[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?