A Good Candidate for the High Position - Case Study Example

The question has been raised regarding whether or not a constitutional amendment should be passed to allow those not born within the borders of the United States to become President. The argument for such an amendment gained momentum in the 1970’s when then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a German born citizen, was widely acknowledged as a good candidate for the high position. Today, because Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has become a popular political figure, the dialogue to amend this portion of the Constitution has again gained impetus among members of both political parties in congress and within the public as well. Though America was built by immigrants and is billed as the ‘land of opportunity,’ there is one job opportunity that is not open to foreigners, or those born to U.S. citizens who happen to be traveling at the time of their birth. The office of the presidency is available to natural-born citizens. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimination in the hiring process but the top job in the White House is the one exception, hardly a shining example for a country that prides itself on diversity and tolerance and backs this concept with legislation meant to ensure these values are made into law. The provision in the Constitution is outdated and should be amended. According to the United States Constitution, Article II Section I, “no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President” (United States Constitution). This phrase means that persons who are not born in the U.S., whether they were adopted as a small infant by American parents or are a child of Americans but born outside the country are ineligible for the presidency. Many people believe that this is patently unfair and should be changed by amending the Constitution. The first of many arguments for such an amendment is located in the phrase in question, ‘at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.’ This implies that though the Founding Fathers believed it to be a good idea at the time, they did not intend for this clause to never be amended. During the decade of the 1990’s, American parents adopted approximately 100,000 children who were born in countries outside the U.S. This foreign adoption trend is rising because the U.S. is a very wealthy nation proportionate to many other regions of the world and adoption has become an increasingly acceptable method by which to build a family. Regardless of whether one is for or against amending this part of the Constitution, surely all must agree that children who only recognize American faces as their parents, only know life as an American, ably serve in the armed forces and are as patriotic as anyone must always face the knowledge that they are not considered full citizens by law. If there can be an argument for not amending this phrase, it might be for not allowing immigrants to become president. It would be a somewhat less than credible argument but everyone must agree that this country should allow adopted Americans to become full citizens. “This amendment is not a response to a current political problem, but an attempt to provide equal rights to a large and growing segment of the U.S. population” (Yinger, 1999). Many hundreds of thousands of Americans will have their civil rights expanded which would result in at least contributing to the concept of equal opportunities for every citizen and go a long way in allowing them to consider themselves full citizens. The sensitivity of the law is specifically because the Presidency is the most powerful position a person in this country can hold; it is the greatest symbol of individual accomplishment for an American. Because adopted Americans are denied this right, this reality could initiate a negative impact on their self-image. For example, a school-aged girl who was born outside the country but lived in Illinois all her life with the exception of the first two weeks was involved in a simulated presidential election in her government class. When reading the obligatory Constitutional authority establishing the office, the teacher reads the part ‘no person except a natural born citizen.’ Does the student just play along and say nothing or tell the teacher that she is ineligible? Presumably, the teacher would allow her to participate in the classroom election but that student would always carry the mental brand of knowing that they are second-class citizens to some extent. “Denying foreign-born adoptees the right to run for President is a clear assault on the principle of equal opportunity. Eliminating this unequal treatment is thus an abiding contribution to a principle that is at the heart of the American democracy” (Gordon, 1968: 32). The U.S. didn’t begin as a land of pure ethnicity and has become more diverse in color, culture and traditions since its founding. Having a president that is not necessarily a white male is becoming increasing feasible; therefore, if it is not an issue of racial bias, then there are no other argument to disallow adopted Americans full rights and citizenship. It is not unusual for Americans to live and work abroad for a few years. “One can perceive no sound reason for shutting off aspiration to the Presidency for the children born to them while they are temporarily sojourning in foreign countries” (Gordon, 1968: 32). There are those who argue that the matter could swiftly be handled by the court system. The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the Constitution. Others believe that the Congress could also legislate their own definition of ‘natural born citizen.’ Either of these paths would take far less time than would an amendment. Congress came close to something of this nature in 2000 when President Clinton signed into law the ‘Adopted Children and the Child Citizenship Act of 2000’ which gives full citizenship to adopted citizens (Anderson & Berger, 2000). What is America missing by allowing only those born on American soil to run for the highest office? Tens or hundreds of thousands of adopted Americans, a dozen million naturalized Americans, many tens of thousands of soldiers, 700 of which were Medal of Honor recipients, two state governors, Schwarzenegger and Michigan’s Jennifer Granholm who was born across the Detroit, Michigan River in Canada. Schwarzenegger has been in the U.S. for nearly 40 years after leaving his native Austria and became a naturalized citizen in 1983. Suggesting that long-time citizens of the U.S. should have the chance to run for President, Schwarzenegger commented on the NBC news program ‘Meet the Press,’ “There are so many people in this country that are now from overseas, that are immigrants, that are doing such a terrific job with their work, bringing businesses here, that there’s no reason why not” (“New Law”, 2003). The presidential race in this country has not witnessed, for example, a serious Polish, Hispanic, Italian or German presidential candidate. The race has predominantly been run by white, Anglo Saxon males. Non-American-born individuals cannot run for the vice presidency as well because the Constitution does not allow anyone not born on U.S. soil to serve as the commander-in-chief, even for an interim period of time. As mentioned, this kept Kissinger from holding either office. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was banned as well. Albright was born in Czechoslovakia. Other noteworthy immigrants to the U.S. include General John Shalikashvili, (Poland), former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Elaine Chao and Mel Martinez. Labor Secretary Chao (Taiwan) and Housing Secretary Martinez (Cuba) were both members of the Bush Cabinet. To better understand the Founding Fathers’ reasoning for adding this restriction to the Constitution in proper context, one must examine the historical condition present at that time. In 1787, the founders were rightfully fearful that a European country such as England or France could adversely influence the newly formed nation’s presidential elections. France had taken a more prominent part in the War of Independence than is commonly admitted by most American history books. Without the funding, arms, warships and soldiers that the French government contributed to the American war effort, it is highly doubtful that independence would have been won, at least at that time. France did not stretch its own national budget and military strength simply because they believed in freedom and democracy for ex-Britons in the ‘new world. They were trying to keep their arch-enemy, England, busy in a place far from France and drain its resources. The French also wanted a piece of America for itself. They settled for a large area of land which was bought by the U.S. in 1803, a transaction known as the Louisiana Purchase. The founders were justified to be fearful of outside influences in 1787, the year the Constitution was signed but realized that the present conditions would not endure forever. That’s why the phrase, ‘no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President’ includes the words, ‘at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.’ It has been over 200 years since the Constitution was adopted. The founders would not recognize the nation they began. It is more ethically diverse, tolerant and has, by the directives in the Constitution, moved toward being more respectful of individual civil rights. The beautifully crafted Constitution gave us the answer to this question if their descendents have the wisdom and are reasonable enough to realize it. However, an amendment would delay what should be changed by the courts or by a simple bill from Congress. References Anderson, Everett P. & Berger, Dan H. (2000). “Adopted Children and the Child Citizenship Act of 2000.” Immigration Daily. Available February 15, 2007 from Gillman, Todd J. (February 28, 2004). “Proposal would open door for foreign-born president.” The Seattle Times. Available February 15, 2007 from Gordon, Charles. (Winter, 1968). “Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma.” Maryland Law Review. Vol. 28, N. 1, p. 32. “New Law Could See President Arnie.” (October 9, 2003). The Age. Fairfax Digital. Available February 15, 2007 from United States Constitution. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved February 14, 2007 from Yinger, John. (August 13, 1999). “Is the Right of Foreign-born Adoptees to be President an Appropriate Subject for a Constitutional Amendment?” The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. Syracuse University. Retrieved February 15, 2007 from Read More