I disagree. And look at certain countries in Europe that are allowing this today, it’s not working out well for them.
4 Likes
Hello again.
The beneficial outcome is that our laws are clarified. It may be that the clarification means some categories of citizens, probably just young children that were born in other countries, but maybe one or two other categories, know they can run for president.
The bottom line is
If people are being illegally kept from or disuaded from exercising their rights, then we need to challenge and clarify or nullify those laws or preconceptions.
Most of the arguments in this feed so far are logical fallacies. “People do bad things and break existing laws, so we have to take rights away from everyone” sound familiar? If our current naturalized citizens in office are already doing these things, then the scaremongering posts arent really saying anything or warning of anything that isnt already happening and can’t be used to explore this topic.
Theres no harm in clarifying our laws so everyone knows what is available to them.
1 Like
And if you have noticed, I did suggest putting this on the back burner so we dont complicate existing more pressing activities that may require some serious attention and heavy lifting in the near term.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to sit around with a fat cigar in the reading room and discuss policy with others…or to eventually even make a workable and just policy.
However, there may be facet to that which many do not consider; and that be best shown in the light of a chronological bar chart expressing overlapping tasks for a project time line.
My arguement here is not that the policy should not be debated (or the task created for the project)…It is simply that I think we need to slide that task much further down in the chronological overlapping of tasks, and toward the end of the project plan, since it has no serious and urgent dependencies or notable delivery value.
I wont even begin to share my objections with amending the Constitution in order to make this task a priority.
Thanks for clarifying why it is being discussed, and thanks for hearing how I might rank the importance of this task in relation to the overall revamping of our American System.
2 Likes
Let’s break this down logically:
- Conflating Clarification with Expansion of Rights
Clarifying laws is not inherently bad, but your argument seems to conflate ‘clarifying’ with ‘expanding’ rights to include foreign-born citizens running for president. This isn’t just about making laws clear—it fundamentally alters the eligibility requirements for the highest office, which is a much larger discussion than simple clarification. - Logical Fallacy: False Equivalence
Your argument suggests that because ‘bad things happen’ with existing officeholders, it invalidates concerns about changing eligibility criteria for the presidency. This is a false equivalence. The presidency uniquely holds unparalleled power and influence, particularly over national security. The natural-born citizen requirement is a safeguard meant to reduce risks of foreign influence, which is not directly comparable to issues with other officeholders. - Ignoring Safeguards Already in Place
The Constitution’s natural-born citizen clause isn’t about fear or scaremongering—it’s a precaution. Saying that potential misuse of power by current naturalized citizens proves there’s no harm in altering these laws ignores that the presidency’s unique scope of authority requires higher safeguards than other roles. The argument that ‘bad actors already exist’ isn’t a justification for removing existing protections. - Practical Implications Overlooked
Expanding eligibility would require significant vetting processes to address dual loyalties or conflicts of interest. Current naturalized citizens in government are vetted differently than a presidential candidate would need to be under this expanded framework. Simply put, this isn’t a question of whether clarification is harmless, but whether it introduces risks that outweigh its benefits. - Lack of Harm Assessment
You argue that there’s ‘no harm in clarifying our laws,’ but introducing ambiguity about loyalty and allegiance to the U.S. at the presidential level could weaken public trust and lead to divisive political conflicts. The harm here isn’t theoretical—it’s a real possibility that this change could polarize and destabilize our political system further.
Ultimately, this isn’t about denying rights; it’s about preserving the integrity of the presidency as a uniquely American institution. The natural-born citizen clause serves a specific purpose, and altering it requires more than dismissing valid concerns as scaremongering. It demands a comprehensive risk-benefit analysis that your argument doesn’t address.
3 Likes
This my inital comment: “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.”
I’m not advocating for anything other than clarification.
As far as risk, A lot of the same arguements in this feed were used by media and politicians as propoganda to take rights away from citizens. Is there risk? Yea, but is there anymore risk than what we already experience? Maybe, maybe not.
Technically with the current definitions, a child born to illegals in this country could run for president, but not a child that was legally adopted.
That’s a hard no,
5 Likes
I can not comment on the vacation abroad situation, but I was born in England to 2 American born parents, one in the Air Force stationed there, and I had a dual citizen ship until I was 18, then I had to decide which one I need to keep. I would think anyone in the Diplomatic Corps was the same. If you are working for the Country you are probably covered.
1 Like
But are you eligible to run for president ?
Yes.
I’m sorry, but I must disagree. Our Constitution is clear and for good reasons. Such alterations could open Pandora’s box for infiltration and nefarious foreign agendas. What we DO need to ensure is that every candidate is indeed a natural-born citizen [should have done this with Obama]. It could have prevented a lot of the mess we are currently in.
8 Likes
Terrible idea
4 Likes
I’m not aiming this at any individual but to us all ;
1 person’s wanting to be president does not outweigh a whole nation of people who need to be safe, sorry.
Preserving life comes first, it has to. How is that a question?
2 Likes
Why if you think about it, Obama was really that one, it was never proven he is a US citizen, as well take a look at the ones in our government now, that support there country they believe in AOC is one there’s other, I say NO to that idea it’s crazy.
2 Likes
That’s a terrible idea. BIG NO from me. If you were not born here you can do almost anything - you can be a governor, senator, representative, serve in the Cabinet, or any civil service position. There’s just ONE THING you can’t do, and that’s to be POTUS. Let’s keep it that way.
5 Likes
Look what Obama and Kamala have done. Neither should have been allowed to serve. The squad. Somalian born people in our state government. This is an idea that should be discussed further, but currently it has devolved our country into socialist and communist ideology. I’m against the premise.
6 Likes
Technically with the current definitions, a child born to illegals in this country could run for president, but not a child that was legally adopted. This needs to be addressed.
Absolutely not. That’s surely and absolutely rediculous. 
People who do not share the same lifestyle, norms, and values should not have the right to be president. Why would somebody post this or propose this idea? Surely they have read Platos Republic and surely they have the knowledge and concious to see why this is a bad idea.
You put someone who does not have American values and they will put in policies people will disagree with and will sink the nation. They will serve their own interests and the interests of the nationality they come from. Extremely bad idea.
3 Likes
You are right it does need clarification. Not only should foreign born citizens not be allowed but first and second generation should not be allowed because they don’t have enough ties to the country yet.
3 Likes
This is an attack on our Country. I would actually look at this post as a way that people intend to attack our Country.
4 Likes
Your proposal would require a constitutional amendment to be legal.
1 Like