Admit it: There’s a definite, glamour-rooted appeal to having the Terminator as California’s governor. And a huge part of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s celebrity appeal comes from (if not the biceps) that accent: Ahnold! Cal-ee-forn-ya!
Guardian
After getting off to a somewhat rocky start battling Californians skeptical of an actor leading the Golden State, Schwarzenegger has proven himself worthy of the task. Now he and some of his governmental coworkers have begun asking an interesting question: Why stop at governor?
Members of the U.S. Senate have recently proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would allow foreign-born citizens to run for president. The Governator himself, rumored to harbor presidential aspirations, is one of the proposal’s strongest proponents.
And it’s not necessarily a bad idea. It’s a pretty good one, actually — just not yet.
Remember how many incensed protests, speeches and the like spawned in the wake of the 2000 and 2004 elections? And consider how many Americans staunchly support the war in Iraq, and the equal number who oppose it just as vehemently. The possibility of Americans electing a foreign-born president would be met with an entire spectrum of reactions; to push such a monumental change in the Constitution now would only further the dichotomy between right- and left-wing America.
The proposed amendment, though it may affect very few people, is a radical suggestion and challenges one of the longest-standing statutes of the Constitution — so let’s not be too hasty. Without experience to cite as evidence, there’s really no clear-cut answer as to whether electing a foreign-born president would be a good idea.
It’s not difficult to imagine arguments from the proposed amendment’s opponents.
There’s always the question of mixed interest, of course — how would one’s loyalty to the United States be evaluated if one had been born in another country? (Some have proposed a 35-year residency requirement — a 15-year increase from the current presidential requirement — in conjunction with an amendment allowing non-native presidents). What if a foreign-born president still had significant familial or other connections in his native country? Would an individual born in a country on hostile terms with the United States be allowed to run? Would U.S. citizens find it difficult to submit to a president born elsewhere?
But on the other hand, it’s equally possible that placing a limit on such an immutable aspect of eligibility could be denying the United States some highly qualified candidates. The foreign-born segment of the United States is a significant portion of the population. The most recent U.S. Census recorded a foreign-born population of 33.5 million, or just under 12 percent of U.S. residents — that’s a large number of Americans to deny eligibility.
Qualification is also an issue. Schwarzenegger cited Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger as foreign-born individuals (both from Europe) who, as government officials made vital contributions to the United States. They are not alone, of course. Austrian-born Schwarzenegger is no pioneer as a governor: California’s seventh governor, John Downey, was a native of Ireland; Illinois and Nevada have been led by foreign-born men as well. If Schwarzenegger fulfills his duties as governor well enough, it’s likely that he would make an equally competent president if given the chance.
And, as the more idealistic would argue, America is supposed to be the “land of opportunity.” What good is the title if an immigrant is so restricted?
There’s no way to say for sure yet, but what is certain is that the benefits of waiting to make such an extreme change to the Constitution in favor of unifying Americans would far outweigh those of electing a foreign-born president.
Obviously, that’s not a precedent that can be applied to all actions. Slavery would still exist, women wouldn’t be allowed to vote and many forms of abuse would still be legal had that been our mantra since day one.
But this is a different case. An amendment that would open the presidential race to a few more candidates, who immigrated despite knowledge that they’d need to find other ways to serve their new country, is an idea odious to some. While that would be entirely irrelevant in circumstances where the rights of some were being infringed upon, keeping the Constitution as is for the time being is an exercise in prudence, not prejudice.
Perhaps America would benefit from a presidential race in which a major candidate was born in another country. But in the meantime, there are a number of highly qualified presidential candidates who can run the country, and America will benefit most by focusing on improving and maintaining unity before attempting to revise the charter by which it is governed.
But in four or five more years, the proposal should be revisited.
