That’s a bit dramatic
The United States has 300 Million Citizens to Choose From. 
In no way should anyone else be chosen for any reason. Others may have Family and Heritage that can alter decisions.
It is in the United States Constitution.
They knew what it took to fight for Independence, which takes Separation.
Not Everyone Can Be Allowed To Do It.
We need Our People in Government, to Fight for Their People they Represent, who some have been here for generations.
-Bret 
4 Likes
Realistic. There is no way any rational person would suggest this type of risk to our Country.
6 Likes
Youre not even trying to be reasonable
That is true when they came into office everything turned shit now look at the way the government is today and that person wants to keep it nl way I say
1 Like
The EU is controlled by the globalist and sadly do not have an opposition leader like President Trump!! do you not see the heavy hand of the fascist leaders in Canada, France, UK…? are we being trolled @lvnh1? truly unbelievable anyone would suggest such a thing after, this 2024 election, we stopped the commies and their eviol ways here in the USA. Have you not learned we have to live by the United States Constitution?
5 Likes
Terrible idea. If anything, it needs to be changed that only US citizens who are descendents of naturalized US citizens can be President, VP, Senators, or House. Should also be at State levels aldo.
3 Likes
Well stated! And I think you also could use your logic when assigning a weight to this policy suggestion as well…
Perhaps stated in such a way…When we have to remodel and restore the entire house, we dont worry about a crooked nail in a door frame. This policy resembles that crooked nail. Could we fix the nail – sure. Should we worry about the nail while we should be worrying about how to replace the roof? Probably not. I am not devoting any more time discussing a crooked nail or a single person’s ability to hold a future office when we need massive action and a lot of barn-raising hands working together to fix the current disasterous state of our country.
2 Likes
I say NO because this country is founded on Judeo-Christian values, the God of the BIBLE. Our American President should also know and understand that we are a country under God and follow the constitution which is derived from the Bible. When a President steers away from this the country is in chaos with deviant behavior dominating it. However if a President adheres to it, there is dominating peace and sound behavior. This is why the Constitution based on the Bible and the Bible should be taught to children and young adults in our schools, homes, and churches with the expectation that a qualified President will rise among them.
3 Likes
You must be forcing born…No the founders were very enlighten. Absolutely not.
2 Likes
there is nothing to reason here, absolutely not.
1st born citizens are not even allowed.
It is VERY clear in the constitution.
so, yeah, nothing to reason here. bye.
I love how “gfhj” is going around putting a thumbs down on everything they disagree on LOL bet they are a commie
2 Likes
False on all counts. The founders were inspired by the enlightenment, not the bible. They wouldve been disappointed that anyone wanted a specific religion taught in school, please read their correspondence about this.
Yea lets start with the personal attacks section of the debate, that will definitely solidify your argument. Lmao
My whole point is its actually not clear. But you people are too emotionally reactive to actually take time to think about anything regarding this topic. So i’m done wasting my time.
Go check out my 25 policy proposals and then tell me I’m a commie
2 Likes
I TOTALLY agree! In general, I don’t think it’s a good idea to change things that are in our constitution. Our founders put a great deal of thought into it and it’s a very good document for running govt. We need to be extremely careful when we think about changing anything in it. Foreigners did not grow up in our country and don’t always understand our way of life but also it’s a GREAT way for our country to be infiltrated by deep state entities.
4 Likes
Thank you for clarifying your position. I agree that meaningful conversations are essential, especially when addressing constitutional topics. However, I believe there’s an important distinction to make between ‘clarification’ and fundamentally altering safeguards designed to protect the presidency. Here’s why:
- Clarification vs. Redefinition
Clarifying existing definitions is one thing, but expanding eligibility to include foreign-born citizens (even under specific circumstances) shifts the purpose of the natural-born citizen clause. This clause was explicitly designed to reduce the risk of foreign influence in the presidency. Altering this definition could fundamentally change its intent, requiring more than clarification—it would necessitate careful constitutional reevaluation. - Risk is Not Just Theoretical
While you argue that the risks of changing eligibility criteria are comparable to existing risks, I’d counter that the presidency uniquely concentrates power over national security, foreign relations, and the military. Expanding eligibility introduces potential risks of divided loyalties or undue foreign influence that are different in scope from risks associated with other citizens or government roles. - False Comparison of Rights
The current framework allowing children born to non-citizens in the U.S. to run for president (under birthright citizenship) is based on jurisdiction and allegiance at birth. The comparison to legally adopted foreign-born children overlooks this distinction. Birthright citizenship assigns allegiance at birth, while adoption, though significant in personal and legal terms, does not retroactively establish birth-based allegiance. - Precedent for Restrictive Safeguards
It’s worth noting that many countries impose restrictions on who can hold their highest office. For example, Austria, Italy, and the Philippines all require their leaders to be native-born. These safeguards are not about fear-mongering but about ensuring a unique bond of allegiance from birth for roles with unparalleled influence. - Propaganda Concerns and Protecting Rights
I understand your concern about the misuse of propaganda to take away rights. However, this debate isn’t about denying rights—it’s about maintaining the integrity and security of the presidency. While risk is inherent in any governance system, reducing potential avenues for foreign influence is a critical constitutional safeguard worth preserving.
Ultimately, clarification can be valuable, but it must not undermine the purpose of existing constitutional safeguards. We should approach this discussion with a nuanced understanding of the potential risks and broader implications of altering eligibility for the presidency.
3 Likes
exactly what a commie would say
2 Likes
Nope!
1 Like
I also believe the Constitution states only US born citizens can being our government, the founding fathers tried to cover all avenue, so if they are not a natural born citizen, then they can’t or should not be apart of our government, if they don’t have a real US birth certificate, then they can’t be a part of the government.
3 Likes
Nope sorry this won’t work. We have an issue in our country at this very moment with loyalty to the American people. It seems they are putting there foreign interests before Americans interests. This is a horrible idea
5 Likes
The babies would be US citizens in these situations. “A child born outside of the United States and in wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother and U.S. citizen father acquires U.S. citizenship at birth if one of the parents has been resident in the United States, or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the child’s birth.”
1 Like