What is sure to be a big issue in the near future is the “Arnold Amendment” – a constitutional amendment allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible to run for President of the United States.
As a strong supporter, I have doubts about an Arnold-centric approach, though it definitely helps establish an earned-media beachhead for the idea. If a potential 28th Amendment to the Constitution remains about one person, it will go nowhere — and give Democrats an excuse to gleefully obstruct while denying some Republicans their dream of a Schwarzenegger presidency.
I agree that using Arnold as the poster boy for this cause, while an effective media strategy, is not the best catalyst for pushing the amendment. That being said, I personally disagree with the proposed amendment.
I have no doubt that eventually there would be a campaign to amend the constitution to remove the natural born citizen restriction for the office of the Presidency – but the reality is Arnold is the face of this cause, and to initiate changing a law for the benefit of a single person is hardly justification for changing it. Yes, there is a bigger picture, but using Arnold for this cause is bound to influence more people to support it then would without a celebrity politician who has yet to finish his first term in public office.
Individuals like Arnold or Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm are unique cases of naturalized citizens deemed to have potential to run on a national ticket. However, laws serve a broader purpose then to govern for exceptional cases.
The Founding Fathers were concerned about the “dangers from foreign force and influence” on American politics. Even today, campaigns are prohibited from accepting contributions from non-American citizens – in order to prevent foreign influence on domestic politics. The natural born citizen requirement is yet another safeguard to prevent foreign influence – this time regarding the highest office of the land.
Does someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jennifer Granholm present such a threat? I would say probably not. However, changing the Constitution now will affect not only these two politicians, but all naturalized citizens from the moment the amendment is ratified on.
Foreign countries already have more influence on our elections than they should. It seems even our own citizens – more specifically the anti-war liberals – believe that the United States should succumb to the power will of other countries (France, Germany, and Russia come to mind.) Certainly the internet also allows foreign media to weigh in and influence the American electorate.
Wouldn’t allowing non-natural born citizens to become President only increase the potential for foreign influence on the Presidency? There are countless circumstances with which you argue that both natural-born and naturalized citizen could have questionable loyalties. I would tend believe however that a naturalized citizen would have a greater chance of being subject to foreign influence than a natural born citizen.
A naturalized citizen running for the Presidency probably would never get to such a position if his or her loyalties were in question – but I still feel better about keeping the safeguard in place.
Patrick Ruffini offers what would be a much more effective strategy to bring this amendment to fruition – but I still am highly cautious about the unforeseen and unintended results that could happen by the ratification of the “Arnold Amendment.”
As of now, I have been unable to find any specific details on the “Arnold Amendment” – particularly a residency requirement. Therefore it is hard to completely judge the amendment. I have no idea if it would allow someone to move to this country one day and file papers the next day. My initial feeling is that the amendment is a bad idea – however I do not know how bad it is yet because I do not know what safeguards it offers to prevent foreign influence on the presidency.
So let’s see what they are asking for, and discuss the pros and cons.
The Hatch proposal suggests a 20 year citizenship requirement.
More to the point — do you think there are more pressing issues that should be first in line for a constitutional amendment? The 27th amendment seems unneccesary to me and if the 28th amendment gets called the Arnold amendment I actually think the movement is downhill.
How about an amendment that restricts gerrymandering during House redistricting or an amendment which sets restrictions on deficit spending? How about something codifying US senate rules so the fools don’t run around following legislative edicts from 1917? I’d like to see items that clearly deserve to be printed in the same ink as the bill of rights.
The “Arnold Amendment” would repair an outdated portion of the US constitution but I don’t think it even comes close to addressing the greatest existing outrages in our system of government.
While the “Arnold Amendment” will increase the rights of a few prominent public officials, I fail to see how changing the applicant pool for president from 250 million to 260 million people, will improve our government or provide us with better leadership.
When the Guardian stuck its nose in the presidential election, people were outraged that a foreign entity was trying to influence the vote. So it goes, with Arnold, if this amend goes through, what’s there to say that the foreign born, naturalized candidate wouldn’t be getting advice for their homeland? The con’s for such an amend far outweight the pro’s – given that we have enough misguided political leaders in of own. We don’t need to add another plutocratic cigar chomping tinsel town yahoo in office.
I HATE this idea. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing with this one. Have any of you people lived overseas? Do you know anyone who has lived here 20+ years but was born somewhere else? Nationality is a strong force and the Founding Fathers had emminently more experience with this than Orrin Hatch…Trust them on this one!
It must not happen it’s every American’s responsibility to use whatever means necessary in order to prevent such a change to happen.