Should we require American Presidents to be born American?

--Is there something about being born in a country that makes you more loyal to it?--Should the political system protect the people from themselves?--Do the people in a democracy get what they deserve?--Should Arnold Schwarzenegger be allowed to run for President?

Should Constitutional law mandate that an American president be born on US soil? The roundtable probed the ways in which our existing law mandating such was pragmatic and/or symbolic, and debated whether the law was necessary or irrelevant, reasonable or fundamentally problematic. In terms of practical benefit, was the law a necessary protection or outdated and less meaningful provision? In terms of more symbolic considerations, was the law a reasonable requirement or a form of un-American unfairness?

We began by reviewing the legal intricacies of how the Constitution defines presidential eligibility. To be eligible to hold the nation’s highest office, a candidate must have resided in the U.S. for at least 14 years and not only be a U.S. citizen but one “natural-born.” Such a rule deems naturalized citizens and those born abroad to American parents ineligible.

Such a law was written into the Constitution at the time of the nation’s founding, a time when limited transportation made one’s birthplace a good indicator of where one spent most of one’s life. Yet these conditions no longer hold in today’s rapidly-globalizing world, where transport options more rapid than the boat make itinerant lifestyles much more possible and common. What, then, could the continued relevance of the law be?

The Roundtable first considered the law from a more utilitarian standpoint. What, if any, were the unique benefits brought about by having only American-born presidents? Perhaps it was a question of who could best be trusted to “faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Some in the Roundtable advocated that matters of national security required an absolute dedication to American interests towards the US best found in those native-born. A president must possess an almost “irrational,” automatic, and ingrained sense of preference and loyalty towards the US not interfered with conflicting identifications with another country which even naturalized citizens may retain. Yet others argued that dedication of service to the US need not correspond to being native-born. Notably, figures such Henry Kissinger and Madeline Albright served as examples of foreign-born public servants who had dedicated themselves just as greatly as native born officials. Thus, the law could likely preclude a number of worthy individuals from being able to serve as president.

Perhaps the issue thus went beyond a question of national security and competence. Clearly the intent and meaning of the law was not just practical but also symbolic; after all, was there not something that distinguished this restriction from other requirements, such as one regarding age? Beyond questions of utility, the law related to issues of culture and tradition, even the sanctity of “Americanness.” Beyond an important governing role, the leader of the American nation holds symbolic importance and it seems to be for this reason that presidential campaigns involve close public scrutiny not just of candidates’ policy platforms, but all aspects of their lives and characters.

Indeed, the intent behind the law in question seemed to be that an American president “be American,” yet what does and should this mean today when considering presidential eligibility? Candidates themselves know well the need to prove to the electorate a sense of Americanness that the electorate looks for. Yet they most often seem to equate this with ensuring the relevance of one’s image to mainstream American culture and ability to relate to the lifestyles of the majority of Middle America. This may be little of concern in itself, yet perhaps may account for the overwhelming similarities in the backgrounds of presidents up till the present. The Roundtable then thought through a brainstormed list of factors that that could or should be used to define what is truly American. A general consensus was that a good number of factors such as religion and race might have commonly been used in the past but ought not to, and that factors such as language and culture were more ambiguous, but the factors of values and ideologies of the Constitution were the most undisputed as fundamental criteria. A Roundtabler thus firmly advocated that such core American values ought to determine true Americanness more so than considerations of culture since they have remained constant while culture constantly changes.

Given this consideration, one could argue that a law that uses criteria linked to identity and circumstances out of individual control is not strongly tied to what is most fundamentally linked to Americanness. Furthermore, such a law could be seen as rather fundamentally un-American in principle, denying equal opportunity and showing a lack of faith in the democratic process that allows voters to ultimately decide who is fit to lead. Yet, some Roundtablers who might not include such a law if hypothetically creating a new constitution made a case against removing it from our existing one. Perhaps it is worth considering the components of the Constitution as a “compounded investment,” so to say, acknowledging the inherent value of our democratically-created founding documents as tradition in itself.