Many Americans are now dual citizens with other countries. What relevance does this have to our discussion?
>===== Original Message From Discussion list for con law professors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ===== >A few weeks ago, my eight-year-old daughter Katie invited one of her closest >friends to stay overnight, you know, a typical second-grade sleep-over. As >we were talking before bed, my daughter and I were bantering about how I've >often said that I expect her to grow up and become President, perhaps the >first woman President (if, as I think doubtful, that day still has yet to >arrive in another 30 years). Her friend immediately interjected that Katie >simply couldn't be the first woman President because she (the friend) >intended to be the first woman President. And then they playfully argued >about which was entitled to that honor. Because it would have been cruel to >intercede as these two children argued about priority for the Presidency, I >didn't explain that, in fact, her friend could *not* become President >because the friend was born in Colombia to Colombian parents, and she thus >was precluded under the Constitution from serving in the office (even though >she has lived in the United States since infancy). > > > >But the episode did serve to pointedly remind me that this constitutional >prohibition does have the effect of labeling an entire segment of loyal >citizens as unfit to serve in the nation's highest office and that it does >have a negative symbolic effect. Had I told Katie's friend that she, as an >immigrant, could never be President, I have no doubt that it would have hurt >her feelings and made her feel like, yes, a second-class citizen. While I >don't suggest that adult naturalized citizens would react the same as an >eight-year-old, I would imagine that those negative feelings are felt by >many and quite rightly. Moreover, the restriction reduces the pool of >talent for the highest office (and by this I don't mean to invite discussion >of whether Arnold Schwarzenegger or any other particular person is one of >those missed talents). > > > >To be sure, the national community has good reason to expect that those >seeking election to the highest office have become a full member of the >community, in terms of citizenship, substantial involvement in the public >life of their country of birth or adoption, and understanding of the >expectations and culture of democratic governance in the uniquely American >style. Thus, a requirement that a naturalized citizen desiring to seek the >Presidency have been a citizen for a certain period of time, 15 or 25 years >(reasonable people obviously can disagree on the appropriate time period), >is not only reasonable but eminently well-justified. But an outright >prohibition on immigrants seeking the Presidency is a crude means of >achieving the end of ensuring the person has become fully engaged in >American public life and community. And, of course, there remains the >ultimate check of democratic election, as the public is unlikely to elect >someone who has not become a fully engaged member of the polity or remains >alienated from the American democratic process. > > > >Gregory Sisk > >Professor of Law > >University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minneapolis) > >MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue > >Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005 > >651-962-4923 > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html ><http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html>
