Albright Backs Foreigners for Presidency Fri Nov 19, 3:05 PM ET LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said Friday that foreign-born citizens should be allowed to run for president, a reform that would require amending the Constitution. "We are a country of immigrants. I think that it would be not a bad thing to try to figure out how to allow foreign-born people to become president," Albright told the Little Rock Rotary Club while in town to attend the opening of Bill Clinton's presidential library. Supporters of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have started an effort to amend the Constitution to allow immigrants to run for president. Schwarzenegger was born in Austria. Albright was born in Czechoslovakia. Albright said foreign-born candidates would still have to meet certain requirements. "I think there has to be some very long period of time that somebody has lived in the U.S.," she said.

Seems Madeline Albright doesn't agree with you. But I do, even though I am a Republican. Amending the constitution should not be taken lightly.
Link

Have to say I agree. I liked Arnie in most of his movies, and he may even be a decent Governor, but we have these safeguards in place for good reason. You brought up many of them.
Even if we were to decide that we wanted to do away with the constitiutional provisions for a native-born president, to do so for the sake of one man, no matter how popular would speak very ill of us as Americans.
When the constitution was amended to limit a President two terms, there was a clause left in saying that the current President was exempt from that rule (Yeah, I used to know who was in office at the time, but I don't remember, and I don't feel like looking it up right now)
Just as those who wrote that amendment knew better than to make one man the target of a Constitutional amendment , or even to give the appearance of doing so, we would be unwise to alter the Constitution to allow one foreign born man to become President.
To amend the constitution of our country to accomodate one man flies in the face of every principle that sets our nation apart from the rest of the world.
And once that safeguard is removed how do we put it back? If we alter the constitution, and maybe Arnie even gets elected President. Maybe he's even a great President. What then? Do we love him so much that we repeal the Presidential term-limit amendment? And if not, who else is then able to run for President of the United States? WHat if Vincenze Fox moves to the US, will he then be able to run for President? (Even if we kept the fourteen year rule) Will we see Kofi Annan as our Commander-in-Chief?
Now, I don't believe the American voting public would really let this happen, but, I also don't think this is a door we want to open. The native-born clause is a good one for many reasons, and it should be kept.
COnsidering how much some of the far-left are enamored with the European way of thinking, we could conceivably see

The thing with Arnold is, if you watch one of his movies and think about him as holding political power at the same time, you get really confused and shocked. Watch him use the guy as a human shield in Totall Recall, then think "economic girly-men." Damn, that makes my brain hurt.

I had this converstaion today with a couple of friends of mine with exactly those concerns that Wayne has mentioned. I do think highly of Arnold, but not without some reservations. I'm all for his being Governor, he seems to be doing a really good job. I'd even back him up for a Executive Cabinet position at some point in a future Presidential administration, but not for President. I don't care who it is or how long they've been in this country, or how popular they are if you aren't born here that job is not for you. Allowing the job of the President of the United States to fall to a foreign born person is just asking for trouble.

I too have this fear that what we could do may not be easily undoable. We very well could wind up with a President with loyalities that may lie elsewhere and the end result could be even more destructive than the Civil War. What would we do if the military branches decided all of a sudden to not obey the President? What if our newly elected foreign born president had a bone to pick with ancient enemies of his home country and decided to use the Nuclear arsenal on a whim?

I don't believe for a second that enough safeguards or honest intentions could be put in to secure the country against such a person.

Not long ago when this issue was brought up in whispering rumors, I had heard that a poll had been done on letting Arnold run for President. It was overwhelmingly for his taking another term as Governor or as I mentioned earlier, a Cabinet position, but it was heavy against his becoming President.

Wayne, I agree with you completely, amending the constitutional safeguard could be disastrous.

"There are a million such scenarios that may sound ridiculous, and the chance that the event would happen is less than miniscule." Americans have been shown how the 'ridiculous' can happen, we only need to reflect on the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on American soil.

I may not be an american, but i do see your point here. I wouldn't like to take that chance either.
But there are a lot of ways this rule can be avoided legally. Like if a foreigner were to have a child with an american that child would be fully american. So he/she would be able to run for president when old enough to do so. If the parents of that child were to go apart and the foreigner would take the child with him/her, he/she could raise the child with there foreign standerds and ideas. That way the child might be fully american, but totally foreign in ideas, believes, etc.

This would all be legal and if hidden well enough from the american people, he/she could become president without the public knowing they voted wrong.

bleh. How many red-blooded Americans have we seen turncoat and sell secrets to enemies, train in Afghanistan with bin Laden, etc., etc. It is just as plausible for some one to be born here and compromised by foriegn elements as it is someone coming from the outside. Presidential candidates are scrutinized like mad by the press and opponents.

Kerry was very, very sympathetic to Europe's views of the US, and it was troubling to me. You need not be part of a conspiracy to be dangerously biased agiainst the US. Like I say, though, we have no shortage of anti-US elements INSIDE the US, made up entirely of Americans.

So, in the end I think the point is moot. If a skeery foreign conspiracy wanted the Presidency, they could have a couple come here and have a child. If it wasn't a 40-year plan they could simply find elements inside the US that are sympathetic and work their way into power pulling strings from outside.

Either way, some silly rule in the constitution isn't going to prevent them from getting involved. There is huge participation and manipulation of our government by foreign powers already. To say that someone like Arnold as a threat, who has lived and worked in America all his adult life and who is unquestionably a benefit to our society, is silly.

Being a citizen is being a citizen. Telling people they can come here and become Americans, but that they'll never REALLY be an American is hypocritical.

Baker:

Just because you cant protect yourself against every safeguard does not mean that you do not try to protect yourself against any problems. Of course someone could come here, give birth to a US citizen and convince them that AMerica is evil, but still make them sympathetic enough to get elected. However, I can show you plenty of evidence, albeit anecdotal, of immigrants coming to the United States and their children are more american than the parents who chose to come.

To say that "some silly rule in the constitution..." is to void whatever follows. I appreciate your perspective, but I think your logic is horribly flawed. There are bad people who can infiltrate if they like, so lets swing the doors wide open because some people think it is hypocritical to say a naturalized citizen can not be president.

You said that Arnold has lived and worked here his entire adult life, and therefore he is "unquestionably a benefit to our society". THat is fine, although I do not make the connection. What my argument was was that there will be citizens after Arnold is dead and buried. There will be American citizens long after our grandchildren are dead. The constitution was not meant to be overhauled because one man has aspirations. Think down the road a few miles.

Never has a first world country ELECTED as its primary leader, a non-native citizen. I do not believe that, in the interest of being sensitive, the United States should be the first. If Canada or France wants to try it, that is fine. But this land was not intended to be one large social experiment.

"You said that Arnold has lived and worked here his entire adult life, and therefore he is "unquestionably a benefit to our society"."

Nope, never said that one was the cause of the other. I'm sure there are people who live here all their lives that are of absolutely no benefit to our society. They, for some reason, have more reason to be trusted than a naturalized citizen... Go look at the total income of his films, look at how many people are employed in how many industries, look at the work he has done outside the entertainment industry, look at the charity work he has done. He's done more in a year, paid more taxes in a year, done more for charity in a year than any of us will do in our lives.

Then you say because he was born in Austria he can't be President. Some half-assed opportunist like John Kerry, though, who has lived his life stonewalling our society and wasting tax dollars, producing NOTHING of value of our society.. of course, he can be President...

If John Kerry or the bums pissing themselves downtown are inherently "American" enough to be President, then so is Arnold S., or anyone else who comes to this nation, works to become a citizen, nd spends their lives contributing to society.

"The constitution was not meant to be overhauled because one man has aspirations. Think down the road a few miles. "

Nope, but time and again the constitution is amended when it is WRONG, or didn't take into consideration ideals we now hold to be important.

You simply DO NOT invite people to come to America, become Americans, and then thell them they'll never be 100% American. To deny people any office in the US simply because they were born somewhere else is asinine if you allow them to be "Americans".

"But this land was not intended to be one large social experiment."

Are you insane? America is the quintessential social experiment.

time and again the constitution is amended when it is WRONG, or didn't take into consideration ideals we now hold to be important.

The constitution has been amended 27 times in 213 years. That is hardly "time and again". Eleven of the amendments were part of negotiations to pass the constitution at all - the 27th was not ratified until 1992, but was part of the original bill of rights. Three were written in relation to the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. One was written to allow women to vote. Two were written in relation to alcohol- one to participate in social experimentation and one to correct a horrible error. And eleven others were written with purpose of giving restrictions to the national government.

Some half-assed opportunist like John Kerry, though, who has lived his life stonewalling our society and wasting tax dollars

You seem to have this determination to prove that John Kerry has anything to do with amending the Constitution. This is not a relevant issue. I am not examining this issue from some aspect of ideologue-lust for any party affiliation. The best in our society do things that will benefit the future of society. When G. Washington served his two terms, he retired- not because he couldnt get reelected, but he did not want to set a pattern where presidents could run till they lost.

Arnold's priorities have never been about what is best for anyone but Arnold. While I dont live in California, from what I have seen, he ran strictly because it was a good move for his career. If he truly loves and worries about this country, he can run for reelection to governor, to the Senate, or to the House.

I dont care if he is an ass or an elephant. This is about our country's future. That is a concern larger than the political future of one man.

No... This isn't about one man. It is about changing bigoted, xenophobioc, paranoid ideals. No different than expunging racist or any other kind of unworthy ideals from our government.

When you devalue people because of where they are born, or disallow people from office because their could be a skeery conspiracy to control the Presidency, you've damaged what America is about. Again, you don't invite people to be Americans, and then tell them that they aren't REALLY American by denying them any office.

You go on and pretend that the Constitution is somehow unalterable and sacrosanct; feel free to imagine all sorts of wierd, paranoid fantasies about foreign plots to subvert the Presidency, whatever.

In the end, though, you are simply telling people that there is always going to be something suspect about people who aren't born here. No matter how sleezy or useless the politician, apparently he is always going to be more fit for the Presidency than someone who spent the first few years of their lives in another country, no matter how stolid a citizen and how much benefit they have had on our society.

That isn't American; it's bigoted, xenophobic, and ignorant.

One of the great things about living in this great country is the freedom to argue openly with people whose opinions differ from yours. One of the other great things about this country is the freedom to ignore the ignorant that, once they start losing the argument, stoop to twisting previously advanced ideas and ad hominem attacks; rather than admit they may not be up for the discussion. That is what I am now going to do. So respond freely. I am done engaging your alleged ideas. If I wanted to read such "open mindedness" I could read Maureen Dowd. At least she would offer a better argument.

I am sure you and Madeline Albright will do great in Herr Schwarzenegger's cabinet.

... Me and Maureen Dowd in the same sentence... That's a laugh riot...

"One of the other great things about this country is the freedom to ignore the ignorant that, once they start losing the argument, stoop to twisting previously advanced ideas and ad hominem attacks; rather than admit they may not be up for the discussion. That is what I am now going to do."

Another great thing is the freedom to pretend you are taking the high road, stick your fingers in your ears and hum really loud...

.. to cover the sound of people pointing out that you are arguing a xenophobic, paranoid point

There's nothing inherently trustworthy about "domestic" Americans as opposed to naturalized Americans. Americans sell secrets to our enemies and fight for the Taliban. Americans kill and steal and betray just like anyone else. Congress is FULL of natural born Americans that I wouldn't trust in the office of President for 10 minutes. Yet you seem to think they are more apt, just by birth, than anyone born anywhere else...

Someone who has been a citizen of this country for 20+ years, accomplished all that Arnold has accomplished, and yet *anyone* born here is more trustworthy and capable to be President.? What a load... You oughtta be ashamed.

Never has a first world country ELECTED as its primary leader, a non-native citizen. I do not believe that, in the interest of being sensitive, the United States should be the first. If Canada or France wants to try it, that is fine. But this land was not intended to be one large social experiment.

Actually, some of Canada's first prime ministers, including the great John A. Macdonald, were born in the British Isles.

Great. While we never needed it, there was a proviso for those born outside the US in the first days. Those who were born outside the US, but were citizens by the time that the constitution was adopted could serve as president.

Not to be rude but I am not overly moved. As someone who lives about 5 minutes from Canada and am very involved politically, I did not know Jean Chretien was no longer the PM. I wonder if anyone in the world does not know the US just had an election. If you want to take Arnold as your next PM, that is fine here.

Remember, our political interests are not only domestic. What happens when we elect a president who grew up in Palestine and Israel comes requesting support? Or a white South African who was born and raised through apartheid thinks nothing of politicking for racist policy. How about a native born Pakistani is president and India needs help? These are all real possibilities folks. Sure, you may get a lousy native-born American who may make poor choices, but why add to the pool of troublesome candidates because one man who is an entertaining, if mediocre actor wants to be president?

Foresight is a wonderful thing sometimes. Maybe we should all try a little.