Amend the constitution to allow foreign-born presidents

Banning foreign-born citizens, who didn’t choose their place of birth, from running for president is wrong. All citizens should have the same rights regardless of where they were born.

3 Likes

NEVER. THAT is a terrible idea.

53 Likes

This deserves a meaningful conversation. I think there may be valid constitutional arguments for some cases that fall under this topic umbrella. We may not even need an amendment, just a clarification on existing definitions.

1 Like

Absolutely not, sorry. We don’t need foreign operatives openly running the place.

It might feel unfair to those individuals who might wish it otherwise, but it’s more important that we protect the security of the nation over their wants.

45 Likes

Not a good idea. They will force their culture on the whole population.

22 Likes

What about kids that have been adopted at young ages? That’s not exactly an edge case.

No. This is a very dangerous idea. It opens the door to an attack on our Country by foreign interests. Absolutely no.

32 Likes

No, no and no. The presidency is solely reserved for American born citizens, and citizens of American born parents.

33 Likes

I like the law the way it is.
The President should be born on American soil, and have all loyalty to America.
I would even go farther and say that no President or representative or any other elected official to the federal government should hold citizenship in any other country, dual or otherwise.

28 Likes

The law the way it is could easily be interpreted to allow for some foreign born citizens to run for president, but it has never been legally challenged. It may be that someone in this category will have to sue the government to force them to define the terms.

It might be more than unfair; it might be illegal. I’m not saying you are doing this, but we shouldn’t cherry pick from our founding documents. I could be wrong in the end, but there’s enough legal ambiguity it warrants scrutiny. We already have bad actors in the local, state, and federal government; maybe naturalized citizens would care more about our originalist ideals since they sacrificed more to get here.

2 Likes

If anyone has the time, probably decades, and money, oof, and meets the criteria to legally challenge this, heres a good starting point.

Legal Brief Challenging the “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement for Presidential Eligibility

I. Introduction

The U.S. Constitution, in Article II, Section 1, requires that the President be a “natural born Citizen.” Traditionally, this has been interpreted to mean that only individuals born to U.S. citizen parents are eligible to run for President. However, this interpretation fails to account for the complexities of modern citizenship, particularly in cases involving children adopted from other countries. This brief challenges the restrictive view that only children born to U.S. citizen parents can be “natural born Citizens,” using the example of internationally adopted children to argue for a broader interpretation.

II. The Ambiguity of the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause

The Constitution’s use of the term “natural born Citizen” is intentionally vague and does not define specific criteria. The ambiguity surrounding this term has led to conflicting interpretations, particularly with regard to children born abroad or adopted from other countries. Given the absence of a clear definition in the Constitution, the meaning of “natural born Citizen” should be derived from the principles the Founders held and the evolving understanding of citizenship law.

III. Children Adopted from Other Countries as “Natural Born Citizens”

Adopted Children and U.S. Citizenship:
Under U.S. law, children adopted from other countries by U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, provided certain legal requirements are met. The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 grants automatic U.S. citizenship to children adopted from foreign countries when they enter the U.S. under the age of 18 and meet the required legal conditions. This statute recognizes adopted children as U.S. citizens, regardless of their birth nationality or the citizenship status of their birth parents.

The Concept of "Natural Born" Citizenship for Adopted Children:
If an adopted child is granted U.S. citizenship under the Child Citizenship Act, does this mean the child is a "natural born Citizen" under the Constitution’s eligibility requirements? There is a strong argument that the Framers of the Constitution did not intend to exclude such children from the presidency, even though they were born abroad or adopted from foreign countries.

The case of internationally adopted children highlights the flexibility of the “natural born” requirement. These children, though born outside the United States, are legally recognized as full citizens with the same rights as those born on U.S. soil. They are subject to U.S. laws and owe allegiance to the United States. There is no rational reason to exclude them from the presidency simply because of the circumstances of their birth or their adoption, especially when they have been integrated into the U.S. political community in the same way as any other citizen.

IV. Historical Context and Founders’ Intent

The Framers of the Constitution did not foresee the modern phenomenon of international adoption, but their broader understanding of citizenship was shaped by natural law principles that emphasized the connection to the country, rather than solely the circumstances of one’s birth.

Natural Law and Citizenship:
The concept of citizenship in the 18th century was influenced by natural law, which held that individuals born within a country’s jurisdiction (jus soli) or to its citizens (jus sanguinis) were part of that political community. The idea of "natural born" likely referred to individuals who were integrated into the political fabric of the country, regardless of their parents’ nationalities.

Adopted Citizens as Part of the Nation:
The legal recognition of adopted children as U.S. citizens is consistent with this natural law approach. By adopting children from other countries, U.S. citizens create new bonds of allegiance, and these children assume the same status as those born on U.S. soil. The Founders likely envisioned a citizenship system flexible enough to incorporate new generations of citizens into the body politic, even if those individuals were not born to U.S. citizen parents.

V. Legal Precedents and Modern Citizenship Law

Immigration and Nationality Act:
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) has long recognized the concept of derivative citizenship for children born abroad to U.S. citizens. However, the inclusion of adopted children under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 further supports the idea that children adopted from other countries should be treated as full citizens, with the same rights and privileges, including eligibility for the presidency.

Legal Precedents:
There is no legal precedent barring a U.S. citizen who was adopted from another country from holding public office, including the presidency. If adopted children are considered citizens in every other respect, there is no logical or legal basis for excluding them from presidential eligibility.

VI. Equal Protection and National Unity

To deny presidential eligibility to adopted children is to create a second-class status for these citizens, based solely on the circumstances of their birth or adoption. Such a distinction would be inconsistent with the core American principles of equality and inclusion. The Founders’ vision of a unified, republican government was based on the notion that all citizens, regardless of birth origin, should have equal opportunity to contribute to the nation’s leadership.

VII. Conclusion

The restrictive interpretation of the “natural born Citizen” requirement, which excludes children adopted from other countries, is inconsistent with both the Founders’ intent and the principles of modern citizenship law. Children adopted from foreign countries, having been granted full U.S. citizenship, should be considered natural born citizens eligible to run for President, just as individuals born on U.S. soil or to U.S. citizen parents. Therefore, the term “natural born Citizen” should be interpreted to include all individuals who have been granted full citizenship through legal processes, including adoption, regardless of their birthplace or the nationality of their birth parents.

Our country is already hijacked by foreign nations and supporting their interests over ours. So, there’s no need for that.

11 Likes

Hard pass.

13 Likes

An American couple goes on vacation abroad with the wife 7 months pregnant. While abroad, the baby is born prematurely. Should the baby be allowed to be president ?

A woman in the military is deployed abroad and gives birth to a child there. Should the baby be allowed to be president ? Same question for children of US diplomats stationed abroad

2 Likes

I disagree, only 2nd generation citizens should be defined as ‘natural born’.

A redefinition could be helpful for a certain age range of adopted children (under 3), but not one geared towards allowing 1st generation immigrants from holding executive office.

4 Likes

No way

6 Likes

The presidency represents the highest office of trust and accountability to the American people. The natural-born citizen requirement ensures an unbroken connection to American values and interests from birth. This isn’t about fairness but about safeguarding our nation’s sovereignty and security.

Historical Context: The Founders included this clause in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution to prevent foreign influence in the highest office, a concern validated by examples of foreign meddling in governance during the 18th century.

Global Precedent: Other democracies also impose similar restrictions. For instance:

  • Austria and Italy prohibit non-native citizens from holding the office of President.
  • The Philippines requires the President to be a natural-born citizen and have lived there for at least 10 years before election.

Statistical Relevance: Of the 35 million foreign-born individuals living in the U.S. today (as of 2023), nearly half became citizens through naturalization. While they are vital contributors to society, preserving this constitutional safeguard minimizes risks of dual loyalties, as highlighted in cases of espionage or undue foreign influence.

This isn’t about exclusion but about protecting the integrity and independence of the office.


Sources:

  1. U.S. Census Bureau, foreign-born population: Foreign-Born
  2. Historical context from the Constitution Center: https://constitutioncenter.org/
  3. Global election requirements: Comparative data from International IDEA: https://www.idea.int/
5 Likes

Don’t you think we have had enough horrible policy decisions coming from unqualified foreign-tied governmental officials for a generation?

Let’s get through all of the investigations, treason, sedition, and countless crimes by our present set of foreign-tied officials before suggesting that we make it even easier for more of this ilk to get elected into our most sacred offices of control. I am not clear on what the beneficial outcome of this policy suggestion, if put into action. Are we saying that we have so few strong upstanding leaders within our local ranks that we must broaden the pick-list to include more people with foreign family ties? Or is it merely, so that we can “be fair ‘everyone’”? I mean…what really is the purpose here? What should we be heavily contemplating or pondering, and why? Is something broken? Is something at risk? Or is something lacking with the current process, or with the mental faculties of our current crop of potentially electable Americans who have no recent "foreign family"ties? Please share what is to be “fixed” here.

Would we switch a bus driver while the bus is flying downhill? Would we switch pizza chefs in the middle of a pizza being flipped? Would you switch transmission protocols in the middle of an active data stream? Would you risk changing ANYTHING in the middle of a ANY complex and evolving situation? Probably not.

One does not FIX potential problems by adding more variables to the equation – the general approach is to simplify towards a solution – not ‘complicate’ your way towards it. This policy only adds more complexity, unknown variables, potential problems, and even a remote National Security threat, at the worst possible time in our current History. All for what? I’m still missing the push for this change.

I for one, would think this sort of policy suggestion should sit on the back burner for oh…probably a generation or longer, before we entertain such a notion. The wounds are too fresh, the crimes have not even been investigated yet. It is way too soon for this. We need rock-solid patriotic Americans with at least 3 family generations hewn from the very bedrock of these United States. At this stage of the game, with all of the rebuilding and repair that is needed, nothing less will suffice. :us:

6 Likes

I agree the language might need to be clarified. One commenter mention military or diplomats abroad having a baby.

My understanding is that in the case of military, likely the birth takes place on base; which is considered US soil. There is no difference between my citizenship and that childs.

If a diplomat gives birth in a location considered US soil, than it’s the same as above.

But this scenario or our large immigrant population was not something the founding fathers could have foreseen.

1 Like