Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?

[Ryan]

Well the unthinkable has occurred!!!
I actually find myself in complete agreement with Monsieur Migrendel

For one the debate over allowing naturalized citizens to run for the highest office is not a new one by far and the idea that it was started to accommodate Arnold is ridiculous. It is being pushed by BOTH democrats and republicans and led by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) Lets lets say if there is ever an "Arnold for President" campaign; Hatch wont be one of its foremost backers. With dozens of promising Presidential candidates for the future, many of who would be far more suitable to Sen. Hatch and the conservative base; it is absolutely illogical to think that Hatch and colleagues would be pushing this for Arnold's sake.

No the issue that they are concerned about is treating all Americans as Americans. To say that naturalised citizens are unfit for certain office is to declare them in some way Second-Class Citizens. This is fundamentally un-American and unacceptable.

The current law makes so sense whatsoever. As things stand several known sympathizers of Al Quaida especially of Saudi origin are US citizens because they happen to have been born here while their parents were working in the US. On the other hand someone whose family came to the US when he/she was six months old, was brought up entirely American and maybe even has long service in the Armed forces is deemed unfit to run for President. Does this make sense to anyone???

There are thousands of Americans citizens who became so slightly late in life but are more loyal and committed to America than many of those born here. Many of these actually serve in the Armed forces and contribute considerably to American society. They account for a large section of the Hispanic population of America as well as Asian-Americans etc
Now I am all too aware that aside from one or two examples all of these would not be able to make a serious run for President in the near future. This is besides the point. It is a question of fundamental rights and privileges of these people that cannot be denied.

If for no other reason the current policy is odious because it assumes that people are unable to make an informed choice for President and must be protected from themselves by regulating who they are allowed to vote for in the first place.

Denial of the right to stand is an affront to both liberal and conservative principles and to the very idea of America herself. Fortunately I believe its days are numbered and one of the least notices but most grievous inequities of our system will soon come to an end.

I would support this amendment, not because of any adoration of Arnold, but because I think it fundamentally right to make naturalized citizens full members of our society. One does not choose their first homeland. It is an accident of birth. Yet one can choose to renounce that country because of a new-found allegiance to this one. If someone comes here, often against intense odds, puts the effort in to become a citizen, and wishes to lead after 20 years, that should be our right. It's a simple part of our national ethic of acceptance.

[Ryan]

Thanks for the heads-up about the original purpose of the discussion. I'm usually the first one to point that out actually; though I've kinda given up on that of late

I was motivated to make my emotional appeal by the fact that a lot of people whose opinions I respect seemed to take a view against the amendment. I decided to make one of a few exceptions to my policy of refraining from advocacy on this site to try and provide logical input that might change a mind or two.  

I hadn't heard that announcement from Sen. Hatch but I'm still going to be difficult and maintain that even if he did use Arnold as an example of a person who should have the right to run; it is not (as is being made out by some) a partisan move by a few republicans to make eligible a candidate whom they fancy.
I repeat my assertion that, "

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"

As to the chances of its passing, I feel they are very good as it’s a bipartisan issue and supporters from both parties are likely to increase as foreign born US citizens and their family become informed about the issue and make clear to pollsters their support for it.  

Just FYI about how many the above category are; in September, the U.S. Census Bureau said the foreign-born population in the United States had grown to more than 33 million in 2002, a jump of 5 percent in one year, and accounted for nearly half the country's population growth last year. The foreign-born population accounted for 44 percent of the total U.S. population growth during the year.

[Ryan]

Did you know that 10% of the American public would pay $5 to see Orrin Hatch fight a big mean dog on pay TV?

Over 80% would root for the dog!

(source: a real opinion poll published on TV Nation in 1995. MoE 9%)

Well I first considered being all outraged and upset, then I figured, What if the same question were asked about Ted Kennedy

[Ryan]

Bah, U guys are just pissed because he's too intelligent and well spoken for you to pan as a dumb extremist firebrand and now he's even managed to come up with an amendment which BOTH Migrendel AND I can support

[Ryan]

Whats wrong Senator Hatch? Don't you think Bush can win again? Evidently not, you must think that in order for the Republicans to be elected again in 2008, you must have the strong and powerful AHNULD run.

Loada crap dude an you know it

Refer my earlier posts on the whole Hatch Arnold thing.

I too disagree with the concept of term limits as currently enforced but I respect the reasons that people support it for. They do have some merit!!

[Ryan]

Paul I respect the measured tone of your post but may I respectfully submit that your last point below doesnt seem to make any sense. Why would an antagonistic foreign country see a naturalized American President as less tougher than otherwise?? This sounds to me more like an excuse than a viable reason.

Would for instance Arnold S seem less tough than dean?? Okay sucky example but it illustrates what I'm saying. A  Presidents perceived toughness and ability to respond to provocation depends far more on their record and persona than anything else. Why do you worry about electing an otherwise excellent President who MIGHT  be underestimated by enemies ONLY cause he is foreign born when apparently many in the democratic party want to nominate a US born candidate who will DEFINITELY have the same effect??

Also if that’s your worry then we also need to prohibit people who have lived abroad for a long time or whose parents are from abroad from standing. After all these people could technically also be perceived as likely to be easier by enemies, isn’t it??

I take it you also worry what if the president was originally from the troublemaking country??? Would he be encouraged to go easy on it?
Dude, I scarcely think that Americans would be electing an Iranian or a North Korean anytime soon. (though I personally would not oppose it if the candidate were good)

That’s the whole point. Americans are fully competent to make those determinations. The Presidential election process is very rigorous and all relevant points about a candidate and the pros and cons of his/her Presidency will be brought up, brought to the public's attention and thoroughly discussed.

If for no other reason the current policy is odious because it assumes that people are unable to make an informed choice for President and must be protected from themselves by regulating who they are allowed to vote for in the first place.

Lets place some trust in our democracy and respect on the millions of our citizens who by the accident of birth were born with foreign citizenship but American hearts.

As far as naturalized citizens' gaining the right to run for POTUS, I do feel that it would be fair to allow them to do so...but once again, the ideal and the reality clash.
If a nation that is unfriendly to the United States believed that the leader of the free world would be unwilling or even hesitate to retaliate to an attack, they may be more likely to start war.  I realize that the likelihood of this is quite low, however, in an age of nuclear proliferation and "rogue states" possessing WMDs, our ability to deter attacks is very important.  I do stress that I believe a naturalized citizen would be fully qualified and competent, but the perception of the world is important.

[Ryan]

Nym I'm gonna do something rare and apologise; that too for dissing Dean

The reason I feel so motivated, is the whole bunch of folks who have recently joined and been posting pure partisan stuff in forums whose topics are supposed to be neutral. I'm afraid I did the same thing but not intentionally.

I was replying specifically to and trying to convince, Paul, who as a fellow republican, I assumed would share my views on Dean (as an example of a native born American who would be regarded abroad as weak). I forgot that all who read the post would not do so. Sorry about that.

Btw I do believe  what I said about dean but it is definitely for another forum and I'll reserve comments for that

All good points Ryan, and well stated. However, I disagree that Dean would be DEFINITELY (the caps were yours there, not mine) be viewed as a weak and not "tough". In my view, diplomacy, coalition-building, and respect for the views of our allies are signs of strength, not weakness. However, that is an entirely different thread, of course, and I realize you disagree with my views of what is considered strong or weak...but I just felt it necessary to quibble with your view that he would definitely be perceived as weak. It is definitely a matter of debate as to what international perception of Dean would be, not at all a certainty.