The election of Barrack Obama as the president of the United States was historic because it showed that any US citizen with the desire, dedication and talent could become the president. However, in reality, not all US citizens are eligible for the office of the president. The constitution prevents anyone born outside the US from running for the presidency, even if they are legal citizens of the US. This is a double-standard and against the spirit of democracy and equality. How can someone be told that they can achieve anything they want, only to be told later that they are ineligible to become the president of their own country? The concept of “citizens” with limited rights (essentially second-class citizens) promotes the idea that “all citizens are equal, but some are more equal than others”. Therefore it is a necessity to remove the native-born clause from the constitution in order to preserve and promote the ideal of democracy. Opponents of removing the native-born clause claim that naturalized citizens are a disloyal group; but they are simply being xenophobic, since naturalized citizens have more reasons to appreciate the freedoms and opportunities of the US. Also, they fail to consider the fact that native-born citizens are equally susceptible of putting their personal interests above the interests of their country.
To understand why the constitution disqualifies foreign-born citizens from the presidency, we must understand the political and social atmosphere of the US during the 1700s. The US had gained independence from the British Empire after a long and bloody revolution. After becoming a sovereign nation, it adopted the then-radical idea of democracy. As a young nation and a pioneer of democracy, the US was very vulnerable at the time. There was a very real possibility for an enterprising monarch to send a subject to become the head of the US, thereby gaining vicarious control of the US. In other words, democracy was a liability if everyone was allowed to run for president. The founding fathers believed that anyone born in the US would be much more likely to be loyal. And that is why they included the clause that only native-born citizens can become the president of the US. There was a need for this measure during the 1700s since there was a viable threat back then. But today, in the age of globalization and cultural interconnections, such a threat no longer exists.
About 8% of Americans are naturalized citizens. Many of them came to the US with their parents when they were infants. They grew up with American culture, they went to school in America, they pay allegiance to the US and they know only ONE homeland – the US. They love the US as much, if not more than any natural born citizen . And for all their patriotism and loyalty, they are ineligible to run for the presidency. Should kids be told that they can achieve anything they want in life if they work hard and do well in school only to be told later that they cannot run for president? And only because they are naturalized citizens? This might lead them to have an inferiority complex. They will feel like second class citizens. In some extreme cases, it may even lead to a loss in motivation. Sure, not everyone who wants to become the president achieves their dream. But the idea that they can achieve anything is a placebo to keep them motivated. Take away the placebo and u have a loss of motivation.
Preventing naturalized citizens from becoming the president is against democracy. In a democracy, all citizenz are equal. denying a large percentage of “citizens” the right to run for president fosters the image of second-class citizens, and is a double standard. There shouldn’t be any stratification in citizenship – if anyone deserves the right to gain citizenship, they should have the same rights as other citizens, including the right to become the president.
Some opponents of this amendment claim that certain foreign people could buy their way to the presidency and then be a puppet to another nation. People who make such claims obviously lack knowledge about the political institutions of America. They lack basic knowledge about the core ideals of the consititution – about the numerous checks and balances devised by the founding fathers to preven just that. And most importantly, they ignore the American public – any candidate would have to win the heart of the American public; and to do so, they would have to understand how the American public thinks; what the American public cherishes; to be PART of the American public.
Other opponents of the amendment argue that naturalized citizens are not loyal citizens. Once again, there claim is not based on any facts. Naturalised citizens are one of the most loyal groups in America. They have a much higher perception of how great America is. Many of them had to work hard to become naturalized citizens of the US and appreciate the US even more so for that. Natural born citizens may sometimes take the US and the perks of living in the US for granted; however a naturalized citizen would never do so and cherish the opportunity to nbe in the US.
