Should a Candidate for POTUS need to be natural born?

fatbutfree · 08-03-2009, 07:55 AM

I understand many of you who question Obama's constitutional right to be President on the basis that if he is not a natural born citizen he is in violation of law, however do any of you not think anyone born outside the U.S. should be able to become President?

I understand that citizenship and also a period of time living in the country is important as candidates should be able to show some allegiance to the state, however where you are born is simply a matter of chance and proves nothing. I was born in NZ and live in Australia, I'd fight for Australia before NZ any time of the week.. (my little brother feels it necessary to also say he feels the same way, and he only got here 2 months ago!).

So answering yes in the poll simply means yes, you think being born in the U.S. should be a prerequisite for becoming the President, and voting no means that well, you don't.

Use reply to clarify, I'm just not sure about what sort of options would cover the middle ground.

PS: Don't vote yes if the only reason you think a U.S. President should be natural born is because the constitution says so, it's hypothetical.

WTSS · 08-03-2009, 07:58 AM

First...

I think they need to be natural born citizen... I think we should follow the Constitution to the fullest and get rid of alot of the things in this country

fatbutfree · 08-03-2009, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTSS

First...

I think they need to be natural born citizen... I think we should follow the Constitution to the fullest and get rid of alot of the things in this country

I think you should follow the constitution too, but my question was asking you to look at it hypothetically. I thought I was pretty clear on that.

If it was not a constitutional requirement, would you still need a presidential candidate to be a natural born citizen to secure your individual vote?

SGMD1 · 08-03-2009, 08:06 AM

hypothetically, no. I think if you've been a citizen for 14 years you should be able to run for president.

Gabriel Anton · 08-03-2009, 08:14 AM

Don't see why it matters.

WTSS · 08-03-2009, 08:16 AM

There is alot of things I think should be a controlling factor to be the president of the US but wont go into those....

My vote is still yes though because you need to know the struggles of the people and experince some of them to know how to lead this country

fatbutfree · 08-03-2009, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTSS

There is alot of things I think should be a controlling factor to be the president of the US but wont go into those....

My vote is still yes though because you need to know the struggles of the people and experince some of them to know how to lead this country

You don't think a pre required amount of time living in the country is enough? Currently it's like 14 years, what if that was extended to 20 instead?

fatbutfree · 08-03-2009, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabriel Anton

Don't see why it matters.

Clarify? I'm not sure what your point is if you're trying to make one..

I sense slight sarcasm but I dunno.

Gabriel Anton · 08-03-2009, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatbutfree

Should a POTUS need to be natural born?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabriel Anton

Don't see why it matters.

Glad I could help.

fatbutfree · 08-03-2009, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabriel Anton

Glad I could help.

Thanks. Posting the picture just threw me off a bit, usually they are posted in jest. Surely you understand

.

WTSS · 08-03-2009, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatbutfree

You don't think a pre required amount of time living in the country is enough? Currently it's like 14 years, what if that was extended to 20 instead?

maybe but I would prefer they were natural born citizens...

but you know its something we have been taught from youth to be right so it may just be hard to see around

US_Ranger · 08-03-2009, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTSS

There is alot of things I think should be a controlling factor to be the president of the US but wont go into those....

My vote is still yes though because you need to know the struggles of the people and experince some of them to know how to lead this country

Wat?

I was born in Australia. I've been in the US almost my entire life and served in the US military. I deployed to numerous middle eastern countries. I'm about to get a degree from an American school and I have payed all my taxes to the American government.

I guess I don't know the struggles of the people though.......

YARDGORILLA · 08-03-2009, 08:36 AM

Inherently, I think this question eludes to the real question, which in fact, is immigration. Immigration reform in the US as well as GB is a front and center issue, yielding the near fierocity as the abortion debate. The OP's topic is nothing but a proxy debate of partisan rhetoric from the Republicans/Democrats and the inability for both parties to take a firm position on immigration.

IraHays · 08-03-2009, 08:39 AM

Yes, of course. The President being born in another country would be an obvious conflict of interest. Even if their wasn't one, the appearance of one would be to geat.

fatbutfree · 08-03-2009, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YARDGORILLA

Inherently, I think this question eludes to the real question, which in fact, is immigration. Immigration reform in the US as well as GB is a front and center issue, yielding the near fierocity as the abortion debate. The OP's topic is nothing but a proxy debate of partisan rhetoric from the Republicans/Democrats and the inability for both parties to take a firm position on immigration.

It's actually nothing about immigration at all. I don't know why on earth you came to that conclusion?

fatbutfree · 08-03-2009, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IraHays

Yes, of course. The President being born in another country would be an obvious conflict of interest. Even if their wasn't one, the appearance of one would be to geat.

Ok, thanks.

Beatitude · 08-03-2009, 08:44 AM

I kind of agree with IraHays even though I doubt anything bad would come from it. The idea of somebody that was born and raised in another country running the U.S. would raise a lot of touchy concerns and questions. If they underwent an amendment to change it I wouldn't flip out, but I can understand the desire for that to be rule.

YARDGORILLA · 08-03-2009, 08:47 AM

[QUOTE=fatbutfree;366109251]I understand many of you who question Obama's constitutional right to be President on the basis that if he is not a natural born citizen he is in violation of law, however do any of you not think anyone born outside the U.S. should be able to become President?

"I understand that citizenship and also a period of time living in the country is important as candidates should be able to show some allegiance to the state, however where you are born is simply a matter of chance and proves nothing."

QUOTE]

You do not fully comprehend WHAT citizenship even is by your above quote. I don't see how you would be able to make the big leap from the Presidential candidate's citizenship being directly proportional to the immigration policy of that nation.

fatbutfree · 08-03-2009, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beatitude

I kind of agree with IraHays even though I doubt anything bad would come from it. The idea of somebody that was born and raised in another country running the U.S. would raise a lot of touchy concerns and questions. If they underwent an amendment to change it I wouldn't flip out, but I can understand the desire for that to be rule.

I understand the reasoning and that's what I pretty much figured would be those who voted 'yes' explanation, I guess my position (and probably even US_Ranger's who I would have never picked as Aussie born!) makes me value birthplace much less, I don't see it as a conflict of interest but I can see how others might.

fatbutfree · 08-03-2009, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YARDGORILLA

You do not fully comprehend WHAT citizenship even is by your above quote. I don't see how you would be able to make the big leap from the Presidential candidate's citizenship being directly proportional to the immigration policy of that nation.

I have trouble understanding your posts, if I'm the only one sorry but it doesn't make much sense.

Citizenship to me is simply the nation which you are a citizen of, the nationality you officially identify with. For instance I am a New Zealand citizen, however I live in Australia.

I would expect that someone who wanted to be PM of Australia would relinquish their foreign citizenship and go through the process to become an Australian citizen (regardless of the policy in place).

This is what I mean when I say it's not about immigration, I'm speaking hypothetically, after the fact.

Assume: Jim has already migrated and obtained citizenship via whatever process is implemented for doing so, has lived in the country for say 20 years, should he be eligible for presidency?

Immigration policy is irrelevant, I'm not a Democrat nor a Republican and nor have I ever shared my views on immigration on this forum, so I have no idea how you can assume my post is a 'proxy debate' on immigration along party lines.

YARDGORILLA · 08-03-2009, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatbutfree

I have trouble understanding your posts, if I'm the only one sorry but it doesn't make much sense.

Citizenship to me is simply the nation which you are a citizen of, the nationality you officially identify with. For instance I am a New Zealand citizen, however I live in Australia.

I would expect that someone who wanted to be PM of Australia would relinquish their foreign citizenship and go through the process to become an Australian citizen (regardless of the policy in place).

This is what I mean when I say it's not about immigration, I'm speaking hypothetically, after the fact.

Assume: Jim has already migrated and obtained citizenship via whatever process is implemented for doing so, has lived in the country for say 20 years, should he be eligible for presidency?

Immigration policy is irrelevant, I'm not a Democrat nor a Republican and nor have I ever shared my views on immigration on this forum, so I have no idea how you can assume my post is a 'proxy debate' on immigration along party lines.

I should spend less time paying attention to my job here, and more time paying attention the posts on R/P. I fuccking mis-read a portion of your post(LOL).
MY BAD.

fatbutfree · 08-03-2009, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YARDGORILLA

I should spend less time paying attention to my job here, and more time paying attention the posts on R/P. I fuccking mis-read a portion of your post(LOL).
MY BAD.

heh ok no worries.

sp34 · 08-03-2009, 01:16 PM

They would have to be born here. I couldn't imagine Arnold for example being Potus due to the fact his english SUCKS. If he wants to be President, Austria would do him just fine.

IraHays · 08-03-2009, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sp34

They would have to be born here. I couldn't imagine Arnold for example being Potus due to the fact his english SUCKS. If he wants to be President, Austria would do him just fine.

not sure if serious.....

onebadman · 08-03-2009, 01:24 PM

I'd say the founding fathers spent a great deal of time debating these issues and determined the best approach. Not to be a jerk, but they were much more intelligent than the OP (whom isn't even an American). Just stick to what you know and stop trying to change our constitution. It was written with those standards for a reason, who are you to question it. Just my opinion.

HELIX35 · 08-03-2009, 01:35 PM

No, but obviously there needs to be some kind of requirement in place.

Citizen for at least 20 years or something similar.

all pro · 08-03-2009, 02:22 PM

demaskas · 08-03-2009, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatbutfree

So answering yes in the poll simply means yes, you think being born in the U.S. should be a prerequisite for becoming the President, and voting no means that well, you don't.

Americans are the only ones aloud to vote in the election, (unless they changed that too, bigshockomg) after the Bush Administration, I think we should start seriously thinking that not ONLY Americans are qualified for the job.

fatbutfree · 08-03-2009, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onebadman

I'd say the founding fathers spent a great deal of time debating these issues and determined the best approach. Not to be a jerk, but they were much more intelligent than the OP (whom isn't even an American). Just stick to what you know and stop trying to change our constitution. It was written with those standards for a reason, who are you to question it. Just my opinion.

Don't say "Not to be a jerk", then be a jerk in a post, it's intellectually dishonest.

1) Obviously they did, and it's obvious why when you take on a late 1700's mindset, we're in a different time now, and know that where you are born means practically nothing, if anything it merely determines what colour skin you happen to have.

2) I'm not American simply because I wasn't born there. Why do you have more right to discuss a subject simply because you happened to be born on a different block of land than I was? I probably know the constitution and respect it more than most Americans do, and based on basically all political polls coming out of your country I don't need to prove that.

3) I'm a free man that's why I can question whatever the **** I want.

4) You're entitled to it, but next time think about it first. I'm also entitled to mine.

My thread doesn't even need to be strictly applied to the United States anyway, that's just where most posters on this forum came from. Anybody here can answer based on what they'd want to see in the country they vote in.

fatbutfree · 08-03-2009, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by demaskas

Americans are the only ones aloud to vote in the election, (unless they changed that too, bigshockomg) after the Bush Administration, I think we should start seriously thinking that not ONLY Americans are qualified for the job.

I wouldn't want that to change. Only citizens should be able to vote.