The Instigator
nerdygirl188
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
jacandmac
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Foreign-Born Presidential Candidates

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 3 votes the winner is...
nerdygirl188
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,222 times Debate No: 33017
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

nerdygirl188

Pro

Good afternoon judges, timers, and fellow debaters. My name is Elizabeth Murray and I will be affirming the resolve that foreign-born citizens should be allowed to run for and hold the presidential office.
I would like to begin by defining some terms. By the foreign-born citizen clause, we are referring to the statement in the constitution that "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President". Who is a natural born citizen has been defined as jus soli, meaning right of soil, or being born in the United States, and jus sanguinis, meaning right of blood, or being born to parents of American citizenship. Jus soli was confirmed by the United States vs. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 when Mr. Ark was denied entry to the U.S. even though his birth in San Francisco made him a citizen. Jus sanguinis was confirmed by the court case of Perkins v. Elg, when Marie Elizabeth Elg was called an illegal alien after returning to the U.S. Her father relinquished his citizenship to show his loyalty to Sweden, but he was still a citizen at her time of birth. These cases confirmed the two basic ways a person is a citizen at birth, or a "natural born citizen".
Allow me to explain our plan of action. We intend to enforce a longer residency requirement for foreign-born candidates: A minimum of 25 years. We would also like to ensure that the individual has been a citizen for at least 22 years.
jacandmac

Con

My name is Jihasdis. I am from Iran. The U.S. has recently passed a law. Now I can go there, live for 25 years, and become the president. I'm Middle Eastern. I'll get elected, and I'll destory the country. I dislike America. They killed my grandfather. I will make them pay. Now tell me this. How is that prevented? Oh, ya. You cannot be a president if you are foreign born. Many people hold resentment towards the U.S. Anyone can promise anything in an election to win. Natural-born citizens, generally, have a great sense of nationalism and would prefer to see the U.S. prosper. And oh ya. I accept the argument and will take the burden of explaining the problem with a foreign-born preident.
Debate Round No. 1
nerdygirl188

Pro

I would like to begin by addressing my opponents example: "My name is Jihasdis. I am from Iran. The U.S. has recently passed a law. Now I can go there, live for 25 years, and become the president. I'm Middle Eastern. I'll get elected, and I'll destory the country. I dislike America. They killed my grandfather. I will make them pay."
It appears to me as if my opponent does not trust the American people to choose a president that will help our country as opposed to hurting it. If someone comes here for the bare minimum of 25 years, and was born and grew up in a country with a bad political relationship with the United States, it is implausible that someone of this nature would get elected.

My first contention is that the natural born citizen clause is outdated. We"d like to question whether the "natural born citizen" presidential eligibility requirement makes sense in today"s world. To answer this, we must recover the original understanding of the presidential eligibility clause by comparing the clause"s text against the backdrop of the historical context. America had declared independence just 11 years prior. Even though the majority of the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention were second-generation Americans, some were born abroad, primarily to British parents. The framers wanted to draw a clear line between the two kinds of people who would seek the presidency. They welcomed people who were 35 years or older, who had been residents for at least 14 years and who had either been born in America or were citizens when the Constitution was adopted. The framers did not want any latecomers to the United States running for president, especially latecomers from Great Britain due to the hostilities. Candidates needed to show that they had completely separated themselves from the Crown. If a person was foreign-born, even to one foreign-born parent, it cast doubt on their ability to make that separation. Is this set of attitudes one that should be continued today? The United States no longer has a critical mass of citizens born in a nation that we are formally separated from, and with whom we fought a war with to finalize that separation. Akhil Amar, a professor of constitutional law at Yale Law School, agrees: (quote) Today, to worry about foreign dukes and earls, it's really a little paranoid.(end quote)The reasons for the law no longer apply, so why should the law exist in its current form?
jacandmac

Con

The idea that you bring up is INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate Round No. 2
nerdygirl188

Pro

And your response does not address the issue or make logical sense.
jacandmac

Con

thats what i wuz going for. this isa terrible debate. the president should NEVER be foreign born. you are crazy. and i got bored and stopped debatin
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by GeekiTheGreat 4 years ago
GeekiTheGreat
Lotus, that wasn't a vote bomb this time. I only vote bomb on Imabench's debates. You need to stop doing that to me.
Posted by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
I may accept this
Posted by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
If you point out a fallacy, don't just accuse them of a fallacy; you need to be able to show that it is a fallacy.
Posted by nerdygirl188 4 years ago
nerdygirl188
That is good advice. Thank you.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Good luck on your first debate. Try to know when you are using fallacies, but point out any your opponents use.
Posted by nerdygirl188 4 years ago
nerdygirl188
I'm glad you agree :D
Posted by nerdygirl188 4 years ago
nerdygirl188
I'm glad you agree :D
Posted by TheAdiDebater 4 years ago
TheAdiDebater
I agree with you so I can't challenge this, sorry :)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by GeekiTheGreat 4 years ago
GeekiTheGreat
nerdygirl188jacandmacTied
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: The Figure head of the united states does not need to be from "germany", because then they will care more about what will effect "germany" more. We don't let foreign born people be presidents because we need a true-born american to represent us.
Vote Placed by LotusNG 4 years ago
LotusNG
nerdygirl188jacandmacTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vote bomb
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
nerdygirl188jacandmacTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: better conduct due to con's ad hominen better spelling due to con's changing of fonts and not even completing a sentence arguments, because Pro actually HAD one