Coming and Gowering

[steepholm]

The first time I drove to the Gower, I was listening to a parliamentary debate on the radio, in which it seemed very likely that they were going to bomb Syria (which was obviously what that country needed more of). After an off-grid couple of days, I emerged to find that that had not happened after all, and was happy.

It's amazing how little world events impinge when you're out TV, radio, mobile and internet contact. The sheep bleat mockingly at all human endeavour good or ill, though without much indication of understanding - rather as if someone had scattered the 1922 Committee randomly over the hillside and given them woolly tails to match their minds. There appears to have been plenty going on, though: on football fields, at Chequers, in flooded Thai caves, and equally flooded Japanese hillsides. Still no bloody rain here, though.

Meanwhile, I asked this question on FB, but so far have had no suggestions there. Is there any country apart from the USA where one is ineligible to be head of government/state if not born a citizen of said country? I'm having difficulty coming up with an example. It seems strange that a country (mostly) of immigrants should be the only one to have distrust of immigrants enshrined in its constitution.

Comments

[larryhammer]

The natural-born citizen rule was to avoid having a sleeper royalist get into power, which they were apparently paranoid about in the late 1780s.

[steepholm]

I can see why they would have been paranoid about that, but is the natural-born citizen rule as constituted in the, er, Constitution, a reasonable prophylactic? For one thing, it didn't apply to anyone born before 1787, which must have applied to many of their potential sleepers; for another, there's no obvious reason to think that natural-born citizens are less likely to favour royalism than immigrants - who have, in many cases, fled from oppressive royalist tyrannies. For example, someone born in Nevis (like Alexander Hamilton) would today be ineligible, whereas someone born in Connecticut (like Benedict Arnold) would be A-OK.

[larryhammer]

It's been over 30 years since my last detailed US History class, but IIRC, that clause did apply to those born before 1787: had to have been born in one of the 13 by-then-ex-Colonies. So, yes, Hamilton was excluded. I believe the thinking was that local royalists would be known, having already declared their sympathies a decade previous (and in most cases already departed).

As to why put in the Constitution, that was the only available vehicle at the time they were considering the issue -- and they considered it a pressing one.

[calimac]

"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" - Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5, italics added

How does that exclude Hamilton?

[larryhammer]

By means of a massive brain fart. ComPLETEly forgot that clause.

[steepholm]

This is why, if Arnie could only time-travel Terminator-style back to 1787, he'd be eligible.

[cmcmck]

I can't think of any but there's one you'd know better than me! What of Japan?

[steepholm]

The Emperor has always married within Japan, unlike European royalty, but as far as I know there's no law about it. (Some say the imperial family's features are quite Korean looking...) I don't know of any law about the Prime Minister.

[calimac]

I can think of a country which imposes a religious restriction on its Head of State.

[steepholm]

I can think of several - the UK, Vatican City, Iran...