[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?