Comments on: Affirm the Almost-Ahnold Amendment

By: billp

billp — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 17:38:37 +0000

Test case (if he were still alive)
Would anyone like the constitution amended so that Winston Churchill would have been eligible? He was a British citizen (“subject”, we said then) with an American mother, wasn’t he?

By: Manish

Manish — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:37:46 +0000

Why not just make it anyone can be President? The Constitution is meant to save us from our selves to a certain degree (i.e. the bill of rights). If the people decide that they want to elect an illegal alien, why should the Constitution stop them? If someone is of dual nationality, the electorate is aware of this, and votes for them anyway, why should the Constitution stop them? Same goes for those under 35 and not living in the country for 14 years.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 01:53:18 +0000

I think that anyone who is a citizen by birth – whether by bloodlines, or by virtue of where he is born – is a “natural born citizen” under the existing Constitution. If not, what is the basis for distinguishing those born to one U.S. citizen abroad from those born to two?

Will the courts agree with me? Time will tell. My bet is that they’ll rule the issue a “political question,” which is legalize for “we’re not touching this with a ten-foot pole.”

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 01:51:03 +0000

Reagan was talking about a third term but I think he put it pretty well: “The American people should be able to vote for whoever they want to”. But he also said it shouldn’t apply to a current president if the rules changed, so that would have kept him from a third term anyway.

By: Alan Dawson

Alan Dawson — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:36:58 +0000

Dean Esmay writes:

Minor note: if both your parents are American citizens, you’re a natural-born citizen no matter where you were born. Right now a number of people in foreign lands, including Chinese, make a point of coming over here, having a baby to get the kid American citizenship, and leaving. It’s more common than you might think.

YES it is “common,” but the two statements are exclusive. A child born in the US is certainly natural born.
But your first sentence is the important one, and highly questionable. It’s not so simply because you say so. The child of two Americans born overseas is an American BY APPLICATION to the US State Department but (a) not automatically and (b) not necessarily “natural born” as you state. I know of no court decision on this, as there will be when (not if) a person of this circumstance eventually runs for US president. A child born to one or two American parents overseas must APPLY for a certificate of birth abroad and then must apply AGAIN for documents proving nationality such as passport. No, (s)he does NOT apply for nationality as a new American like Ahnold (and me) but (s)he does NOT get US nationality automatically — the child must have those documents.
But even then, you do not even address the case of a child born abroad to one American and one non-American parent, a case much more common than Chinese and others having their babies born in America — much more common. This child is just as eligible for US nationality as one with two American parents, but is this boy or girl “natural born.” I need a better answer than “I say he is.”
It’s not as simple as you state, although it may be that the courts will rule such children are natural born, as they should. I would hope so, but courts don’t always rule as I hope.

By: Alan Dawson

Alan Dawson — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:27:06 +0000

The question of “exclusivity” of US citizenship is moot. Many countries, including my country of birth and former nationality, either refuse to lift nationality at all or do so only after strong and lengthy petitions. Canadians cannot lose their birth nationality except after long and costly suit in the Canadian courts. In some cases, especially less-developed countries, natural-born citizens simply never, ever lose citizenship and there is no formal way to remove it. “Once a Slobbovian, always a Slobbovian,” so to speak, and sometimes simply irreversible.
When you become a naturalized US citizen, you take an oath, both *to* the US and *against* all other loyalties. That’s probably enough. If you’re a Slobbovian-loving mole running for president, the blogs will out you. Otherwise, run for it.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:31:39 +0000

Dean: my version would take effect immediately, but the earliest it could take effect for Arnold is 2016, assuming he is willing to dump his Austrian citizenship sometime between now and ‘06.

By: Ubique Patriam Reminisci

Ubique Patriam Reminisci — Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:36:27 +0000

A Justifiable Foreign-Born President
All of this hype surrounding Gov. Schwarzenegger’s supposed future eligibility to run for president gives me an opportunity to opine about something that has been bugging me for a while.

The Constitutional language regarding foreign-born citizens s…

By: Dean Esmay

Dean Esmay — Sat, 27 Nov 2004 12:25:12 +0000

Minor note: if both your parents are American citizens, you’re a natural-born citizen no matter where you were born.

Right now a number of people in foreign lands, including Chinese, make a point of coming over here, having a baby to get the kid American citizenship, and leaving. It’s more common than you might think.

But this whole idea of the “divided loyalty” stuff is nonsense anyway. No one gets elected President of this country without every aspect of his life being put under a microscope. The presumption that somehow a sleeper agent will get elected President is kind of silly; the notion that the ban on naturalized citizens is a protection against that is just silly.

Amending the Constitution to be more fair is a perfectly good argument in my view. If people perceive an inequity there’s no reason not to address it.

The real reason we haven’t done this before is probably no more than that there’s been no pressing reason to do it. However it’s a minor stick in the craw of some folks, and an unnecessary one.

We amended the Constitution in 1993 and hardly anyone knew about it. Why? It was trivial: Congress can’t enact pay raises for itself without first facing re-election. Big deal.

By the way, I’d be in favor of this without Arnold in the picture. I really don’t know how I’d feel about President Arnold. If the objection is that people don’t want to amend just for Arnold, there’s an easy solution:

Write the amendment so it doesn’t actually take effect until 2010.

By: Erick Holmberg

Erick Holmberg — Sat, 27 Nov 2004 06:33:01 +0000

Unless we change the constitution, then we essentially have two tiers of citizenship. In other words, some citizens are more equal than others. We should amend for Albright.