The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Foreign-Born Citizens Should Be Allowed To Serve As President

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 903 times Debate No: 32103
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times."
- Thomas Jefferson [inscribed in the Jefferson Memorial]

The old ways must change to allow foreign-born citizens to serve as president.

First of all, Americans may, in fact, be ready for change. I mean, Barak Obama got into office partly because voters wanted to see what would happen if an African-American served as president for the first time in U.S. history. We are ready for change.

Additionally, many politicians these days don't seem to have much empathy towards the lower and middle class. Someone with different opinions on these sorts of things could really change the lives of thousands, even millions, of people.

Lastly, a person from another place could have new, possibly better, ideas on how we could or should run our country. Ideas that have never been proposed before. Ideas that the average politician would never think of.

"We need men who can dream of things that never were."
- John F. Kennedy

This has to change. This is no way to run a nation.


I accept, however the burden of proof rests on you.

First off, just because someone is ready for a change doesn't mean it should happen. If it aint broke, why fix it?

Second, if a foreigner runs for president, he/she will not be exempt from the presidential campaign which revolves around money and public opinion. It would be highly unlikely in this day and age for a regular middle class citizen, from any country, to be able to successfully campaign even to get a position on the ballot. Look at the failures of 3rd parties in past years.

Also, it's a person's ideas that might be beneficial, which could easily be accepted by a natural-born American citizen.

Finally, a foreigner might be biased towards their home country's system (whether it be in a social, economic, or political context) and those ideas might not work as well here as they did back home considering our differing situations and historical backgrounds. While most countries today are moderate, a foreigner from lets say Iran would be favorable to a theocracy which would obviously cause much uproar in the U.S. because of the diversity ofour population as well as the laws on which this country is founded upon.
Debate Round No. 1


"It is not strange . . . to mistake change for progress."
- Millard Fillmore

Why fix it? Not exactly "fixing it" per se, more like "improving". Like upgrading your computer or phone for no apparent reason except that it will improve it, or make it better.

Also, what if this foreign-born citizen was already high-up on the social/political pyramid? Then all that would be standing in their way would be the fact that foreign-born citizens aren't able to run for president.

Last, some characteristics of other country's systems may be beneficial to American government. Who knows? Maybe there are some better-than-ours governmental systems out there?

"Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth."
- John F. Kennedy (35th United States President)


The only thing is that how will "improving" it help our country? That's the question of this debate.

On your second point, if someone was high up in their political pyramid, why would they come over to the U.S. when they can just stay in their country and improve their own country? By running for president in America, it shows that loyalty isn't their strong suit. Also, if one was already high up in their social pyramid, they would almost certainly be rich/upper class. The point remains is that you CANNOT run and win the presidency without connections and money. Therefore, the only foreigners who would be able to run for president wouldn't be so different from candidates today. The point is, allowing foreign-born citizens to run and serve for president brings no advantage.

Finally, I'll concede (even though I might not agree but that would be another debate) that some characteristics of foreign governments may be beneficial to the system we have now. However, this does not mean that we have to let foreigners run for president in order to get these changes in. We adopted ideas from John Locke and Montesquieu in our constitution, yet they never held a position of power in the U.S. nor were they directly involved.
Debate Round No. 2


debaterintraining forfeited this round.


Pro has forfeited this round and I believe that speaks for itself. Also remember that burden of proof rests on Pro. Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Dmitriy78 3 years ago
"Boo!!!" says the naturalized citizen from Ukraine. Adherence to an unusual ideology is not something solely confined to foreigners. What about me though? I was six when I came here, I don't even remember Ukraine! Discrimination, I say, discrimination!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TN05 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full sweep to Con, and I would have given that even if Pro didn't forfeit. Pro gave no reason to change other than the heck of it.