Born in the USA? Some Chinese plan it that way
npr.orgAmazing someone who immigrated here at 10 years old could never be President, but someone who was in the US only for their birth — until much later in life — could become President.
Ever since reading a first-hand account of a grade school student quietly thinking about how their teacher’s pronouncement that “any of you could become President!” was incorrect for that student, an immigrant, I have seen this clause as a bit excessive.
Agreed. I may come across as xenophobic, or uber-patriotic, or whatever, but I think the laws regarding eligibility for presidency should be changed, not relaxed.
For example: Required to be a citizen and resident of the USA for the majority of his/her life (>50%). Required to renounce all other citizenship. Required to have spent the last 10 years of his/her life in the US.
Something like that seems fair(er) to me.
EDIT: Clarification.
Those are already the requirements for a basic security clearance.
That seems fair, and I liked the part of the having spent the last 10 years of his/her life in the US. I still believe, though, that a fraction of the person's first 10-20 years should be in spent in the US as well. This could get complicated, but it may work to require that the person have spent 75% of their childhood and 75% of the last 10 years in the USA, and possibly 50% of the time in between as well.
Yes, I definitely agree that this clause seems a little bit arbitrary. Currently the requirements for the position are...
1) be at least 35 years old
2) natural-born US citizen
3) have lived in the US for at least 14 years
One possible alternative would be to get rid of the 1st requirement, but to add another requirement of having to have lived in the US for a certain number of years as a child (under the age of 18), since we could agree that experience from growing up in the US is very important. Something along the lines of this...
1) be at least 35 years old
2) have lived in the US for at least 6 years as a child
3) have lived in the US for a total of 14 years
I agree that the clause seems unfair, but if you try to put yourself in the mindset of the founders, it's actually a challenging problem. What makes someone an American? It was clear that it is not ethnic identity and it's not where your ancestors are from, which were the main options prior to the founding of the US.
Also, do be aware it was created with people in the room who were aware of its consequences. Alexander Hamilton signed the document that made it law, and it prevented him from becoming President.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_%28Un...
Dare I suggest all 3 clauses are unnecessary, and we should let the voting public & electorate college decide if the candidate is good enough that any foreign-ness could be overlooked?
That is a very good point that I failed to consider. However, it brings up the old debate on whether the people of a nation are sufficiently educated to make the right decisions for their nation as a whole. I believe that they are sufficiently educated and have the right to make the decisions they want, but I'm not sure if everyone believes this quite yet. We're definitely headed in that direction, though, if you look at how far we've come.
To be honest, I'm not especially bothered by this. You could (and many cable news and talk radio hosts have) make the case that this is just plain wrong, but isn't there worse things than having the children of affluent foreigners be American citizens? We're still a "nation of immigrants", I say the richer the better!
I'll admit my analysis of this is only cursory, so feel free to correct my reasoning.
Obviously if these children just take advantage of the system, get a cheap(er) education and return to China, it's a net loss for the USA, but it seems to me that a great many would stay here, presumably as "productive citizens".
Yes, I'd assume that most of these immigrants described by the article will become productive citizens and will benefit the USA. I don't find anything wrong with what these people are doing, except for the fact that they have to "work around the system" to achieve their goals. There will be many more people who will move with their children to the US shortly after their births and then live in the US longer than those mentioned in the article. Why should one group of people be able to become citizens immediately while the others aren't able to [until they apply for citizenship]? In short, I feel no hard feelings against those who only come to have their children here, but rather feel that the system needs to be changed in some way.
Yes, and also we expose them to our ideals. It's a win-win. Either they stay here and produce and inform, or they go back home and produce and inform.
My college roommate's parents did this (he's from the Philippines) 24 years ago. Once he was born they went back to the Philippines and his first experience in America was at age 18 when he came to the U.S. by himself for school.
It worked out pretty well for him. He has since graduated with a top notch degree and sponsored his family to come to the U.S. Kudos to them for having the foresight to do this in the mid 80's.
I don't know what part of the world you guys are from, but it's a fairly well known strategy in Turkey. I've had a friend who did that growing up. He had dual citizenship, one by right of birth and the other by right of parents. When you think about it, doesn't it make so much sense?
Interesting. The Constitution is pretty clear here -- if you're born on US soil, you're a US citizen. However, there's no requirement that the State Dept. issue visas to people who are 6-9 months pregnant.
"if you're born on US soil, you're a US citizen"
Actually there IS debate about what that section actually means. Some take to mean in context that your parents had to have been under the laws (a citizen) already and subsequently you cannot just hop the border, have a baby, and the baby is a citizen. I happen to believe that as well.
Not among legal scholars, at least not since 1898.
Oops, left out the citation: US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111...
This case, and the idea that being American has a lot more to do with ideas than with your ethnic origin, are important to my family history.
My grandmother was born in the US. Her mother died when she was young, so she and some of her siblings were sent back to the old country to live with relatives for a while. Eventually my grandmother and her siblings returned to the US, and she married my grandfather, leading to me, a proud American.
The reason this law was important was because my great-grandparents weren't US citizens. In fact, they were prohibited from becoming naturalized US citizens even if they wanted to be ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 ). Without the 14th amendment, I might not be a US citizen.
Nor would my great-uncle, who served in the US military. It turns out that in 1940 the US military suspected they had a need for Japanese translators. What better way to learn Japanese than to have gone to school in Japan?
My last thought on this topic is a joke:
Q: Who was the greatest German general of World War II?
A: Eisenhower.
Mostly it's a debate among people freaking out that the US has a black president.
There does exist debate on the topic, although I'm not sure if I agree that there should be. The statement is clear by itself, but unnecessary interpretations are what cause a debate. I understand that there is usually necessary interpretations to be made on topics from the constitution and other legal documents, as some are very vague. However, in my opinion, this statement leaves no room for interpretations and therefore no implications should made. [Sure this is debatable, but so is everything]. Rather than spending so much time on forming interpretations, people should consider an amendment. The general consensus now may have changed since then.
This was popular with Korean moms some years back.