America Should Not Bar Immigrants From The Presidency
The “natural-born citizen” requirement has no place in a country truly committed to equality and democracy.
This is Brain Candy, a non-partisan newsletter about politics and elections. If you’re new here, sign up for free below or click here to learn more.
If you’re already subscribed, thanks for coming back!
When he was running for president in 2008 and 2012, Barack Obama had to contend with the conspiracy theory that he had actually been born in Kenya, not Hawaii as he said, and was therefore ineligible to be president. Among the most eager proponents of this theory was Donald Trump, who would eventually leverage the attention he received from the crusade to run for president.
The conspiracy theory, which came to be known as “birtherism,” was objectionable on many grounds — the racist overtones, the complete lack of evidence, the attention it diverted away from more important issues. But by focusing narrowly on the absurdity of the charges against Obama, birtherism’s critics missed an opportunity to draw attention to the underlying statute that made Obama’s birthplace relevant in the first place: the constitutional requirement that the president of the United States be a natural-born citizen.
The pertinent section of the Constitution reads: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Although the precise meaning is a bit vague, the Supreme Court has interpreted “natural born Citizen” to mean anybody who was a citizen at birth. This includes both those born on American soil (even if their parents aren’t citizens) as well as people born abroad so long as their parents are citizens.
Needless to say, this excludes any immigrants. No matter how long someone has been an American citizen, if they weren’t an American the moment they were born then they are not eligible to become president.
Originally, the was a good reason for this. At the time of the founding, people were concerned about foreign espionage. They thought that maybe a country like Great Britain or France would try and take over the reins of government. Considering how tenuous things were for the infant nation in the late 1700s, the caution is understandable. It was not a foregone conclusion that the American experiment in self-governance would work out, and so the natural-born citizenship mandate was a prudent layer of insulation from instability and chaos.
But now, nearly 250 years later, the requirement is an outdated relic and an unacceptable form of state-mandated discrimination.
For one thing, there’s no good reason to think that a naturalized citizen is any more likely to be engaged in foreign espionage than a natural-born citizen. Immigrant citizens are on average more patriotic than those who were American since birth. Moreover, it’s not unheard of for natural-born citizens to become radicalized on behalf of some foreign government or cause. Since there’s no real evidence that naturalized citizens are a greater threat to national security, the original rationale for banning them from the presidency no longer holds water.
Second, the ultimate test for who can become president should be the voters. If enough Americans think that a candidate should be president and vote accordingly, that should be enough. Democracy is based on the premise that we should trust voters to choose their leaders, and this principle shouldn’t be abandoned just because someone is an immigrant.
Third, the foundational idea of America is that all men are created equal It doesn’t matter what religion you ascribe to or what skin color you were born with, everyone is treated equally under the law. The fact that we continue to make an exception to this based on someone’s immigration history is flat-out contradictory to this principle. When America has fallen short in the past — most notably with race, but also religion and sex — we have gone ahead and changed the constitution and other laws to bring the country closer to the ideal of equality. We should do the same here.
Of course, we can and should make the change while maintaining high standards for American citizenship. Right now, it takes about a decade to become a citizen and the process is long and arduous. We wouldn’t necessarily have to adjust that at all. And if there are other potential complications — such as dual residency — we could establish clear and rigid guardrails about what is acceptable.
This is already how things work with other elected positions. Once you are a citizen, you’re eligible to become a senator, a representative, or a governor. That is why we have immigrants like Senator Mazie Hirono, Representative Ilhan Omar, and former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (who said last month that he’d run for president if he were eligible) playing important roles in American politics.
The incredible thing about America is that having immigrants hold such powerful positions is perfectly normal. Immigrants have been indispensable to the country from the very beginning, and some of the most consequential figures in American history have been naturalized citizens. Albert Einstein. Madeleine Albright. Joseph Pulitzer. Alexander Hamilton. These people are no less American just because they happen to have been born somewhere else.
In short, the natural-born citizen requirement is an anachronism. It has no place in a country truly committed to equality and democracy. If America is ever to fully live up to its promise, it must remove this constitutionally-enforced glass ceiling.
As a substitute for any kind of charge or paywall, I ask free subscribers to do just one thing to help me grow Brain Candy per post.
For this one, please consider doing one of two things: click the ❤️ button so more people can discover this newsletter on Substack OR click the “share” button below to send this to someone who might be interested. Thanks!