Foreign-Born Citizens Should Be Allowed To Serve As President
Debate Rounds (3)
- 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.
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.
- 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)
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.
debaterintraining forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TN05 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.