59361 - Natural born citizens

[Katya]

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/59361/

I have an aunt and uncle who are both natural born US citizens. They have a son who was born in Belgium because his dad was in the army and that's where he was stationed at the time. From what I understand after reading this section of the Wikipedia article on natural born citizens, it's not constitutionally clear if someone like my cousin is eligible to run for president. I don't know that my cousin has any political leanings (he's still in high school), but I do think it's unfair if my cousin or someone in a similar situation isn't eligible to run for president.

[ahem.]

I always thought that military bases were technically considered sovereign US soil, so it would logically follow that those born on foreign military bases would be natural born citizens. I guess I've fallen prey to "widespread popular belief."


But I'm also pretty sure John McCain was born on a military base in Panama (or the Panama Canal Zone if it makes a difference), and they would have let him be president if he had won the election.

[TheBlackSheep]

Like I've said before (http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/54014/), I think it's a silly rule, especially when it comes to people like my dad or possibly Katya's cousin.

[vorpal blade]

I agree, Katya, that it seems unfair to prevent someone like your cousin from serving as president.

However, I think it should be fair to bring into question, when considering whether to vote for someone or not, whether that person was brought up in a foreign country during his or her formative years, and was indoctrinated with the customs, values, and loyalties typical of persons of that country.

[Katya]

I always thought that military bases were technically considered sovereign US soil, so it would logically follow that those born on foreign military bases would be natural born citizens. I guess I've fallen prey to "widespread popular belief."

Or, at least, it's not considered US soil for purposes of the 14th amendment. It may be for other purposes. (Actually, I'm almost certain it is.)

But I'm also pretty sure John McCain was born on a military base in Panama (or the Panama Canal Zone if it makes a difference), and they would have let him be president if he had won the election.

Good counterexample! (Or example. I'm not sure which way I'm going.) Although, it looks like the Panama Canal Zone was considered an unorganized U.S. Territory, so I'm still not sure what it would mean if a presidential candidate was born on a military base that was in a foreign country. (And to further muddy the issue, I don't think my cousin was born on base.)

[Katya]

However, I think it should be fair to bring into question, when considering whether to vote for someone or not, whether that person was brought up in a foreign country during his or her formative years, and was indoctrinated with the customs, values, and loyalties typical of persons of that country.

I agree that that's a fair question, although I think I have a personal high tolerance for foreign-ness.

[Craig Jessop]

It's a well known secret that I served my mission in New York, which is more or less one of the greatest immigration centers in the United States, if not the world. As you can imagine, I met immigrants from all over the world, ranging from definitely illegal, to those who overstayed visas, to students, to permanent residents, to naturalized citizens. Practically every one maintained a fierce loyalty to their home country, recognizing that they were here because of economic expediency, and those that were more committed Americans retained strong aspects of their home culture, including language, holiday customs, and attitudes towards politics and government. I have on person in mind in particular, who is a naturalized American citizen. He's happy as a clam to be one! And I'm happy he is! He contributes in productive ways to society, holds a good job, is educated, and considers himself American first. But, his upbringing gave him certain attitudes towards important things that really send a signal of "my way is better than your way," which causes him enough tension in his personal and business life that would cause even greater problems if he were the most powerful man in the country.

[wired]

Or, at least, it's not considered US soil for purposes of the 14th amendment. It may be for other purposes. (Actually, I'm almost certain it is.)

I'll point out, for the record, that the Constitutional requirements for the Presidency are not found in the 14th Amendment, but in Article II. The Fourteenth Amendment actually refers to "person born or naturalized in the United States" while Article II says "a natural born citizen." As weird as it may seem, those two terms not only could be construed differently, but they probably would be construed differently by the Supreme Court. The historical context and purpose probably would impact them in ways that would create nuanced differences.

[ahem.]

Practically every one maintained a fierce loyalty to their home country, recognizing that they were here because of economic expediency, and those that were more committed Americans retained strong aspects of their home culture, including language, holiday customs, and attitudes towards politics and government.

Yes, there are non-NB citizens who have strong ties to another culture or country. But the same goes for many NB citizens (for example, the children of the non-NB citizens I just mentioned). For the most part, though, these non-NB citizens you mentioned are immigrants and no one is particularly arguing at this time that they should be eligible for the presidency.

The issue here is that are also some non-NB citizens who do NOT have strong ties to another culture or country. They just happened to be born abroad for one reason or another. Why should they be ineligible to run for president?

[Katya]

I think I have a personal high tolerance for foreign-ness.

Let me put this another way: It's not that I think that any one who's legally a citizen is automatically integrated enough to be a good American president, I just think that there are many, many Americans who are very suspicious of foreigners and that they would dash the hopes of any such national candidate long before I would have to get involved.

[Marduk]

I take exception with the concept that individuals born in other countries almost always have fierce loyalty to a home country. I would grant that they generally speaking have strong ties to the cultures and mores of that place, but I don't think the United States has a particularly strong cultural influence, and that is why the previous persists. I also think it is entirely irrelevant to one's ability to govern; however, I do grant, as Katya points out, that such an individual would have immense obstacles to hurdle without making it explicitly prohibited.

[Craig Jessop]

@Marduk

I do agree that one's national origin has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to govern. But whether or not they should govern America is something entirely different. To one who hasn't grown up in American schools, who hasn't had the social American experience, who hasn't been told how awesome this country is from birth, it would be nigh upon impossible to govern the U.S. as president. As Congressmen, yes, it's awesome to have a few immigrants -- I'm as big of a Tom Lantos fan as you get -- but they don't have the feel of "being one of us." It would be hard for native born Americans to follow, say, a naturalized Tony Blair.

An example is the issue over illegal immigration. I have yet to find a person -- U.S. citizen or not -- born in another country (except maybe Canada) whose opinions on the matter have developed over time. Let's not start this debate here, but how many naturalized Latinos do you know who don't think that Americans are incredibly racist for not letting their countrymen in legally? Now I know you've got Hispanic blood, and I do too, so I'm sure that you personally know some, but the count is very, very few. I guess the point is that being born in another country gives a natural bias toward what our system has been for ages, and against American culture.

There are exceptions, of course, but for the most part they are smart enough to stay out of politics.

As for a pervasive culture, you probably just don't notice it. If you were to move to, say, Turkey, I guarantee you you'd seek out the American community who eat what you eat, watch what you watch, and think how you think. I know I would. We would form our own "Little America." It's true that the U.S. doesn't have a national dance, or a real national food (sorry, apple pie doesn't qualify), or a real sense of "we've been here for a thousand years and this is who I am," but we have an incredible culture if you think about it: free thought. General equality. T-shirts and jeans. Hollywood. Protestantism. Hard work. You get the idea.

[Yarjka]

And yet I know people who were born right in the heart of the U.S.A. and hate American culture, to the point where some have found any chance possible to live outside of the country.

Is there a law on how long a presidential candidate has to live in the U.S. in order to qualify? Can he be born in the U.S., but live the majority of his life in foreign lands?

[Craig Jessop]

Per the Constitution, he or she must have lived in the United States consecutively for the last fourteen years.

[TK]

So, yeah, you could live outside the US for the majority of your life and still run. The thing that gets to me on this subject is that the President is an elected official. The big objection is towards an immigrant who would put their mother countries' interests first, or govern in some distinctly "un-American" way, but he would still have to be elected. I mean, if the entire nation is willing to elect such a president, well, that's democracy. However, it is more likely that a president seen as likely to put our interests second to Canada's, Saudia Arabia's, Iran's- whatever country- would suffer in an election among American citizens.

[Tao]

If you take into consideration the atmosphere the founding fathers projected, this may make a little more sense. Coming from a monarchical system and wanting to avoid the problems associated therewith while keeping some of the safeties provided, the regulations on presidential candidates are more understandable. The masses have never and will never know enough about a presidential candidate to really provide any reliable protection from corruption nor conflicts of interest. (Some would argue that the founding fathers never intended presidential elections to be decided by the masses anyway, but that's another topic altogether.)

I wonder if it also has to do with the president's role as commander-in-chief. Even if a president is likely to put our interests second to another country, there is precious little they can do about it without the backing of a majority in congress. Where this differs is in war. If we elect Arnold, and Austria decides to get uppity (for some reason my imagination is already too taxed to fill in), would people trust any decisions he made concerning any martial action against his home country?

[Marduk]

I think it is also deeply rooted in American isolationist policy. In many ways we've seen that a lot of the mentality associated with isolationist ideals are intensely detrimental. While I don't think this particular policy is one that is intensely detrimental (unlike, say, the foreign trade policies that helped lead to the great depression), it is one that seems archaic and mostly unnecessary now.