Born in the USA? Some Chinese plan it that way

Born in the USA? Some Chinese plan it that way(npr.org)

17 points by drewse 15 years ago | 20 comments

alanh 15 years ago |

Amazing someone who immigrated here at 10 years old could never be President, but someone who was in the US only for their birth — until much later in life — could become President.

Ever since reading a first-hand account of a grade school student quietly thinking about how their teacher’s pronouncement that “any of you could become President!” was incorrect for that student, an immigrant, I have seen this clause as a bit excessive.

doyoulikeworms 15 years ago | |

Agreed. I may come across as xenophobic, or uber-patriotic, or whatever, but I think the laws regarding eligibility for presidency should be changed, not relaxed.

For example: Required to be a citizen and resident of the USA for the majority of his/her life (>50%). Required to renounce all other citizenship. Required to have spent the last 10 years of his/her life in the US.

Something like that seems fair(er) to me.

EDIT: Clarification.

mahmud 15 years ago | | |

Those are already the requirements for a basic security clearance.

drewse 15 years ago | | |

That seems fair, and I liked the part of the having spent the last 10 years of his/her life in the US. I still believe, though, that a fraction of the person's first 10-20 years should be in spent in the US as well. This could get complicated, but it may work to require that the person have spent 75% of their childhood and 75% of the last 10 years in the USA, and possibly 50% of the time in between as well.

drewse 15 years ago | |

Yes, I definitely agree that this clause seems a little bit arbitrary. Currently the requirements for the position are...

1) be at least 35 years old

2) natural-born US citizen

3) have lived in the US for at least 14 years

One possible alternative would be to get rid of the 1st requirement, but to add another requirement of having to have lived in the US for a certain number of years as a child (under the age of 18), since we could agree that experience from growing up in the US is very important. Something along the lines of this...

1) be at least 35 years old

2) have lived in the US for at least 6 years as a child

3) have lived in the US for a total of 14 years

JustACommenter 15 years ago | | |

I agree that the clause seems unfair, but if you try to put yourself in the mindset of the founders, it's actually a challenging problem. What makes someone an American? It was clear that it is not ethnic identity and it's not where your ancestors are from, which were the main options prior to the founding of the US.

Also, do be aware it was created with people in the room who were aware of its consequences. Alexander Hamilton signed the document that made it law, and it prevented him from becoming President.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_%28Un...

alanh 15 years ago | | |

Dare I suggest all 3 clauses are unnecessary, and we should let the voting public & electorate college decide if the candidate is good enough that any foreign-ness could be overlooked?

jordan0day 15 years ago |

To be honest, I'm not especially bothered by this. You could (and many cable news and talk radio hosts have) make the case that this is just plain wrong, but isn't there worse things than having the children of affluent foreigners be American citizens? We're still a "nation of immigrants", I say the richer the better!

I'll admit my analysis of this is only cursory, so feel free to correct my reasoning.

Obviously if these children just take advantage of the system, get a cheap(er) education and return to China, it's a net loss for the USA, but it seems to me that a great many would stay here, presumably as "productive citizens".

drewse 15 years ago | |

Yes, I'd assume that most of these immigrants described by the article will become productive citizens and will benefit the USA. I don't find anything wrong with what these people are doing, except for the fact that they have to "work around the system" to achieve their goals. There will be many more people who will move with their children to the US shortly after their births and then live in the US longer than those mentioned in the article. Why should one group of people be able to become citizens immediately while the others aren't able to [until they apply for citizenship]? In short, I feel no hard feelings against those who only come to have their children here, but rather feel that the system needs to be changed in some way.

RickHull 15 years ago | | |

Yes, and also we expose them to our ideals. It's a win-win. Either they stay here and produce and inform, or they go back home and produce and inform.

augustflanagan 15 years ago |

My college roommate's parents did this (he's from the Philippines) 24 years ago. Once he was born they went back to the Philippines and his first experience in America was at age 18 when he came to the U.S. by himself for school.

It worked out pretty well for him. He has since graduated with a top notch degree and sponsored his family to come to the U.S. Kudos to them for having the foresight to do this in the mid 80's.

makmanalp 15 years ago |

I don't know what part of the world you guys are from, but it's a fairly well known strategy in Turkey. I've had a friend who did that growing up. He had dual citizenship, one by right of birth and the other by right of parents. When you think about it, doesn't it make so much sense?

Locke1689 15 years ago |

Interesting. The Constitution is pretty clear here -- if you're born on US soil, you're a US citizen. However, there's no requirement that the State Dept. issue visas to people who are 6-9 months pregnant.

sigzero 15 years ago | |

"if you're born on US soil, you're a US citizen"

Actually there IS debate about what that section actually means. Some take to mean in context that your parents had to have been under the laws (a citizen) already and subsequently you cannot just hop the border, have a baby, and the baby is a citizen. I happen to believe that as well.

anigbrowl 15 years ago | | |

Not among legal scholars, at least not since 1898.

Oops, left out the citation: US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111...

jonhendry 15 years ago | | |

Mostly it's a debate among people freaking out that the US has a black president.

drewse 15 years ago | | |

There does exist debate on the topic, although I'm not sure if I agree that there should be. The statement is clear by itself, but unnecessary interpretations are what cause a debate. I understand that there is usually necessary interpretations to be made on topics from the constitution and other legal documents, as some are very vague. However, in my opinion, this statement leaves no room for interpretations and therefore no implications should made. [Sure this is debatable, but so is everything]. Rather than spending so much time on forming interpretations, people should consider an amendment. The general consensus now may have changed since then.

julius_geezer 15 years ago |

This was popular with Korean moms some years back.