Arguments for and against?
If only U.S born citizens are allowed to run for president, then the United States is condemed to presidents might not be as great as another. If truly racism is discarded, then why does it matter what country one is from? I don't believe that anyone running for president would be chosen, if there was the slightest though by the citizens that he may try and benifit his own born country. Many first generation children brought up in the United States, Canada, and many other countries, almost tear away completely from their own heritage.
On a side note, if it were a penguin and Bush running, and I were given a vote, I'd vote for the penguin, 'cause it can probably make better decisions than Bush. However, Bush stays in power, gold rises, Canadian dollar rises, I'm happy :)
"You cannot choose the land of your birth. You can choose the land you love." A friend of mine was born in the UK but has lived in the US for roughly his entire life: I would definitely consider him American enough to be President of the United States. There is no way I would vote for Arnold, but I do think he should be allowed to run for President.
On a side note, the one great thing about bush being president is that we will hopefully see some history made. If we continue to fight we will probably need to enlist a draft, and with women being allowed to fight, they will ultimately have to be drafted too. Also, gay rights will hopefully be banned in the US, and I certainly hope we get a full abortion birth ban. And like you said, with bush being president, gold rises, canadian dollar rises, this should make most of the world happy with us thats enough of my nonsensical rambling
How is any of this a good thing?
P.S. Refer to song "History is made by stupid people" by Arrogant Worms
I am not sure if it is good for anyone else, but I certainly think it would be good for me.
I think the President of a country should be born in that country, and that he should have lived most of his life (say like >90%) in that country. I don't mind Arnold, but he should stay in California. He represents an important local industry. It has nothing to do with racism. Any colored people can be president as long as he is born in the country. Someone from elsewhere could conceptually turn back and favor his origins.
Why ban abortions? =\
Humans are made out of particles just like everything else, eh?
90%??!! Any reason why you think this is necessary?
I am guessing this is addressed to me? No reason to get into that here, just a personal belief.
What if Arnold had the same background, but for some reason his mom was visiting the US and he was born here? Would Arnold not be willing to turn his back on our country because he just happened to be born here?
Why does it matter where you're born. Right now, the U.S has a 'nukular' speaking, hick as a president. A penguin can do a better job. Do you know why terrorists arn't attacking right now? It's perhaps Bush is killing the U.S by being in power. At least a penguin wouldn't attack other countries.
I allow time for studies and work experience abroad (It's good to travel.) I think it is necessary because, let's take the Arnold case, were he president, he could do things that would favor Austria, where his family may be, over the US (not that Arnold himself would). A candidate could believe that he is indebted to the country in which he was born and raised. Were he from Russia instead, this might have odd consequences, as the US and Russia do have a few conflicts of interest (such as Ukraine apparently). Were he German, there is the war in Iraq. A President's patriotism must be 100% unquestionable by the people (Arnold's visit to Austria as Governor was closely covered by the media). And voters like to elect someone who has lived as they have, and that they can relate to. And it's also a delicate thing to alter a constitution.
Along with the same lines ... I'd say anyone can make really stupid decisions, irrespective where they come from. The only criteria for being the prez of US at current is that you're born in the US ... to me that doesn't tell much about the qualifications of a person in doing the job (which is unfortunate thinking about Arnie).
So if you're "in debt" to, say, the oil industry that is a better thing (as an example)? Patriotism is not a guarantee of any sort of success, many, I for one, would say the opposite.
Unbelievable. Are you looking forward to the Saddam Osama ticket?
No.There is always a certain bedrock loyalty to the land of one's birth. Regardless of an affection that one may feel towards an area, birth rights, and birth connection, space time connection, give a certain loyalty, that is innate. It is one thing to seek opportunity and freedom here, but the highest political ambition will belong only to the children of the emigrants.
Can't say that I am. And considering the argument, don't even (bother to) see the relevance.
Don't you think that is kind of given ? We of course feel a connection to where we "hang around", we have all sorts of connections which affect our decision making and perceptions on things. No one is unbiased or anything related, so why bother trying to set any criterion for it, since it is obviously going to fail in the end (citizenship ougth to display the needed "qualifications")?
I think that if a person spent his childhood in America, he should be able to run for president, however I think it is reasonable that if someone moved there in their 20s for example, itis reasonable to forbid them.
But I don't think it should be in the constitution, if the majority of the people wish to vote for someone who wasn't born in the country, then let them.
Yes, naturalized citizens are as american as the next person. Keeping that in mind, when it comes to monetary issues, naturalized citizens and citizens alike play the same role, but regarding the presidency, the rules are changed. I don't think it's fair at all.
Question: What other reasons make naturalized citizens different from citizens?
Philosophically, I agree with Smurf. It's not so much where he was born. It's that I would prefer a presidential candidate who was raised in the US and in its culture.
I wouldn't support an amendment to the Constitution, though, even if it proposed changing "birth" to "moved here by 4-years of age" or something similar. You have to have a very good reason to amend the Constitution and Arnold just doesn't fill the bill. In fact, I'd just about be automatically opposed to amending the Constitution for any single person, not just Arnold.
This 'movement' if you wanna call it that, is not just for one person, It was indeed sparked by Arnold, but it's not changing it to "except for Arnold Schwarzenegger". If you don't change it for him, who will you change it for? If you think this is a good Idea, get it done, It doesn't matter who started it. If you really don't trust the American people so much as to elect him, then maybe your living in the wrong country?
House of Reps Hearing on this
Separate names with a comma.