Advertisement
There is a movement afoot, originating on the left coast, to amend the United States' Constitution to allow foreign-born U.S. citizens to obtain the highest office in our land. Chiefly, the advent of Arnold Swarzzenegger's Governorship of California is the most recent spark that has again brought this issue to the public forefront. Still, I don't quite buy into it.
Our forefathers safe-guarded the Presidency with this provision for a reason, or several reasons. Certainly we are a nation that is in a large part indebted to emigrants and immigration. Americans born elsewhere have surely made the ultimate sacrifice for their grateful adopted nation. And yes, few or no families (apart from Native American Indians) cannot trace their ancestry beyond our borders; however, all of this is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
I have yet to see any viable argument or evidence which suggests that easing Presidential qualifications would be beneficial to our democratic republic. Have you? Be honest. Contrarily, even with the power of the vote to defeat foreign-born candidates, the office itself loses some of its uniqueness if we allow them to run for the Presidency or Vice Presidency. I'll explain.
Again, our Founding Fathers purposely made the office of President of the United States something special, and quintessentially American. The United States dramatically broke ties with its mother country and fought a bloody war to start anew, and one of the many functions of the new Presidency was that of being a figurehead, symbolic of this new independence. While the United States still welcomes qualified people from around the globe to join us, the facts is that we consider those citizens born as Americans to be extra special, worthy of higher stations in life.
From another angle, the birth requirement also acts as an extra level of protection or security for the nation. It assures that someone who has a special tie (birth) to the country will lead it. This helps to ensure loyalty, and disallows 95% of the world's population from ever fooling our electorate.
The clincher is my final line of reasoning. The simple truth is that most of the time a person's nation of birth remains extra-special to them, regardless of where life later leads them. What if someone born in another country were to ascend to the American Presidency, and the United States then somehow became at odds with that very nation? Do we want to put an American President in such a position? Ourselves? Could we rest assured of precisely where his or her loyalty would be then? Can anyone be trusted to attack their own birthland, if need be, in times of war? With relatives still living there? The answer is 'No.' Why place the national security and defense of the United States in such a position?
Don't misunderstand the gist of this column, please. I am in no way belittling American Citizens born elsewhere, but am rather celebrating the heritage of the majority of Americans which were born in this dear land we love. As such, I feel justified in jealously protecting the highest elected post in this wonderful land. Any reasonable requirements, such as those enacted by our forefathers, which further vett its holder can only be a good thing.
I say these things as a person who whole-heartedly supported Mr. Swarzzenegger's election as Governor of the state he truly loves, California. However, being one Governor of fifty is certainly different than being the sole President of the greatest nation in the history of the world. In the event of Austria being opposite of the United States in a future world war, I do not see Arnold as ever being willing to 'terminate' his native nation, even for the sake of his adopted one. Apart from war, smaller trade and treaty arrangements would, no doubt, present further frequent and routine problems...
Our forefathers safe-guarded the Presidency with this provision for a reason, or several reasons. Certainly we are a nation that is in a large part indebted to emigrants and immigration. Americans born elsewhere have surely made the ultimate sacrifice for their grateful adopted nation. And yes, few or no families (apart from Native American Indians) cannot trace their ancestry beyond our borders; however, all of this is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
I have yet to see any viable argument or evidence which suggests that easing Presidential qualifications would be beneficial to our democratic republic. Have you? Be honest. Contrarily, even with the power of the vote to defeat foreign-born candidates, the office itself loses some of its uniqueness if we allow them to run for the Presidency or Vice Presidency. I'll explain.
Again, our Founding Fathers purposely made the office of President of the United States something special, and quintessentially American. The United States dramatically broke ties with its mother country and fought a bloody war to start anew, and one of the many functions of the new Presidency was that of being a figurehead, symbolic of this new independence. While the United States still welcomes qualified people from around the globe to join us, the facts is that we consider those citizens born as Americans to be extra special, worthy of higher stations in life.
From another angle, the birth requirement also acts as an extra level of protection or security for the nation. It assures that someone who has a special tie (birth) to the country will lead it. This helps to ensure loyalty, and disallows 95% of the world's population from ever fooling our electorate.
The clincher is my final line of reasoning. The simple truth is that most of the time a person's nation of birth remains extra-special to them, regardless of where life later leads them. What if someone born in another country were to ascend to the American Presidency, and the United States then somehow became at odds with that very nation? Do we want to put an American President in such a position? Ourselves? Could we rest assured of precisely where his or her loyalty would be then? Can anyone be trusted to attack their own birthland, if need be, in times of war? With relatives still living there? The answer is 'No.' Why place the national security and defense of the United States in such a position?
Don't misunderstand the gist of this column, please. I am in no way belittling American Citizens born elsewhere, but am rather celebrating the heritage of the majority of Americans which were born in this dear land we love. As such, I feel justified in jealously protecting the highest elected post in this wonderful land. Any reasonable requirements, such as those enacted by our forefathers, which further vett its holder can only be a good thing.
I say these things as a person who whole-heartedly supported Mr. Swarzzenegger's election as Governor of the state he truly loves, California. However, being one Governor of fifty is certainly different than being the sole President of the greatest nation in the history of the world. In the event of Austria being opposite of the United States in a future world war, I do not see Arnold as ever being willing to 'terminate' his native nation, even for the sake of his adopted one. Apart from war, smaller trade and treaty arrangements would, no doubt, present further frequent and routine problems...