How could an immigrant getting elected to the Presidency "recreate the same regimes others came here to escape?" Maybe in 1787 that might have been a remote possibility, but are you seriously suggesting that in the age of the internet someone could get elected to the Presidency for the sole purpose of turning over complete control of the country to, say, North Korea, without anyone knowing about it? Given the constraints of power - the constant media attention, checks and balances and so forth - how do you envision such a thing happening?

And also, and most importantly, why would an immigrant be more likely to run for nefarious purposes than a natural-born citizen? Bush and Cheney, both born and bred Americas, worked tirelessly to try and change the nature of our democracy - torture, wiretapping, advocating using the military on US soil, etc. It seems to me that an immigrant coming in from an oppressive regime would be far less likely to advocate such things, and would far more likely try and avoid them.

In fact, maybe that kind of perspective is just what this country needs.

I have read "AND" do understand the Constitution. I understand that the Constitution once defined some humans as three-fifths of a person. I understand that Jefferson wanted the country to have regular Constitutional Conventions to change the document as needed. I understand that the Continental Congress was against the past ruling the present, which was why they were against the rule of kings, and why they made the Constitution amendable so as to be relevant to the needs of the people using it.

If we truly are a nation of immigrants, then it would only be fitting that an immigrant could run for the Presidency. But, if the attitude of you and many of the commenters here is any indication, I doubt such a person could win an election anytime soon; they certainly would not garner the nomination of either corporate party.

Therefore, thanks to our continued tribalism, xenophobia and general fear of change, you have nothing to worry about.

I agree that an endearing quality of his work is that it celebrated the "mere mortals." But his movies did not glorify normalcy.

He showed that ordinary people can rise to the occasion and think and do extraordinary things; but this only happened when they stopped being themselves and thought the Big Thoughts and took the Big Risks. And most importantly, doing so always changed them, and made them far less normal.

In the age of the gun-toting, soccer-mom governor and the six-pack Plumber reveling in their own narcissistic senses of heroic normalcy, a normalcy in which not ever changing your mind about anything or not ever challenging the status quo are qualities to admire, it's important to make the distinction that normalcy in and of itself is not heroic or even admirable, and it's not what Hughes was celebrating.

We need far fewer superhero movies and far more which celebrate the potential in all of us. But let's be careful that we celebrate a shared potential for great achievement and greater understanding, not a shared love of mindless complacency.

True patriotic canines support the ree rarket!

It is truly wonderful to live in Jerry Springer's America.