The provision in the US Constitution prohibiting a person from being President unless they are “natural born” sits strangely for a country who’s economic and political might owes so much to immigration. Presumably it made sense when the US Constitution was adopted in 1787, but it is simply unjust now.*
This provision obviously means no migrant has ever served as President (or Vice President) of the USA. However, it is open to people who are the child of a migrant. But for a country of migrants, the proportion of people who fit this category is quite small. Barack Obama will be the 43rd person to hold the office of President, but according to this Wiki site, he will be only the seventh to have a parent who was not born a US citizen. As is almost universally known, Obama’s father was Kenyan. Only six previous Presidents had an immigrant parent – Obama will be the first since Herbert Hoover was elected in 1929. Only one President, Andrew Jackson, had two immigrant parents. (h/t ILW)
Given the global interest in Obama’s success and the inevitability the USA will no longer have a majority white-European population within the next few decades, it is worth looking beyond the mainstream media to the views of some of the ethnic news media in the USA.
This link goes to some snapshot responses from a range of media to a few key questions. When it came to the question “What is the most pressing change that your community wants to see happen?” many mirrored the mainstream media in highlighting the need to fix economy, as well as the partly related issue of fixing immigration policy.
(* The discriminatory prohibition on who can become US President is nothing compared to the bizarre constraints on who can become Australia’s Head of State, but that’s an issue for another post)
9 Comments
Those constraints being the need to be born into the Royal Family? Yes, quite bizarre indeed.
And a requirement to be a Protestant and not married to a Catholic
But you CAN be a woman.
Feminists of the world, rejoice.
Australia’s head of state is the Governor General.
Not according to DFAT:
http://www.dfat.gov.au/protocol/protocol_guidelines/15.html
“Australia’s Head of State is the Queen of Australia, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.”
At least Australia’s head of state (whether you’re talking about the Queen or the G-G) isn’t the one doing the governing. A good person isn’t blocked from being PM on the basis of where you were born. In the end the republican issue doesn’t really interfere in day-to-day governing, whereas the provision in the US constitution can actively interfere in who is elected. For example, Julia Gillard (born in Wales) couldn’t become PM some day if we had a similar provision, although I think that the last PM to be born overseas was Chris Watson in 1904.
Actually it was Billy Hughes
I take it that Gillard no longer has British Citizenship because if she did she would be unable to be a member of the Commonwealth Parliament (section 44 of the constitution).
I’d say that’s a very reasonable assumption Tom