“Most of the federal Constitution builds on state constitutional ideas and practices. Naturalized citizens are allowed to lead every state; the rules for the presidency should follow suit. Ultimately, America should be more than a land where every child can one day grow up to become … governor” (Amar).
In this passage, the author is arguing that the federal Constitution is an extension of the constitutional ideas and practices of the states and if a naturalized citizen can run and get elected to the highest offices of every state, then the same logic should follow for the presidency. He argues that it’s about time that America afford the same opportunities to the naturalized citizens as it does to natural born citizens.
I chose this specific quote to discuss because as a naturalized citizen of the United States, who hopes to pursue a career in public service, I find it very problematic that under the current Constitution, someone like me can never be elected to the highest office of the land. Furthermore, by continuing to use the current eligibility criteria, we are reinforcing the idea that a naturalized citizen is somehow less American than a natural born one. The requirement for the presidency was based on the Founding Fathers’ distrust towards foreigners; a sentiment that is unacceptable in today’s globalized world. The United States has long held the title of “Nation of Immigrants,” and this requirement for the presidency doesn’t just alienate a significant portion of its population but is also anti-democratic since it denies the voters of this country the complete freedom to exercise their judgment in choosing a president.
Works Cited:
Amar, Akhil Reed. “Revisiting the Constitution: Allow Naturalized Citizens to Be President.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 1 Oct. 2013.
In this passage, the author is arguing that the federal Constitution is an extension of the constitutional ideas and practices of the states and if a naturalized citizen can run and get elected to the highest offices of every state, then the same logic should follow for the presidency. He argues that it’s about time that America afford the same opportunities to the naturalized citizens as it does to natural born citizens.
I chose this specific quote to discuss because as a naturalized citizen of the United States, who hopes to pursue a career in public service, I find it very problematic that under the current Constitution, someone like me can never be elected to the highest office of the land. Furthermore, by continuing to use the current eligibility criteria, we are reinforcing the idea that a naturalized citizen is somehow less American than a natural born one. The requirement for the presidency was based on the Founding Fathers’ distrust towards foreigners; a sentiment that is unacceptable in today’s globalized world. The United States has long held the title of “Nation of Immigrants,” and this requirement for the presidency doesn’t just alienate a significant portion of its population but is also anti-democratic since it denies the voters of this country the complete freedom to exercise their judgment in choosing a president.
Works Cited:
Amar, Akhil Reed. “Revisiting the Constitution: Allow Naturalized Citizens to Be President.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 1 Oct. 2013.
I completely agree with this idea of oppression against naturalized citizens. There's no reason that a person who is a naturalized citizen should be treated "less than" a natural born; place of birth does not define character.
ReplyDelete