Republicans have been quite excited recently about the possibility of amending the U.S. Constitution to permit a foreign-born citizen to run for the presidency. If it can be done, they sniff a strong possibility of victory for California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger,

Democrats, with the possible exception of some members of the Kennedy clan, are reluctant to embrace the proposed constitutional amendment— not wanting their chances of  winning back the White House in 2008 to be "terminated" by the movie star turned actor. 

Whether to change the fifth clause of the first section of the second article of the U.S. Constitution  has been capturing the media's attention—Paula Zahn on CNN on Wednesday, Dec. 8, spending a good portion of an interview trying to get  Maria Shriver, Schwarzenegger's wife, to state the obvious, that she'd like it to be amended so that "Arnold" can run. Shriver, a former NBC reporter and on-air personality, tried to persuade the doubting Zahn that she really hadn't been thinking about the idea much.

Shriver is the daughter of Sargent Shriver, who was a Democratic candidate in 1972 for the vice presidency. Her uncle, John F. Kennedy, was the nation's 35th chief executive. I mean no disrespect, but now that her husband is the governor of the nation's most populous state, it's difficult to believe a day goes by without her thinking about presidential politics.

I believe we need to look at the issue independently of our feelings about the Schwarzeneggers, the Kennedys, or Republicans or Democrats. In my view, people who choose to become American citizens should be treated with the exact measure of respect that we Jews are taught to extend to people who convert to our faith from other religions. Not only should we include them in all aspects of our religious life, we must welcome them with open arms. 

I have known Jews-by-choice in our San Diego community who have risen to positions of leadership at synagogues and in communal organizations.  They brought enthusiasm and insight to our people, a function of having decided as adults to study and adopt our way of life.  Often converts are more knowledgeable about Judaism than people who have been born into our faith but who have never grappled with its ideals intellectually.

We might say the same about people who choose to leave their countries of birth and become Americans. Before they become U.S. citizens, they must study about our government and take a test demonstrating their knowledge. Furthermore, they must take an oath that they will support and defend our country—an oath not required to those of us "to the manor born."

Anyone who watched President George W. Bush win the presidential election in 2000, after a long primary process, or saw John Kerry survive the Democratic primaries in 2004 knows that presidential races are winnowing processes—in which candidates' ideas, backgrounds, loyalties, philosophies and peccadillos are minutely examined by the media and the electorate. Any person who can survive this process—foreign-born, or otherwise—deserves the opportunity to serve us, even in the presidency.

To exclude a loyal citizen merely because he or she was born somewhere else is nothing more than xenophobia—fear of the foreigner—running completely counter to our democratic ideals. Besides being philosophically wrong, it also is economically unwise.  Why, in an age of globalization, would we want to deny ourselves the most skilled, best possible leader—be that person an American of native birth, or an American by choice?   —Donald H. Harrison