Foreign-Born Presidents

Ogged fires back in defense of the theory that we should fear President Granholm selling us down the river to the Canadians:

Yglesias and his commenters seem to be of one mind that the exclusion of naturalized citizens from the presidency is self-evidently anachronistic. It's always seemed like a good idea to me. Nationalism is real, and even for immigrants like me, who have very few memories of the country of their birth, the old country retains a special tug, and you don't want a president with special feelings for any country other than the one he's elected to serve.

I don't think this will wash at all. We don't systematically exclude non-"natural born" citizens from any other government posting even though loyalty to the United States is presumably something you're looking for in a Secretary of State, a general, a National Security Advisor, etc. But more to the point, this is why we have elections. There are a lot of characteristics I consider generally undesirable in a president, but we don't constitutionally exclude people from office on the basis of anything other than birth nationality and age. What's more, for a range of possible countries to have affections for, would we actually care if the president had dual loyalties? What would the problem with an emotional attachment to Austria or Denmark be? And why would your birth nationality matter more for these purposes than the issue of where you were raised?

Comments

Also a stupid comment because, you know, plenty of people who were NOT born in the "old country" nonetheless feel an attachment for it.

Posted by Marshall | February 20, 2007 9:55 AM

I'm going to file this one under "Rat's Ass, Don't Give A."

Posted by dj moonbat | February 20, 2007 10:04 AM

Also, doesn't that pretty rule out all "serious" Jews (unlike us funny Jews) who presumably have "special feelings" for the country that shall not be named?

Posted by Beeg | February 20, 2007 10:04 AM

Seconding Marshall, my dad is an Iranian immigrant, I was born here, and indeed I do feel an attachment to the "old country". Why in the hell am I allowed to be President, Ogged?!

Posted by nate | February 20, 2007 10:04 AM

plenty of people who were NOT born in the "old country" nonetheless feel an attachment for it.

Absolutely. I was born in U.S. territory (Puerto Rico) and both of my parents were U.S. citizens (one of them was a naturalized immigrant), but I have "special feelings" for Portugal, which is where the majority of my ancestors came from. That doesn't mean that, if Portugal and the U.S. were engaging in hostilities, I'd agree to spy for the Portuguese; I wouldn't, I'm an American, and I love this country. But I have clear sympathies for my ancestral relations, and when the Olympics or World Cup roll around, I root for Portugal and Puerto Rico before I root for the U.S. You'll find plenty of born citizens with similar sentiments in any concentrated ethnic community, I'd wager.

Posted by Quarterican | February 20, 2007 10:04 AM

Seriously do we really need a debate about something that maybe affects five people every four years? Why don't we debate the clause that prevents states from granting a title of nobility? (Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1) I think it would be awesome if States could have figurehead nobles. Georgia and California could fight over Julia Roberts. Minnesotans could keep Jesse Ventura in the public eye. Granted lets not give these nobles any power, but where's the harm in the state selling an Arch Duchy to someone if it means absolutely nothing but they can call themselves Arch-Duke (or Duchess)?

Posted by crack | February 20, 2007 10:05 AM

Your argument suggests getting rid of the age limits too.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | February 20, 2007 10:06 AM

But I have clear sympathies for my ancestral relations, and when the Olympics or World Cup roll around, I root for Portugal and Puerto Rico before I root for the U.S.

We ought to replace the Constitutional prohibition on non-natural born citizens being president with a Consitutional requirement that the President root for the USA before any other country in international sporting events.

Posted by Al | February 20, 2007 10:10 AM

Your argument suggests getting rid of the age limits too.

Yes, although this tends not to come up in practice. By contrast, at any given time there tend to be quite a few foreign-born governors/cabinet members/congresspeople this being a nation of immigrants and all.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 20, 2007 10:14 AM

Someone should ask JFK how he felt about Ireland. How do we think Barack Obama feels about Kenya or Indonesia? Giuliani and Italy?

Posted by right | February 20, 2007 10:19 AM

We ought to replace the Constitutional prohibition on non-natural born citizens being president with a Consitutional requirement that the President root for the USA before any other country in international sporting events.

Fair enough, as long as the requirement allows for people to change their rooting interests accordingly - i.e., "As a private citizen I sometimes rooted for [ancestral country] over the U.S., but as the leader of this glorious country it is my duty, my pleasure, and my privilege to root for the United States of America, henceforth, ever and always." Sort of like how if you move, you get an opporunity to revise your rooting interests. I mean, lots of politicians represent locales with sports teams they presumably didn't grow up rooting for.

Posted by Quarterican | February 20, 2007 10:22 AM

No foreign princes, or men on white horses

The Founders didn't want the Presidency to evolve into an elected monarchy, like that of the Poland or Hungary of recent memory at that time. It was thought that there would be considerable temptation, especially in a crisis, to elect a foreigner with a large army at his disposal, given the relatively weak American military of the time, and our demonstated allergy to the high taxes needed to maintian significant standing armies and fleets.

Nowadays, the largest problem we face is that the electorate is all too willing to maintain standing armies and fleets much larger than we have any conceivable need for, so, yes, this provision of the Constitution is no longer needed. If anything, we need a provision added that prevents our country's military from being used so freely to "help" other countries with their internal security needs.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | February 20, 2007 10:23 AM

I was born in London, but I feel no tug of the 'old country.'

Posted by Matt Stoller | February 20, 2007 10:27 AM

"What would the problem with an emotional attachment to Austria or Denmark be?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What if Communist China initiated hostilities with Taiwan? Many would argue that the U.S. waging an all out war with them over such aggression wouldn't be the best course of action. "Losing" Taiwan would be regrettable but it probably would take nuclear weapons to roll back a determined invasion. President Hammer with Austrian sympathies might sit tight. President Chow, having serious emotional sympathies and ties to Taiwan, might choose a very different path. Of course such entanglements and complications could be present in any President but there are considerations to allowing foreign born leaders.

Posted by steve duncan | February 20, 2007 10:30 AM

I always kind of thought the prohibition against naturalized citizens being President was because of a fear that some kind of "Manchurian Candidate" could come to power.

The only argument I can think of against naturalized citizens becoming President is the fact that the President is the only person in the country with the power to initiate a nuclear war.

Posted by JR | February 20, 2007 10:32 AM

I was born in New Jersey approximately two months after my parents got here from Scotland, (my father was from Baltimore, my mother from Edinburgh.)

My sister was born in Edinburgh. Thank God that bitch won't be President!

But me? I am the Manchurian candidate! Her to impose haggis on the rest of you.

Posted by Lettuce | February 20, 2007 10:36 AM

"Your argument suggests getting rid of the age limits too."

I see no reason for age limits. Or, 18 seems like a good one. Let the voters weigh all these factors. If they want a 20-year-old native Latvian, they should get her.

Posted by david mizner | February 20, 2007 10:41 AM

The only argument I can think of against naturalized citizens becoming President is the fact that the President is the only person in the country with the power to initiate a nuclear war.

If one were starting from scratch, perhaps. But the best argument is that it's already unconstitutional. To change the Constitution is kind of a pain. This means that people aren't just going to do it for nothing: they'll do it for Schwarzenegger, or some other ill-conceived foreign savior. It's not worth doing for that.

Posted by dj moonbat | February 20, 2007 10:42 AM

We simply won't see the constitution change in our lifetimes.

Arguments on merit don't matter at all.

Posted by David | February 20, 2007 10:48 AM

It was thought that there would be considerable temptation, especially in a crisis, to elect a foreigner with a large army at his disposal

Speaking of which, are we sure Schwarzenegger *doesn't* have a large army at his disposal, just lying around somewhere? Or possible just a few extra battalions of special forces-type commandos in his private employ? Have we checked? Because those could come in handy. Or did they all perish in the jungles of Val Verde in 1987?

Posted by Quarterican | February 20, 2007 10:53 AM

As long as Arnold is the T-800, he doesn't need an army.

Posted by Al | February 20, 2007 10:57 AM

i'm in the rats ass camp as well

Posted by looj | February 20, 2007 11:01 AM

One way to address both the age and the naturalized citizen requirement would be to amend the constitution so that only people who have been citizens for X years (18? 21? 35?) are eligible to serve as president.

Posted by henry evans | February 20, 2007 11:05 AM

What if you own land in another country? That could play a big role too. Maybe you own a farm in Mexico, or inherited a few hectares of forest in Scandanavia, etc, that'd be something to talk about during the election. "Will presidential candidate so-and-so resist launching airstrikes on Monaco because he has a condo there?"

Posted by American Citizen | February 20, 2007 11:11 AM

Excellent point, Matt.

But also, why SHOULDN'T the president have a special attachement to a different country? After all, John Kerry had one for France...

Posted by PEG | February 20, 2007 11:13 AM

Not much to say, just agreeing with the people who are suggesting the "natural-born" provision is a holdover from monarchy, and the incestuous (figuratively and almost literally) ways of choosing rulers in Europe. Spain, Austria, France, England - hell, for all I know, every European country — had either rulers or close family members of rulers who belonged to the Hapsburg dynasty at one point in history or another. Such divided loyalties were probably not good for the countries as a whole and certainly not good for the citizens of them.

And you know, I've been cynical and pessimistic about the Bush dynasty, and the possibility of going Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton in the Oval Office, but this sort of puts it into perspective. Sure, our democracy has degenerated to the point where George H. W. Bush was followed just eight years later by George W. Bush... but on the other hand, it took us 200 years to degenerate that far. Could be worse.

Posted by Cyrus | February 20, 2007 11:19 AM

"Will presidential candidate so-and-so resist launching airstrikes on Monaco because he has a condo there?"

While the stakes are higher here, it'd be a perfectly legitimate thing to talk about during the election, just like any other private interest of a presidential candidate's which might intersect with his on-the-job decision making. I mean, it's not like people held back from pointing out the ways in which Bush was or might be beholden to Big Oil, and it's not like people are going to refrain from using John Edwards' career as a defense attorney to attack him, not just because cetain people find these ideas objectionable in and of themselves, but because it's fair to point out that these associations will bias decision making.

Posted by Quarterican | February 20, 2007 11:20 AM

What if Communist China initiated hostilities with Taiwan? Many would argue that the U.S. waging an all out war with them over such aggression wouldn't be the best course of action. "Losing" Taiwan would be regrettable but it probably would take nuclear weapons to roll back a determined invasion. President Hammer with Austrian sympathies might sit tight. President Chow, having serious emotional sympathies and ties to Taiwan, might choose a very different path. Of course such entanglements and complications could be present in any President but there are considerations to allowing foreign born leaders

Then don't vote for President Chow. That's your call.

What if President Chimpy started a stupid war? The constitution can't save us from everything.

Posted by moriarty | February 20, 2007 11:22 AM

If the natural-born citizen requirement did not already exist, there would be no good reason to impose it. But jiggering up the amendment machinery on such a small-time issue for such a small return just isn't worth the bother.

Posted by CJColucci | February 20, 2007 11:28 AM

Slippery slope! If we allow naturalized citizens to become President, what's next? Dogs?

Posted by Little Ricky | February 20, 2007 12:02 PM

Maybe it'd be better to worry about the qualities of the people we elect regardless of national origin or sympathies. For instance when presented with a candidate that is a former drug addict, a dry drunk, a murdering sociopathic xenophobe, a failure at every business venture ever attempted, an inveterate liar and an AWOL military service dodger maybe we'd just take a pass.

Posted by steve duncan | February 20, 2007 12:07 PM

If the natural-born citizen requirement did not already exist, there would be no good reason to impose it. But jiggering up the amendment machinery on such a small-time issue for such a small return just isn't worth the bother.

Agreed. As as has been addressed in the other comment thread, the only reason this subject has been getting such traction recently is due to a cult of personality about the governor of California. Amending the Constitution on one person's behalf is an absolutely shitty idea. Sure, there are substantive reasons for the change. But there have been substantive reasons for the change for much of the last two centuries, and virtually no one has cared, because most of us will never be President regardless. And our choices at the ballot box are restricted in so many other ways anyway. Are we just pushing this amendment because we can? Or is there some strange thought that we could somehow package it with amendments that really matter?

Posted by mds | February 20, 2007 12:19 PM

I think it helps to greatly minimize one often contentious variable from the presidential campaigns, that of ethnicity. Other than Vice all elected positions can represent discreet sub groups of Americans, a nation of immigrants, and appropriately allow for the exercise of purely local preferences.
There is I think something to be said for keeping those politics out of what is meant to be a unifying national ceremony.
And yes I believe that native born is more likely to be of mixed ethnicity and/or less likely to play a nationist card.

Posted by tiptap | February 20, 2007 12:24 PM

I wonder how much dual loyalty we've already seen from our presidents. Considering that our presidents have all been descended from immigrants from nations like England and Ireland, it wouldn't exactly be obvious - especially since WWII - if our presidents had feelings for the old country.

While the logic here is not completely like that of the Japanese internment camps, it is pretty close. The camps were made because of the fear of Japanese disloyalty. Instead, all of the spies who were caught spying for the Japanese were caucasian and prisoners like Daniel Inouye became respected war veterans and Senators. By the logic of this part of the Constitution, it might follow that Inouye should never have been allowed to seek office. It's not exactly 1:1, but still close. I mean, the fact that Clinton was an Irish Protestant didn't exactly prevent him from engaging Gerri Adams to find an end to fighting in Northern Ireland.

Posted by Reality Man | February 20, 2007 12:29 PM

I don't like the focus, but Israel is a special case here in the sense that every Jew has, at least theoretically, an Israeli passport made out in his/her name, just waiting to be picked up. That's an odd temporal switcheroo.

But it reminds us that the idea of citizenship is relatively modern, the product of the nation state, and it's resolving itself into something more fluid through travel and immigration and cross-border marriage and so on.

Cyrus: although people look, for instance, at the descendents of Queen Victoria occupying thrones across Europe, the incest taboo was generally even stricter for royalty during the time when monarchs ruled outright. You might marry a royal, but it would generally be one with no blood tie, and as part of a political alliance.

Such divided loyalties were probably not good for the countries as a whole and certainly not good for the citizens of them.

And yet the Founding Fathers drew inspiration from a process in which an English-born monarch was ejected in favour of a Dutch import. Curious, that.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 20, 2007 1:00 PM

I'm with rat's asses.

(As long as we don't let the Hapsburgs in.)

Posted by AJ | February 20, 2007 1:49 PM

In my view the topic is worth discussing because it represents the country's generally outdated views on citizenship and nationality. As Matt and others pointed out, citizenship based on location of birth is fairly arbitrary. Adam is born in the US, then one week after birth moves to Ecuador for 30 years. Betty is born in Ecuador and a week later moves to the US for 30 years. Under the law, we will uproot and deport Betty, throwing her in detention (otherwise known as jail) in the process if necessary, and welcome Adam back with open arms whenever he feels like showing up.

Nationality is a recently constructed, in many senses arbitrary way to organize a society. It works out rather well for us since we're the biggest kid on the block, at least for now. It works out rather poorly for many, many other people around the world. Yet nationality is treated with a reverence formerly reserved for religion while the premises it is based on are rarely questioned.

Posted by yave begnet | February 20, 2007 1:56 PM

And yet the Founding Fathers drew inspiration from a process in which an English-born monarch was ejected in favour of a Dutch import. Curious, that.

And evil! Long live Francis II, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland!

Hm. I suppose the fact that the Jacobite heir is a German nobleman does somewhat undercut any "native-born" argument as well. Though in the Dutch (and later Hanoverian) case, nationality was trumped by which church the monarch belonged to, which is where we seem to be heading in the US, amendment or no amendment.

Posted by mds | February 20, 2007 2:30 PM

Austrian Hitler was good for Germany.

Georgian Stalin was good for Russia.

Corsican Napoleon was good for France.

Right?

Posted by Quiddity | February 20, 2007 2:31 PM

Ogged fires back in defense of the theory that we should fear President Granholm selling us down the river to the Canadians
It's too late you fools. Ask yourself. Where are the busiest US-Canadian border crossings? What state has strategic dominance over an extremely valuable water system half-owned (so far) by Canada? We're already doomed.

Posted by apm | February 20, 2007 3:08 PM

Yet nationality is treated with a reverence formerly reserved for religion while the premises it is based on are rarely questioned.

But nationality is an issue in the US precisely because of its difference from the nationalism of, say, Europe in the mid-1800s. (For instance, Native Americans are not US citizens from birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, but on account of treaties.) If anything, the small group of people who still, accurately note that the border moved, not them, reflect that form of nationalism; the popular response to the descendants of northern New Spain shows how curious a phenomenon American nationalism is.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 20, 2007 4:10 PM

nationality is an issue in the US precisely because of its difference from the nationalism of, say, Europe in the mid-1800s.

Americans tend to view U.S. nationalism kind of like they do social mobility--the myth is that anyone can make it to the top (or become a citizen) if they keep their nose clean and try hard enough. While in theory anyone can become an American citizen, in practice it is extremely difficult for most people. While we're somewhat more liberal than Europe on the number of immigrants we let into the country, in the real world American nationalism isn't much different from 21st century (as opposed to 19th century) European nationalism.

One problem with the myth of inclusion is it gives credence to the idea of American exceptionalism. If our citizenry somehow represents the rest of the world, if only because every noncitizen is a potential American, then when we act abroad we're by definition not only acting in our national interest but in the global interest. In this way we can fool ourselves into thinking anything we do abroad furthers the interests of some nebulous "democracy".

Posted by yave begnet | February 20, 2007 5:36 PM

Come on, matt. It is in the Constitution for a reason (long gone) and there isn't any real momentum to remove it.

The founders DID NOT WANT A MEMBER OF THE BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY to be eligible for the Presidency. Even as late as the writing of the Constitution, there was some sentiment that we should return to the family in some manner.

So yeah, it doesn't make sense today, but who's going to change it?

Posted by JimPortlandOR | February 20, 2007 5:59 PM

Is this really something that keeps you up at night, Matthew? I'm more disturbed by the fact that Paris Hilton has a better chance of becoming president on a lark than the best constitutional lawyer in the country does. Isn't it a bigger worry that nobody can become president without courting the wealthiest companies and individuals in the world? Solve that problem, then we can focus on Arnie's career.

Posted by Mikef | February 20, 2007 10:42 PM

The founders DID NOT WANT A MEMBER OF THE BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY to be eligible for the Presidency.

Well, sort of, though as others have said, an equal fear was of a charismatic continental interloper, given what had happened to Poland. President Lafayette, anyone?

in the real world American nationalism isn't much different from 21st century (as opposed to 19th century) European nationalism.

I think you're right, to the extent that popular nationalism is defined by language, religion, and (though it must not be said too loudly) by race. But then you have what might be called 'C-SPAN nationalism', which is all about the nationalism born from ideals and principles, etc. And it's the friction between the two that makes it interesting.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 21, 2007 1:07 AM

Cyrus: although people look, for instance, at the descendents of Queen Victoria occupying thrones across Europe, the incest taboo was generally even stricter for royalty during the time when monarchs ruled outright. You might marry a royal, but it would generally be one with no blood tie, and as part of a political alliance.

Er, what? Marriages between first cousins were incredibly common throughout the last millennium, and occasionally there were even uncle-niece marriages (or aunt-nephew, more rarely). Franz Joseph and Sisi and Victoria and Albert were both first cousin matches, for instance, in the 19th century. Louis XIV/Marie Thérèse was a double first cousin match. There was, of course, an incest taboo, and Catholic monarchs, at least, had to get papal dispensations for marriages that would normally be banned for consanguinity, but they did this all the time.

It's worth noting that it wasn't just the British royal family that the requirement banned. I seem to recall that there was some talk, for instance, of bringing in Frederick the Great's younger brother, Prince Henry of Prussia.

Posted by John | February 21, 2007 2:40 AM

we have too many senators right now who are more loyal to Israel than the US. right, Lieberman?

Posted by merlallen | February 21, 2007 3:08 AM

"I see no reason for age limits. Or, 18 seems like a good one. Let the voters weigh all these factors. If they want a 20-year-old native Latvian, they should get her."

Or if they want her for 16 years. The two terms amendment sucks because the sovereign people ought to be able to vote for whomever they want. Now, I know this change would have resulted in a severly senile Ronald Reagan as president, but it's still the right thing to do.

Also, congress expelling one of its members is B.S. The people put 'em there, only the people should be taking them out.

Posted by witless chum | February 21, 2007 9:34 AM

Question for Matt: Do you support PedroMarin and SamZam (first item at my link)? What about MartinSandoval , someone from Chicago who wants to serve as a Mexican legislator at the same time as he serves as a Illinois state senator? Since I doubt that Matt is going to lead the charge to expose those three and expel them from office, I have a great deal of trouble supporting his presidential thesis.

Posted by Meet your friends | February 21, 2007 11:31 AM

What would the problem with an emotional attachment to Austria or Denmark be?

Because of the secret liberal plan to grant amnesty to fifty million illegal Mexican immigrants, wait seven years, have them all get citizenship, and then elect Subcommandante Marcos President of the US.

This has been another edition of Insane Answers to Weird Questions.

Posted by mattsteinglass | February 22, 2007 11:16 AM