I wrote this in slightly different format for another forum, but in light of abujams' post/poll yesterday, it seemed worth reposting.
Please be nice/constructive, I'm a diary virgin.
I used to teach elementary school in California...about half of my students were
first-generation Mexican immigrants (and a few from other nations).
As part of the fifth grade social studies standards, I taught them about the eligibility requirements to be president -- meaning I had to tell them (provoking tears and rage from some) that half of them never could be, no matter how hard they worked, no matter how long they spent in American schools, the American military, etc....no matter how much they loved this country they'd come to at age five, seven, two, whatever. And I don't think it's right that they can't.
I understand the fear, reinforced by The Manchurian Candidate, that someone could ascend to the presidency with dastardly, even terroristic, motives...or at least with inclinations to favor another nation's interests over our own...but I don't think it's fair to assume only a foreign-born person would do that. In fact, I suspect our national tendency toward xenophobia would assure that a foreign-born candidate received closer scrutiny from the press and public, such that his/her skeletons would be harder to hide. Plus, millions of us already feel that the current administration is favoring the interests of another group (e.g. the nutty elements of the christian right, the warmongers, and/or the extractive-industry multimillionaires) over our own. If we can find someone who's only been in America forty or fifty years, whom we trust to do what's best for the true nation at large, I think we (the electorate) should have the right to try him or her out.
I also think it's tacky and inappropriate for Republicans to pass this amendment pretty
explicitly to pave the way for President Ah-nuld. [As a naturalized Californian, I've been a victim of some of the Governator's bad decisions in the past year, but in other ways he honestly hasn't been that bad.] But in the long term, Democrats and others will be eligible to benefit as well...think not just Jen Granholm, but perhaps my former student Joaquin, or someone else in a subsequent generation.
Finally, it's been argued that the founding fathers might have foreseen issues and
problems we don't, might have had their valid reasons for requiring a born-citizen president. I think the opposite. The founding fathers were pretty much all WASPs (like me), with close ties to England prior to the war, and surely could not predict that this country would grow huge and tremendously diverse, in terms of color, culture, language, and more. In writing the
Constitution, they put restrictions on the participation of "3/5 people"(slaves), women, and even men who did not own property. Gradually, we have recognized those constraints as needless discrimination and removed them. I
think it's time to lift the presidency restriction for the same reasons.