Delagado’s Crusade Again Put On Hold
WASHINGTON, Oct. 5-Raimundo Delgado of New Bedford has waited more than 25 years for legislation that would allow foreign-born citizens like himself to run for president of the United States.
Yet on Tuesday, as House and Senate members discussed for the second time resolutions that would allow naturalized citizens to do so, Delgado faced an uncomfortable possibility: That this year, as in the past, his pet project might have to wait, only to start anew in the next congressional session.
Under the Constitution, only native-born U.S. citizens can hold the nation’s highest office. Delgado’s is a struggle to loosen those requirements and end what he calls second-class status for millions of Americans. And while no action is expected this year, the issue is slowly building momentum as bipartisan groups in the both the House and Senate have sponsored like-minded bills.
Delgado’s quest to amend the Constitution first gained public attention in July 2000, when he testified before the House Judiciary Committee supporting an amendment sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. Rep. Frank’s amendment, spurred by numerous conversations with Delgado, died in committee.
Yet Delgado, a veteran teacher at Ashland Middle School who immigrated to the United States from Portugal at age 15, remained unperturbed, and he faced the most recent congressional session ready for another round.
Rep. Frank has again co-sponsored legislation allowing for broader eligibility requirements, and Delgado has continued to visit other members of Congress in order to gather support for his cause.
“Frankly, I am ready to put this message forth anywhere in this country because this is something that just has to happen,” Delgado said. “How can you deny someone the opportunity to run? Because then on the other side of that, you are denying the public the opportunity to vote.”
The proposals in Congress recommend that a non-native should become eligible after he or she has lived in the country for a certain number of years.
Legislation proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, would require that an individual be a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years, and a proposal by Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., would require an individual to be a citizen for at least 35 years.
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Tuesday to consider the different proposals. In addition to statements from Rep. Frank and other Congressman, the committee heard testimony from Professor Akhil Amar Southmayd of Yale Law School, Dr. Matthew Spalding of The Heritage Foundation, and Professor John Yinger of Syracuse University-all of who spoke in favor of the proposals.
Delgado said he saw the hearing as a positive sign. “You just see the sprinkling of support from across the country,” he said. “Now people just have to have the gusto and the guts to say, we need to see this before the floor.”
At the hearing, Rep. Frank called the current provisions in the Constitution “offensive.” He spoke of how Delgado had first approached him in 2000.
“He [Delgado] was troubled as I was by the invidious discrimination of it,” he said. “It basically says to people who have chosen to come to America.who have gone through the processes of citizenship, have been very loyal, very law abiding citizens, that they are somehow flawed”
Rep. Frank said all citizens should be allowed presidential eligibility, regardless of how long they have lived in the United States. “In my view, an hour and a half is probably enough time,” he said.
However, other representatives present at the hearing expressed a reluctance to support a constitutional amendment this late in the congressional session, and so close to a presidential election.
An amendment would require support of two-thirds of each house of Congress and then ratification by three-fourths of the states. Congress is slated to recess this Friday, although it is expected to return for a lame duck session in December, after the election.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Cal., said she was “very reluctant” to put the legislation forward to the Senate floor for a vote, particularly in haste before the end of a session. She said a constitutional amendment should be considered, only if the risk of not considering it was too great. “I think this amendment, if it receives two-thirds, will have a very hard time being adopted by three-fourths of the legislatures of the states,” she said.
Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., agreed that an amendment would bring inevitable challenges. “I have seen more attempts, scores in the hundreds of attempts to amend the Constitution,” he said. “It is a near impossible task. It is a hurdle so high that it is near impossible.”
But, he continued to say, it is worth it: “I’m prepared to make an exception because I think this is a good change.”
Delgado said it is sentiments like Durbin’s that give him continued hope. “The snowball is moving,” he said. “Obviously, it is moving very slowly for my like, but it is still moving.”
