James Eisenstein, a Penn State political science professor, said it was necessary to consider why such legislation was being introduced now, suggesting that Schwarzenegger's position as California governor may be one reason for it.
"It's got a very strong partisan element. You would be expanding opportunity. There may be some advantages to the Republican Party if they can nominate Schwarzenegger," Eisenstein said.
Eisenstein said that if the amendment were not put into effect now, it wouldn't pass.
"It's about Schwarzenegger. If you drafted it in such a way [that] Schwarzenegger wouldn't benefit, people wouldn't work hard for it," he said.
Liz Boyd, Granholm's spokeswoman, said Granholm supports such an amendment, even though she has no interest in running for president.
"The governor believes that naturalized citizens should be allowed to run for president. She thinks that the American people are ready to vote for such a change," Boyd said.
Boyd said a long citizenship requirement would get rid of some concerns.
"If there is concern about loyalty to America, then a requirement that naturalized citizens have to live in the United States for 25 years should alleviate the concern," Boyd said.
Matthew Spalding is the director of the Center of American Studies at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank that makes policy recommendations and comments on government proposals on a regular basis.
Spalding said he has written generally on citizenship issues in the past and was asked to testify before the Committee on the Judiciary, a U.S. Senate committee.
Long periods of citizenship and residency could alleviate national security fears raised by instituting such a change, Spalding said.
"You're trying to recreate this idea of attachment. The objective here is that someone is here long enough to be Americanized in a deep or meaningful way," Spalding said.
Michael Gilpin (senior-management) said he didn't agree with the proposed legislation.
"Even though it might not be fair to some, I feel you should be natural born," he said.
However, Laurel Willman (junior-health and human development) said she supported the amendment.
"I think 20 years is a long time to understand our culture and society. They should be given an opportunity to positively change the country," Willman said.
Spalding said he didn't think this legislation would influence this year's presidential election. "I think it may be a longer term [issue] as we have younger immigrants who are coming of age. I don't see any immediate political issue to it," he said.
Spalding said he supported a 35-year citizenship requirement and a grandfather clause that would delay the implementation of the amendment.
"I say we have a grandfather clause, so no current players can benefit from the system. If it's an important change now, it should be important 10 years from now," Spalding said.
