Yao Ming's road to the White House
Tim Cavanaugh | October 4, 2004, 3:48pm
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) proposes amending the constitution to allow naturalized citizens to hold an office even Zanzibar-born Freddie Mercury assured Americans he didn't want: the President of America.
The proposed amendment makes for some interesting splits among pols in California (and presumably, other states). Governor Schwarzenegger, no doubt eyeing a federal ban on foie gras, supports the idea. GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher has introduced a similar bill in the House. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi is all for it but quibbles over the necessary time of residency and/or citizenship. But fellow Democrat (and naturalized citizen) Rep. Tom Lantos comes out strongly against:
I am irrevocably opposed. Our Constitution should only be amended for the most pressing and substantive reasons. There are 250 million native-born Americans, and there ought to be enough talent among them to find someone to serve as president.
"But," Lantos adds in his most charming Count Chocula accent, "if there is a restoration of the Austro-Hungarian empire, I am ready to consider a joint candidacy with Arnold, provided I am on top of the ticket."
Although the Bush/Kerry race gives the lie to the idea that our native-born talent pool is large enough, I kind of side with Lantos on this one. Being denied the presidency is a pretty light burden for a naturalized citizen to bear, and in the absence of any pressing need, amending the constitution should always be a low priority. But I'm willing to be persuaded on this issue.
James Anderson Merritt | October 5, 2004, 12:50pm | #
Jason Bourne: Of course an American should be well-read and well-traveled, hopefully polyglot. I would have a problem with someone who didn't know English very well, who was raised outside the country during formative years, and who nostalgically thinks of another nation as his or her home. With luck, however, the voters would determine such qualities during an election and prefer the more "homegrown" candidate.
Anders, "ouch" me all you want, but remember that I said "ideally," and no reasonable person expects the ideal to be completely or frequently achieved. Furthermore, what are you extracting from my comment that is "ouchworthy"? Racism? Xenophobia? Hardly, on either count. The American "gene pool" changes daily, as citizens die and new ones take their place through birth or immigration. Since, under the constitution, eligibility for the Presidency begins in a single generation, there's no mechanism (nor should there be) to systemically or chronically exclude "outsiders."
My point is that our "gene pool" and our "American experience" need to be sufficient, in combination, to produce the kind of leaders we need, the equal or better of any others in the world. If we feel like we have to open up the process because we have to recruit from outside America to get "the best," then I submit that America was going wrong long before that point; we should concentrate on identifying and correcting the wrong turn before we further contemplate foreign recruitment.
Finally, what is to keep someone from being head of state in two countries? I doubt that any foreign nation would let a native-born American take its helm, "King Ralph" notwithstanding. But if we were to allow non-native born citizens to be President, then isn't it possible, for instance, for Austria to grant dual citizenship to Mr. Schwarzenegger, and then elect him to high office over there, even as we stampede to the polls to put him in the White House over here? I suppose that is far fetched, but perhaps not even as far fetched as thinking that the Terminator would someday be governor of Cauli-FOHR-nya. Normally, I find it a waste of time to consider extreme hypothetical cases, but recent political developments, especially Schwarzenegger's rise to power, have made me rethink that policy.
