[dylan604]

Having someone born in the country they are looking to lead seems silly to you?

With that restriction, it has taken quite some time for a foreign adversary to have a puppet elected vs just shipping in some carpet bagger.

Having a minimum age also allows for some decent life experience. After all, 35 years old is not that old.

[Quarrel]

> Having someone born in the country they are looking to lead seems silly to you?

Whether it is silly or not, I'm not sure, but it certainly doesn't seem very democratic.

IMO Arnold Schwarzenegger, to pick a random foreign born politician, should be able to stand for President. People can choose not to vote for him if they've bothered by him being foreign born.

FWIW, in Australia, no member of Federal Parliament (so Congress equivalent) can be a dual citizen (and they must be Australian citizens), so an equivalent to Arnie in Australia would need to renounce their foreign citizenship before standing for election. This seems like a better middle ground than "must be born in the country" to me.

[dylan604]

> would need to renounce their foreign citizenship before standing for election

I'm really glad we all live in a world where nobody lies to gain position, or no foreign enemy has ever tried to infiltrate their operatives into key positions by becoming double agents and renouncing anything

[arcticbull]

Natural birth is not a defense against that.

[holbrad]

It is a defence against it. Just not a perfect one.

[dylan604]

It's right up there with the question on the form that asks if you are a subversive or not (or whatever the actual wording is). If you were a subversive, wouldn't you be exactly the type to lie about the answer?

[eru]

What's your argument for that?

I mean, it might be meant as a defensive, sure. But is it any better than excluding women or left-handers?

[throwaway2037]

I think Arnie is a great example, especially because he was a governor for two terms for one of the richest and most populous states, California. If he was allowed to run for president, he would be an excellent candidate.

As a modern compromise, I think the US should allow people who moved to the US before a certain again (maybe 10 or 12) or have lived in the US for 20+ years. If you want to go a little further, you could require them to renounce any other foreign citizenships upon successful election.

The Australia law caused a bunch of trouble in the last 10 years because a bunch of MPs accidentally had US citizenship by birth to Oz parents living in US or one parent was a US citizen, but they never lived in US. (US citizenship is a bit viral in that sense!) I don't remember all of the details exactly, but it did make me think more deeply about a nationality policy for MPs. I think it is a reasonable requirement.

[Quarrel]

> The Australia law caused a bunch of trouble in the last 10 years

It has, although the case you mention isn't really my main worry.

In theory some random rogue state (Hello North Korea!), can just grant all of the Australian parliament citizenship. Suddenly they're all ineligible under the constitution.

That said, I assume modern scholars would make the definition more robust than the 19th C definitions used in Australia (which was an attempt to take the best of the UK and USA models, particularly following the US with regards to being a Federation of States, while still maintaining a proper Westminster system without a "King"/Executive branch like in the USA).

[reisse]

> In theory some random rogue state (Hello North Korea!), can just grant all of the Australian parliament citizenship. Suddenly they're all ineligible under the constitution.

It's funny how Russia, of all the countries, had this problem - there are a lot of immigrants from ex-USSR countries, and some of these countries make it very hard to relinquish citizenship. For example in Ukraine this is done only by a presidential order, after a long bureaucratic procedure, and the last such order was signed in 2021. So Russia had to invent a mechanism which allows to write an affidavit certifying you would not exercise any rights given to you by foreign citizenship, and with such an affidavit your citizenship is considered "effectively relinquished" by Russian authorities.

[eru]

> As a modern compromise, I think the US should allow people [...]

Your compromise would probably work well as a compromise, but honestly, it feels a bit superfluous to have all those restrictions, when you have voters who can apply any criterion they like anyway.

Voters can already resolve by themselves to vote only for people who are native born, or who are of a certain age, or under a certain age, or who like the right football team, or have the right haircolour.

[echelon]

> IMO Arnold Schwarzenegger, to pick a random foreign born politician, should be able to stand for President.

The reservoir of potential candidates is vast. The risk this mitigates seems important enough to give up on additional potential candidates.

It's not like other countries aren't protective. Have you looked at trying to even just immigrate to Japan?

Regardless of how you feel, a country should be able to set its own policies.

[throwaway2037]

    > Have you looked at trying to even just immigrate to Japan?

Here I am again to dispel this HN myth about immigration and Japan.

Ignoring that the Japanese economy is currently weaker than the US economy (which affects your chances of getting an offer in both places as a foreigner), in terms of paperwork and bureaucracy, Japan is much easier to get (and keep) a skilled work visa compared to the US. If you are not looking for a skilled work visa, there is a long term tourist visa (6mo+6mo) that is also easy to get, but you need to have about 200K EUR in liquid assets. Again, the US doesn't have anything as low friction.

[vharuck]

>The reservoir of potential candidates is vast. The risk this mitigates seems important enough to give up on additional potential candidates.

I've recently grown to value this idea of "No single person is special or necessary for the government to function." According to the Census Bureau, there are over 150,000,000 native US citizens aged 35 and older. We could have a new president every month and still have a massive number of people to choose from. The only problem would be disruptions from rapid hand offs. The pool is not the issue. Taken to the extreme, this means political assassinations are only meaningful in dissuading replacements from taking the same views and causing temporary disruptions. The lives of politicians aren't inherently worth more than any other person.

[JambalayaJimbo]

Well the American born presidential policy is just strange because it seems so un-American. You’d think the country would have had at least one range to riches president who was a refugee from some war torn country by now, it’s just such a fundamental part of the nation’s mythos.

[herewulf]

No, the mythos is more like a couple hundred years of WASP gentry dominance and then occasionally they let a Catholic get elected.

Quite a big deal when JFK was the first. Look it up.

[eru]

> Regardless of how you feel, a country should be able to set its own policies.

And in a democracy that means that voters should be able to set the policies.

Voters can already resolve by themselves to vote only for people who are native born, or who are of a certain age, or under a certain age, or who like the right football team, or have the right haircolour.

We don't need to further restrict who voters can and can not vote for.

Unless you don't trust voters. But then, why have a democracy in the first place?

[echelon]

If voters care so much, they can change the policy. Everything is mutable with enough will.

America was founded as a colony fleeing its imperial oppressor. The fact that the rules are so strong here is a testament to the bloody and deep scars we gained from overthrowing our foreign oppressors.

It's a direct consequence of our nation's founding. There was a lot of pain felt at the hands of foreign powers, so we encoded it into the DNA of our governing rules.

[eru]

> America was founded as a colony fleeing its imperial oppressor.

Haha, no. That's nice propaganda, but the Brits weren't oppressing the colonists. In fact, they ran just about the most liberal regime in existence at the time (with perhaps the Dutch being the main competition for top spot).

North American colonists were also paying less taxes than people back in England.

See also Canada for what happened to the colonists who stayed 'oppressed'.

Btw, did you know that only a minority of people in the 13 colonies were even in favour of insubordination against the Rightful Authority of the Crown?

[BrandoElFollito]

For me "botn in the country" or "born a citizen of the country" does not mean much.

This is like assuming that your birth status makes the person. Think minarchy, castes, ...

You can be a naturalized citizen in live with your country, or a born citizen plain stupid and with worst interests in mind.

[dylan604]

Born in the country lessens the likelihood that you are beholden to more than one master. Born in another country then naturalized still does not rule out sleeper agent situations. Seems pretty obvious to me.

I'm one that questions the whole pledge of allegiance forced to be recited by children that have no wherewithal to understand what allegiance even means or the ramifications of that pledge. Yet, I'm okay with born in country and of a minimum age.

[kennysoona]

> Born in the country lessens the likelihood that you are beholden to more than one master.

Not in the modern world it doesn't.

[n4r9]

The UK's recent prime minister Boris Johnson was born in the US two British parents who happened to be studying in Manhatten at the time. They all moved back here a few months later. The idea that he could be some sort of US sleeper agent is hilarious, though.

[eru]

Well, formally the Prime Minister is just some random bloke appointed by king to help him run the country. The PM doesn't even need to be a member of parliament!

Now the king, that guy can't even be catholic! And until recently, couldn't even be female with living brothers.

[n4r9]

Tradition does dictate that the PM is an MP, and tradition in UK parliament is pretty binding. However, an MP does not even need to be a British citizen: an Irish or a Commonwealth citizen can become an MP and go on to command the confidence of the house.

[eru]

> Tradition does dictate that the PM is an MP, and tradition in UK parliament is pretty binding.

I hope it stays that way.

The US had pretty strong traditions in politics, too, but they are increasingly being eroded.

To give an example that's hopefully far enough in the past to be non-controversial: when they banned alcohol in the early 1920s, they felt that their constitution did not already explicitly give their federal government the power to do so. So they passed the 18th amendment to give the feds that power to specifically ban alcohol.

Decades later, in the context of the war on drugs, everybody seems to take it for granted that the federal government can obviously ban arbitrary substances.

[BrandoElFollito]

And yet when you look at the great espionnage stories, the perpetrators were citizens of the country.

When you look at people who were "almost born" (came to the country as toddlers) or naturalized because of the love of their new country, purple claiming that they are second category citizens are hard to listen to.

[dylan604]

Maybe because the policy exists that people have not so easily been able to get to the top position. Remove that policy and Putin himself could run for the office. It's an idiotic comment for an idiotic misunderstanding of why the policy exists

[eru]

> Remove that policy and Putin himself could run for the office.

And I say, if the American people want Putin to be president (and Putin is willing to take the job), they deserve him.

At least, if you believe in democracy.

If you don't believe in Democracy, I suggest putting some obscure German house of nobles on the throne.

[BrandoElFollito]

You seem to put people in the category of "born here, so good" and "birn elsewhere, less good". Fair enough.

If you are a supporter of, say, Trump you therefore say that Biden or Harris are much better than any other, naturalized citizen, as presidents?

It's hard to see the logic here, probably because I am an idiot, but if where you were birn defines the man for you then fine - everyone has their opinion.

[dylan604]

it's so unamerican it is part of the constitution that defines america and deliberately placed there by the founding fathers. i'm sure they were concerned that the king would try to undermine the new country the first chance he got by placing someone loyal to the crown to undo all of the work that led to the constitution.

it's not a good better best situation like you seem to think. at this point, i really think the unwilling to see how attempting to limit the new nation from being led by a foreign operative would be so important to the survival of the new nation. only, new is now 200+ years old (yet still a babe in the woods to other national histories) so the "threat" seems lessened by people like you.

i also started the entire thread by stating we have a foreign operative in place now, so if you can't read between those lines in who i didn't vote for then you're really just being deliberately obtuse about the situation is the only logical explanation i can see.

[eru]

> Born in another country then naturalized still does not rule out sleeper agent situations. Seems pretty obvious to me.

Voters can take these things into consideration when casting their ballots. No need to make these choices for them.

[kelnos]

I think recent events in the US make it quite clear that voters don't really consider the things that actually matter when electing a president.

[Lanolderen]

Choose your evil:

Elect a dynasty to rule forever

Limit voting rights of group X,Y and Z to get "better" votes

Remain with the rule of the majority system

Elect ChatGPT to rule forever with a "be nice pls" prompt

[eru]

Well, you could at least move to Approval voting instead of first past the post.

Or you could try sortition, which you haven't even considered at all.

[ClayShentrup]

do approval voting now.

fight for election by jury tomorrow. https://www.electionbyjury.org/

[eru]

Sure, that's a defensible position, too.

In that case, I suggest finding some obscure German house of nobles and putting them on the throne. Works reasonably ok for the UK.

[vkou]

> Born in the country lessens the likelihood that you are beholden to more than one master.

This may have held true sometime in the 17th century, but it really doesn't in the 21st.

[the_clarence]

And yet elon musk an immigrant is currently the president

[eru]

At least he's an African American.

[lazyasciiart]

Yes, it seems silly. Which countries have had a foreign puppet elected because they lack this provision?

[TheBigSalad]

Traditionally most other countries don't have as many immigrants as the USA.

[MaxPock]

Israel .

[jibe]

Hitler?

[eru]

Maybe.

Though probably not: by German law Hitler could already not have been in power, because he wasn't properly a German citizen at the time. (It's all very murky.)

Hitler was already in power illegally. The law we are discussing here would have just made it 'even more illegal'.

(I'm using the weasel wording 'in power' here, because I forgot whether he needed to be a citizen to be a member of the Reichstag at all, or only to become chancellor.)

[hackandthink]

Hitler was stateless from 1925 until 1932.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_of_Adolf_Hitler

[smcl]

Hitler was a "foreign puppet"? This is news to me, can you tell us who the puppet master was? Because it seems to me that person should be as widely reviled as the man himself.

[eru]

Hitler was a foreigner who caused trouble in Germany, to put it mildly.

You are right however, that he wasn't a puppet.

[smcl]

Wait so the real issue you have is with foreigners, or what's the point here? If he was born in Germany it would've been ok? Don't dance around your point, just be explicit.

[eru]

If you go back up the thread, you will notice that I originally (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43407532) brought up the point that restricting who Americans can vote for is a bit silly, and that includes banning them from voting for foreigners. If the voters want a foreigner, they should get a foreigner. (As long as the foreigner is willing.)

I have no issues with foreigners. I think voters should be free to vote for any willing candidate, and people should also be free to move and work wherever they feel like, as long as they find a willing landlord (or house seller) and as long as they find a willing employer. I myself am a foreigner in my adopted home.

Now to your question:

In this subthread we were looking at the question of any actual examples of foreign born leaders causing trouble for their host country.

In the interest of intellectual honest, I have to admit that a US-style banning foreign born leaders might have conceivable stymied Hitler's rise to power in Germany.

Especially because by the time Hitler entered government in the Weimar Republic, the economy had already started to recover, unemployment was going down. So any roadblocks and delays might have conceivably gotten us over the limited time window where inviting the extremist to share power was even seen as a good idea to try.

Now obviously I could argue against this point; or argue that Hitler would have just put a local-born puppet to be his front man in government, etc.

But that's a more nuanced and fragile argument than the one I would have liked to make: that the US-style ban on foreign leaders is silly and never ever hindered any would-be bad guy.

Is that explicit enough for you?

[MaxPock]

Natenyahu ?

[daemin]

Having a minimum age to get some life experience is fine, and 35 I would consider a good age, however the minimum age in the USA these days seems like 70.

As for being born in the country, I'm sure with the challenge to birthright citizenship that will get changed in short order to both being born in the country and having your parents and ancestors also be citizens.

Maybe it will change to more of a hereditary system where people had records to prove their ancestry was noble.

[eru]

> Having a minimum age also allows for some decent life experience. After all, 35 years old is not that old.

Shouldn't that be for voters to decide?

[gunian]

Singapore seems to be doing fine without that requirement is what that comment said i think talking about different things

[eru]

Singapore has lots of other crazy requirements, though.

[smcl]

> Having someone born in the country they are looking to lead seems silly to you?

Yes and it looks especially silly for a country which used to pride itself on being composed primarily of immigrants. In fact the current president is one of the people who was pushing conspiracy theories about a previous president not being eligible - the "birther" movement around Barack Obama. At the time that movement was small enough and the far right was distant enough from the levers of power that people could laugh it off. But it would not surprise me whatsoever if in the future the US right pulled something similar to what Turkey did here, stripping a rival candidate or a portion of the electorate of their status to strengthen their own bid.

[CharlieDigital]

It is silly.

What if a twin is born in Canadian airspace and the other on American soil?

How big of a difference is it if an infant is born on Monday and their parents immigrate to the US legally on Friday?

Irrelevant.

[eru]

> How big of a difference is it if an infant is born on Monday and their parents immigrate to the US legally on Friday?

I don't think your parents even have to be legally in the US for you to become an American. You just have to be born in the US, legally or illegally.

[toyg]

And we should celebrate it for the civilisational advance that it is, promoting it all over the world, instead of continuously attacking its legitimacy.

We have long rejected the idea that blood should dictate your social position in the tribe; but somehow we cling to the idea that it should dictate whether you belong to the tribe at all. Why? It's not with this mindset that we will reach the stars.

[eru]

> And we should celebrate it for the civilisational advance that it is, [...]

Well, as far as I can tell, it's only in your constitution sort-of by accident.

They didn't put this 'advance' in original, it was just the simplest and most face saving way to free the slaves without directly mentioning slaves in the text. (Compare the 3/5 compromise for 'other persons', which also avoids mentioning slaves by that term.)

[the_clarence]

Yes it is silly