Among other things, the election of Austrian-born Arnold
Schwarzenegger as California’s governor revived interest in a
question too long ignored: Why should Americans born abroad be
barred from this country’s top job?
Among other things, the election of Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger as California’s governor revived interest in a question too long ignored: Why should Americans born abroad be barred from this country’s top job?
The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section I) says: “No person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the office of president.” Maybe that made sense in 1787, so soon after the American colonies had won their freedom and the fear of European meddling in the new country lingered. But 217 years later, in a country with more than 30 million foreign-born residents, a large percentage of them naturalized citizens, the ban is an anachronism that discriminates against far too many Americans.
Many foreign-born Americans have made substantial contributions to this society, from captains of industry to eminent scholars to members of Congress to Nobel Prize winners.
One of every six Californians is ineligible; nationwide, the percentage of foreign born is more than 11 percent.
Obviously there should be limitations, particularly a minimum period of citizenship. Legislation offered by Sen. Orrin Hatch would set it at 20 years.
Amending the Constitution is a long and difficult process, as it should be. Only 27 amendments out of thousands proposed have been adopted. Two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of state legislatures would have to ratify such a change. A positive outcome would end a practice that discriminates against many qualified people, and it would let Americans choose a president based on leadership qualities and not on where he or she happened to be born. At the very least, let there be a thorough debate.
