president. How is this child unique?

Goob, I think you're trying to hard to read racism and/or subtle implications into his post that aren't there.

I think the implication is simple: if we have a lot of people come from another country (and another culture) into this one and they get voting rights, they may vote for someone they're more comfortable with (someone from their culture) even if they'd make a worse leader. It's not a knock on Mexicans -- it's just recognition of human nature. If a whole bunch of us moved to Mexico and they let us vote for whoever we wanted for president, what are the chances we'd vote for some guy from the States instead of a native Mexican? I'd say fairly high -- because even if we disagree with the guy from our own country on a lot of the issues, at least we're comfortable with him. The same is true for various other groups of immigrants.

In the early days of the US, this was a lot more true than it is today -- back then, the country was getting a LOT of immigrants, and there was a very real danger of a leader trying to, essentially, bring the entire nation under someone else's throne. Nowadays, I don't think that danger exists.

I, for one, wouldn't mind the "born a citizen" requirement being removed (though I haven't thought much about it). But I would want to replace it with something -- say, a minimum citizenship requirement. Must be 35 years old, and must have been a citizen for at least 20 years, maybe? I wouldn't mind requirements like this also being placed on other representative offices. If Hillary wants to represent NY, she should have to live in NY for 10 years.

I think the implication is simple: if we have a lot of people come from another country (and another culture) into this one and they get voting rights, they may vote for someone they're more comfortable with (someone from their culture) even if they'd make a worse leader. It's not a knock on Mexicans -- it's just recognition of human nature.

...continuing. Since we have voting rights, wouldn't we also be likely to vote for someone that we are more comfortable with (someone from our culture) even if they'd make a worse leader? This isn't a knock on Americans, because everyone voting in our hypothetical scenario is one . (I don't want that point to slip or even be remotely vague! You wouldn't be knocking Mexicans, you would be knocking Americans that use to be Mexicans. I am certainly not arguing that illegal immigrants have a right to vote in America!).

I admit to completely missing the contrast between the two groups with respect to PRs post and yours, while keeping in mind that everyone who is voting is an American. 'They' could just as easily vote in a corrupt native-born American whose parents arn't even Americans, just because they're more comfortable with him.

...and I definitely agree that 20 years should be a minimum for presidency. Probably higher. Us natives have to have been Americans for 35 years before we can run, so I guess I would pick that same number for imigrants.

Since we have voting rights, wouldn't we also be likely to vote for someone that we are more comfortable with (someone from our culture) even if they'd make a worse leader?

Yes, I just said that (the "if we went down to Mexico" part of my post.)

[Slightly OT: By "not a knock on Mexicans" I mean "not a knock on US citizens who originally came from Mexico". It's shorter to say "Mexicans", and it shouldn't be at all misleading from the context.]

There isn't any difference between the two groups in my post. Stop looking for it -- it's not there. There is not intended to be any contrast. Those who come from country X will be likely to want someone from country X, or at least someone who understands country X's culture, to be their leader. That's true whether it's people coming from Mexico to the US, or from the US to Zimbabwe, or from Mars to Io. It's not just countries, either -- if a bunch of people moved from California to Nevada, wouldn't you expect them to at least lean a little towards voting for someone who also came from California?

There's an inherent danger there -- that people will immigrate, and then elect a leader whose loyalty lies with the place they just came from. I'm not saying it's necessarily a BIG danger -- just that it does exist. The framers of the constitution chose to deal with this by not allowing the president to have been born in another country. So, any attempt to change the "president must be born here" regulation *must* take this point into consideration. You can answer it by saying "it's not a big danger" if you want -- but you have to at least consider it enough to give that response.

Personally, I think it is still a danger. It's not huge, but it is still there. I think the "must have lived here for a lot of years" requirement is a perfectly adequate solution, though, and I think "born here" is overly restrictive. Both deal with the danger, but "live here a lot of years" seems more sensible to me. (And, like I said in my last post: I think the same should apply for senators, mayors, etc. If you're not from there, you're not "representative", are you?)

EDIT: Neither of these solves the problem of 'them' (or 'us') voting in a totally corrupt person who's native-born -- that's a separate issue. And neither of these solves the problem of voting in a native-born person who's loyal to another nation -- that's still a risk, though I believe it's a lot less of a risk than if we could vote in foreign-born people who hadn't been here for very long.

Yes, I just said that (the "if we went down to Mexico" part of my post.)

My reply was about here in America, not about 'if we go to Mexico.'

There isn't any difference between the two groups in my post. Stop looking for it -- it's not there

There is a contrast because you are not agreeing. Perhaps you wrote that because I didn't make it clear in my last responce that I was refering to Americans here in America? (not those who have traveled to Mexico)

Those who come from country X will be likely to want someone from country X, or at least someone who understands country X's culture, to be their leader.

With all due respect, you seem to have slightly lost the topic. Say we have alot from country X in our country. (I'll agree with everything in the above quote for now.) Why is someone that they elect who wasn't born here more likely to be worse then someone who they elect who understands their culture who was born here? A bunch of immigrants comming into this country and voting for someone who represents where they came from is not the topic of this thread, even if it may be a problem. (I know you have stated that you wouldn't care if the law was removed.) I am just asking that you please keep in mind that the context of my responce to PR was in the context of the topic.

you seem to have slightly lost the topic.

I don't know... I feel like you completely lost the topic in your response to PR, and went off in a completely different direction from what he was saying. I'm trying to pull you back toward where I think he was actually going. He went the direction of saying that the risk is "putting a new culture in charge" -- and I'm trying to explain why that might be a risk.

Your whole question of "how does being born here [make you not bad]?" seems completely irrelevant in response to his post, as does the statement about Castro not being elected (I don't think his point hinges at all on whether or not Castro was elected.) Neither of those statements relate to the question of putting another culture in charge. You say your response was "within the context of the topic", but I think you're trying too hard to strain his post into your preconceived idea of what the "context" was, instead of reading it for its own merits. Remember that context changes as conversation goes on.

So, to pull your first question back in the direction PR's post was going (which may not conform to what you think the context is): being born here doesn't make you less bad than being born elsewhere, and I don't think that was ever intended. But, being born here does mean you're much more likely to be immersed in this particular culture and our particular values, and therefore, much less likely to have loyalty to other values or other nations. It doesn't guarantee anything -- but it does change the likelihood somewhat. I'm not even sure that putting a different culture in charge is a "bad thing" (there's nothing that makes someone from our culture a better leader than someone from another) -- but it is a risky thing, and IMO that's why the framers protected against it in the first place, and why it should still be protected against. Putting another culture in charge is risky, and that's why the whole "you must be born here" provision was included in the first place. (I think that's exactly what PR was trying to say, too.)

Now, personally, I think the important thing isn't where you were born, but what culture you've been immersed in -- which (to tie things back with the original post) is why I think "you have to live here for a long time" is a better condition than "you have to be born here". But I think the original provision was a reasonable one for the purpose.

Your whole question of "how does being born here [make you not bad]?" seems completely irrelevant in response to his post...to pull your first question back in the direction PR's post was going (which may not conform to what you think the context is): being born here doesn't make you less bad than being born elsewhere...Remember that context changes as conversation goes on.

Lothar... This isn't my interpretation. He wrote,

I advise you yanks keep hold of that law for now. [because] The last thing you need is Castro Junior getting put in charge because of his latinoness (I'm aware that Castro is not mexican).

Now yes, I inserted a 'because'. But it is safe in reading anything that if someone makes a statement, the next sentence backs it up. He didn't start a new paragraph or anything! It was in context of the topic.

I didn't call him a racist. You said I was reading racism. Now if the context did change as the conversation went on then I do admit to slightly missing right where it happened. But I believe that the change occurred at your reply, not PRs. He even said, "I advise you yanks keep hold of that law for now" while you really havenâ??t even mentioned the law except for in your last paragraphs.

So like I said, the context of my responce to PR was in the context of the topic.

I have been stressing throughout the thread we are talking about Americans!

So still, where does the contrast lie when it comes to electing someone like Castro? Castro is a notorious name. Perhaps it was just a poor choice in the name that lead us off topic. I don't read 'Castro' as someone 'different who represents their culture.' I read Castro as, "a corrupt person and a Fascist dictator." You have to admit that if the former was intended, then perhaps a better key name would have been chosen. But I still suspect that the latter was the intent.

In responce to the other conversation:

A bunch of immigrants coming into this country and voting for someone who represents where they came from is not the topic of this thread, even if it may be a problem. -Goob

I even said that immigrants should have a minimum time here of at least 35 years!

Gooberman wrote:So still, where does the contrast lie when it comes to electing someone like Castro? Castro is a notorious name. Perhaps it was just a poor choice in the name that lead us off topic. I don't read 'Castro' as someone 'different who represents their culture.' I read Castro as, "a corrupt person and a Fascist dictator."

You place far too much emphasis on the fact that he chose the name Castro. So perhaps it was a poor choice of name that led YOU off topic ;) "Castro" was probably just the first notorious name that came to mind. I can't think of another good notorious latino / chicano / hispanic name right off.

I saw the "castro" line as just an escalation of the previous line. Like... "the law was put in place in order to prevent a whole other culture from ending up in charge. If it wasn't there, you may end up electing someone from an entirely different culture... maybe even somebody REALLY BAD from an entirely different culture." I think you viewed the Castro line as the main point, rather than as an escalation of the idea from "different culture" to "really bad guy from different culture".

I don't see any point in continuing down the "really bad" line. It's not really important -- it's just an illustration of where "culture change" might take you. Like I said in a previous post, putting another culture in charge isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is risky. "Castro JR" was just an extreme example of the sort of risk you take.

Castro" was probably just the first notorious name that came to mind. I can't think of another good notorious latino

Lothar, I don't think you are paying attention...or at least you are so convinced where I stand that you are selectively reading.

On points where you are adamantly disagreeing with me, I am agreeing with you! Do you at least acknowledge this? In fact I agreed with you more then you do by wanting a longer time period of residency! So if I am agreeing with you on the whole culture thing, then you arenâ??t paying attention that â??The context of my response to PR was in the context of the topic.â?

Gooberman wrote:On points where you are adamantly disagreeing with me, I am agreeing with you!

But I'm not adamantly disagreeing with you, for the most part. I'm just stating my position -- which is often in agreement with yours, and occasionally is not. I don't see why you insist on stating that I'm adamantly disagreeing with you, because for the most part I'm not. (In a lot of cases, I'm not sure whether or not you agree with me -- see my point at the end about use of specific nouns.)

You agree that he chose Castro because it was a notorious name, then you go and argue that the entire point of his post was just to argue that another culture â??would be bad.â??

No, I argue that his post was to argue that giving control to another culture would be risky, and that Castro was a particular (extreme) example of the type of risk incurred.

If you donâ??t have a better name, say something similar to what you said, â??someone who cares more about their interests.â?

The topic is the topic...

The Topic: Someone who is forign born becomming president. He used Castro. I said couldn't these exact same people elect someone like Castro, only who was born here? Where does the fact that he was "forign born" matter at all? He said 'keep the law....because...' We are still talking about the law...we are still talking about someone who is forign born becomming president.

Not the topic: A group of people imigrating to the country and voting for people who represent their culture. Your topic seems to be one of immigration. It seems to be more concerned with the voter side. You are no longer talking about someone who is forign born becomming president. And if you are, you have shown no contrast between these same Americans voting for someone who is forign born as being more bad then voting for someone who is Native. (These people are allready here, this isn't an Immigration topic!)

As I asked origionally, (my first responce to PR)...

"Even still, how does being born here prevent you from wanting to be a fascist dictator? A mexican women can still sneak over the boarder, have a baby, and he can be president. How is this child unique?"

Lothar wrote:If a whole bunch of us moved to Mexico and they let us vote for whoever we wanted for president, what are the chances we'd vote for some guy from the States instead of a native Mexican? I'd say fairly high

I must be the oddball, 'cause I'd vote for the Mexican. (Unless, of course, he was worthless and trying to push his personal likes/dislikes onto the public)

At this point, so would I.

let's all take a vacation to mexico and vote for kerry!

I think the President should be born in the US. There isn't anything objectively wrong with allowing foreign born people to be president, but why even bother changing the law? Is there a great shortage of special interest fellatio giving political whores born in America? Do we really need to import them, too?

We're hardly in dire need of a foreign born president, so I would hope that Congress wouldn't waste time on something like this when there's pork to be legislated.

kurupt wrote:let's all take a vacation to mexico and vote for kerry!

Reminds me of that The Day after Tomorrow scene.

Vander: do you believe that because someone born in the US would do a better job? Just trying to understand your reasoning.

And is there any reason to believe that any given foreign-born politician would do a better job than any given American-born politician at running America?

Lemme put it this way: how would you feel if Joe Q. American became Canadian PM?

"Vander: do you believe that because someone born in the US would do a better job?"

Not at all. I'm sure there are plenty of icky foreigners that could do the job ok. My reasoning is that there are more than enough qualified people right here than to bother with changing the law. Add in the politics of it, that we would most likely be changing to law to fit a certain candidate that fills a political hole in one of the two major parties, and it seems like throwing away a tradition that is not negative just to suit short term political needs.

Like I said, there isn't anything objectively wrong with allowing foreign born people access to the white house. There just doesn't seem to be any legitimate need for it.

kurupt wrote:let's all take a vacation to mexico and vote for kerry!

I agree. He is the best candidate after all. Besides, I hear they make great margaritas in Mexico.

Why did this thread make me think of Demolition Man?