The Instigator
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Double_R
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Immigrants should be eligible to run for office of the President of the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+10
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 6 votes the winner is...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,987 times Debate No: 18644
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (6)

 

F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Pro

I thank Double_R for agreeing to accept this challenge.


Resolution:
Immigrants to the United States should be eligible to run for office of the President of the United States as long as they have continuously lived in the United States for more than 20 years.


Definitions

Immigrants: Naturalized U.S. citizens born outside the US to non US citizen parents.

Natural-born citizens: Anyone born on US soil.


Burden of Proof: To win Pro must show why it is justified for Naturalized US citizens henceforth referred to as "immigrants" to be eligible to run for president.

To win, Con must show why it is justified for immigrants to not be eligible to run for president.


Rounds
Round 1 is for acceptance only. Con should make no new arguments in Round 4.
Double_R

Con

Thanks to Falcon for this challenge. Good Luck!
Debate Round No. 1
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Pro

ARGUMENTS

I have four contentions: That the United States should not prevent hard-working people from running, that each indivdual has the right to run, that the American people have the right to choose who they will elect for president, and that the old law was written under conditions that no longer exist.


C1) USA: The land of opportunity
The United States has long been known as a country where immigrants can succeed through hard work alone. As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined [1]. About 40 percent of the population growth in the US comes from immigration [2].

This shows that the constant influx of people into the United States which has continued for over 500 years since Columbus discovered it in 1492 is still occurring. Since then there has been immigration from Europe, Africa and more recently from Asia (including India, China and the Philippines) as well as Mexico [1]. Considering the history of the United States, it is justified that immigrants should be able to run for the office of president.

The difficulty of navigating through the process, obtaining an education related to politics, getting experince as a senator or a governor, being nominated by the political party, and campaigning: those are challenges that an immigrant (or anybody else for that matter) must face before they are eligible to be voted for by the American people. There is no reason to add an artificial challenge; namely that they cannot be eligible to run for president just because they are immigrants. The experience of the person as well as the vote of the American people is all that matters.


C2) People should have a right to run for office
The rights of American citizens is the basic framework through which all laws must be made. Individual rights are extremely important and lie at the core of American culture. When immigrants are barred from running for president, they are not given equal rights as all other US citizens. They should be eligible to run just by virtue of being an American citizen.

This restriction is unjust because the person in question can never fulfill the requirement of being born in the USA. All he can do is show his loyalty to the United States by being a competent and fair senator, governor, or congresssman. The "naturized citizen" restriction unfairly and arbitrarily infriges on the rights of these American citizens.


C3) Archaic law
The original purpose of the natural-born-citizen clause was an attempt to allay concerns that foreign aristocrats would immigrate to the new nation and use their wealth and influence to impose a monarchy on the new nation [3].

This was a long time ago in the 1700s when the US was a new country and it was feared that the European colonial powers would immigrate to the United States and take control. This is no longer applicable as monarchy is completely dying out and European colonialism for all practical purposes no longer exists.

Immigration has drastically changed. While immigration during the formation of the United States involved European colonials fighting for power, legal immigration today involves immigrants arriving in the US to make a better life for themselves. The likelihood of a Monarchy is infinitesimal. The conditions under which the law was written no longer exist.


C4) People should have a right to vote for who they want
It also bars people from voting for an immigrant. For example, if the majority of Americans in every state wanted to vote for an immigrant for president, and he wanted to run, he should be allowed to campaign and people should be allowed to vote for him if they so choose. The interests of the people are the most important things to consider when electing a president.

The people of the United States have a right to decide whether or not they would vote for someone based on their birthplace rather than a 300 year old law designed for a completely different purpose. They are a better judge of the character of the candidate than the old irrelevant law which is pre-emptive in nature and irrelevant to the modern day United States.


Conclusion
Since the original conditions have long since passed and the only thing the clause now does is to restrict hard-working American citizens from being eligible to run for president, it must changed.


Sources
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://news.xinhuanet.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...


Double_R

Con

My opponent bases his position on four contentions outlined above. I will begin by explaining why each of these arguments are deeply flawed and then present a counter argument that justifies the constitutions stance that all presidential candidates should be naturally born US citizens.

C1) USA: The land of opportunity

Pro presents an argument that sounds very good. It would be wonderful for all hard working immigrants to have all of the same opportunities as the rest of us, however the major issue with this argument is that it comes from the opposite angle from where this decision should be made. The question of whether an immigrant should be an eligible presidential candidate is one that must be based on what is best for the US, not the immigrants that come here. While it is nice to do so, it is not the responsibility of the US to cater to the rest of the world. Our laws should not be based with those intentions. My counter argument will address what is best for the US.

C2) People should have a right to run for office

Pro states that all citizens should have equal rights. The “right” we are discussing is the eligibility to run for President. Since all natural citizens have this right the only question is about immigrants. Immigrants are people who come from other countries. It is again not the responsibility of the US to provide rights to anyone but Americans. If we choose to offer citizenship as a nation that is our choice. There is no reason why any particular right should be considered a requirement that must go along with this offer. If we as a nation determine that there is a justified reason to deny certain rights to people coming over from other countries then it is certainly justified that we do so.

C3) Archaic law

Pros explanation of the original intent of the law on this issue is correct. While the circumstances have changed, much of the basic reasoning behind it still remains, as my counter argument will address. Pro refers to this as a 300 year old law. Yes it is. So is innocent until proven guilty, freedom of the press, the right to remain silent, etc… The age of the law is irrelevant to the discussion.

C4) People should have a right to vote for who they want

This is perhaps the strongest of Pros contentions. The idea that people should have a right to vote for whomever they choose to lead them. This is a very important right. However, just as freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and other rights, there are always limitations that need to be made.

Policies and laws are made for a reason, and that reason must always be made from a general standpoint first. It is easy to say that a certain limitation doesn’t make sense in one particular situation but these limitations exist to ensure overall good, even if it seems to do the opposite at times. For example, when you go to an airport you are sure to have to pass through a metal detector, but suppose grandma is old and frail and has trouble passing through them. It might seem like a waste of time for someone to stop, grab a hand scanner, take her to the side and scan her. Does anyone think grandma is a terrorist? But the fact that they stop everyone regardless of what the situation ensures there is no loophole for someone to sneak bombs and knives onto a plane.

This example demonstrates the need to have certain laws and policies that should be in place and followed at all times. Laws like this exist to protect against the worst of situations. It is true that people will be able to see for themselves whether the person they vote for is best for the country. But there are many things people don’t see. If there is an objective reason to conclude that having an immigrant as President could potentially be more harmful then a natural US citizen, then there is justified reasoning to limit the candidate pool to only natural US citizens.

Counter Argument

Being that I have already debated this resolution which is in fact what prompted this challenge, I will simply repeat my opening argument and leave it for my opponent to decide how to refute it:

To outline my case I will provide the following syllogism:

1.
Changes to Presidential requirements should be made to increase the likelihood of US success

2.
Success requires Presidential decisions to be made based solely on US interests.

3.
People have a natural loyalty to the land in which they originate.

4.
People who have a natural loyalty to a foreign land will be more likely to include foreign interests in their decision making.

5.
The proposed changes will not increase the likelihood ofUS success.

I would define US success as providing the best life possible for US citizens.

Part 1 is self explanatory and part 5 is the conclusion so this argument boils down to points 2, 3, and 4. A person who is born on a foreign land will be more likely to have a sense of loyalty to that land, particularly if they are raised there. This can be a very problematic scenario when a President is forced to make a tough decision that may involve that nation. Imagine if George W. Bush was born in Afghanistan, or if Obama was born in Haiti. Whether war or foreign aid, a President must make his decisions considering only the viewpoint of the American people. Regardless of what allegiances we pledge to we are all human beings, we can not pledge away our nature.

The President of the United States is the person we look to for leadership. It is their responsibility to make the decisions that will guide this nation. There is no true way to know what direction that President will take us in until they are already elected. Politicians are notorious for making empty promises or changing their positions once they are in office, and are even more notorious for rationalizing irrational decisions. Their motives are impossible to accurately determine so the constitution rightfully takes precautions to guard against one of the most dangerous scenarios this country could possibly face; a leader with compromised motives. Pro is arguing to remove this precaution.

Conclusion

Pro made a strong case as to why it would be wonderful for immigrants to be eligible to run for President. However, the US must base its laws on what is best for the country not what is best for the immigrants that come here, or for the people who want to go out and vote for somebody like Arnold Schwarzenegger. My argument shows what the US must base its decisions on and how denying immigrants the right to run for President is what is best.
Debate Round No. 2
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Pro

To clarify that when I say "US citizen" I refer to sole US citizens not dual citizens. Con agreed to this in the comments.


REBUTTAL

1. Changes should be made based on likelihood of US success

Con wants the best possible life for US citizens. I agree. If voters think that an immigrant would make the best president, improve the economy and the quality of life, they should be able to vote for him if they want. This leads to increased choices and a better life.

Con makes a mistake in not including immigrants in the definition of "US success." For a country to be successful, all its citizens must have a better life, not just a specific subset of its citizens i.e. natural born citizens.


2. Success requires Presidential decisions be made based solely on US interests.

Agreed. But naturaized US citizens count as "US interests."


3. People have a natural loyalty to the land in which they originate.

All people? That is an overgeneralization. I think, what Con means to say is that most people have a natural loyalty to the land in which they originate. It is far more likely that an immigrant who was elected by the people of the US to be president will have an intense loyalty to those people.


4. People who have a natural loyalty to a foreign land will be more likely to include foreign interests in their decision making.

Con says that it is more "likely." Now an average immigrant might be more likely to include foreign interests in their decision making. However, the average immigrant is highly unlikely to be elected as president due to the fact that he will be scrutinized by the American public before the elections. The only kind of immigrant that could possibly be elected is a highly exceptional one who passed the intense scrutiny and publicity of the elections and showed the American people that he is willing to consider US interests above all else.

So what must be considered is not whether the average immigrant can put aside his loyalty, but whether the exceptional one can. Since an exceptional person will consider US interests alone, the US benefits from having immigrants being able to run for office as it is now more of a meritocracy with the best person being chosen. The best person not being chosen prevents a better life for the public and is therefore a detriment.

Immigrants should have the right to put their name out there and let the people decide whether they want to vote for them. Exceptional people can put aside any loyalty they might have and focus on the job.


5. The proposed changes will not increase the likelihood of US success.

Actually they would. The law is detrimental by preventing someone who could be the best and most popular choice for president from leading the country. Any detriment to the people of the US; native-born as well as naturalized must be removed.


Con's case

A) Con wonders what if Bush was born in Afghanistan or Obama in Haiti. I answered that they would only be elected if the public considers them to be exceptionally loyal. Their previous political record and their decisions as senators or governors are there for all to see.

B) For some reason, Con dismisses the people who want Schwarzeneger for president. Now if the majority votes for him, he should certainly be elected. If the people elect an incompetent president, they are responsible for their decision. That is how democracy works.

C) "Their motives are impossible to accurately determine." & "could be compromised"

First, I'd like to point out that convicted criminals can run for president. Only people who were convicted while in office and impeached are disqualified from running again. Nowhere in the constitution does it mention that people who committed a crime while not in office are ineligible to run for president [1][2][3]. Lyndon LaRouche was imprisoned in 1989 but was a perennial presidential candidate from 1976 to 2004 [4]. There are far more dangerous people in our current pool of candidates than there could be by allowing immigrants to run.

Second, Con says that we can't know the motives of a president before they are elected. Let's consider what Con is really trying to say. Suppose an Afghan or Haitian runs for president, will he be elected? Knowing that he is Afghan/Haitian born, people are likely to be wary of him and only elect him if he has an impeccable record. Politicains may make false promises but it shows through in their decisions as senator or governor. They must have a perfect foreign policy record and be able to make decisions that are exclusively in the interests of the US. In short, they must be an exceptional person along the lines of Kennedy or Lincoln. Otherwise, they will be unable to survive the intense scrutiny of having their entire life open to the public during the elections campaign. As a senator or governor, they already have a position of power in the government. The decisions they make from that position of power are very telling. The extra scrutiny serves as an appropriate countermeasure while preserving democracy.

Finally, an immigrant chosen by the American people to lead the country will have intense loyalty to those people. If a convicted criminal can run for office, why shouldn't a law-abiding immigrant be allowed to run? Whether they actually get elected is up to the American people.



ARGUMENTS

C1) USA: The land of opportunity

Con says: "The question of whether an immigrant should be an eligible presidential candidate is one that must be based on what is best for the US, not the immigrants that come here."

When immigrants apply for US citizenship and recieve it, they become Americans renouncing the citizenship of their birth countries and becoming US citizens. As US citizens, their rights, and the rights of Americans are the same thing. They live and work in the US for the rest of their lives, so what is best for the US is what is best for them.

Perhaps Con is confusing Naturalized US citizens with those who come here temporarily on a visa?


C2) Right to run for office

Citizenship by definition invloves giving all rights that a Natural born citizen has, to the immigrant. The government can't pick and choose which rights they offer to US citizens. It is not justified to prevent US citizens from running for president.


C3) Archaic law

Con's anologies are inaccurate because the conditions under which other old laws such as "Innocent until proven guilty" were written still exist. Monarchy and colonialism no longer exist. The law outlived its purpose. Once the US was in no danger of European colonialism, the law became irrelevant and a detriment to the immigrants and voters. It prevents people from voting for who they want and immigrants from having the opportunity to run for office. Since it is detrimental to the American people, it must be removed.


C4) People should have a right to vote for who they want
Con's grandma example is not analogous to this law. His point is that there must be limitations to rights. Why should there be a limitation on the right to choose your leader in a democracy? I have shown that the law does not protect the US. It targets the wrong people. The protection from people with compromised motives is already there in the form of public scrutiny and democratic voting. What purpose does this law serve?


Conclusion

Senators and Governors have a position of power over the people and how they used that power is heavily scrutinized during their campaign. This is especially true for an immigrant. This extra layer of scrutiny cuts through the false promises while preserving democracy.

- The law does not effectively safeguard the US. It targets the wrong people.

- The protection that the law supposedly gives is already there in the form of public records.

- It is a detriment to the voters and naturalized US citizens.

- Since it is detrimental, has outlived its purpose, and is currently useless, it must be removed.


Sources
1) http://1.usa.gov...(pg 608)
2) http://bit.ly...
3) http://anse.rs...
4) http://bit.ly...
Double_R

Con

This Debate is about Policy.


Con continues to make strong arguments for why immigrants should be granted equal rights as any other American, and how being granted equal rights will help all Americans live better lives. By reading his arguments you would think we are talking about freedom of speech, or the right to marry. Running for president is something very few people seriously aspire to do, and far fewer will ever successfully accomplish. Coupled with the fact that immigrants only make up 12% of the population(1) the number of Americans whose lives are negatively affected by this restriction is infinitesimal and hardly worthy of consideration in this debate.

What affects the quality of American lives is the strength of society, which is fueled in large part by the decisions made by its government. If we are debating who should be eligible to run for President, that decision must be based on having the best leadership possible to lead the country, not fulfilling the desires of those who wish to run.

How is Policy Determined?

Earlier I used my grandma analogy which I don’t quite think was understood. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate that even rules which seem ridiculous or seem to go to far in any one instance, need to be in place and consistently followed to protect the overall good. I think it is safe to say that 99.9% of people who bring cologne onto an airplane do so because they want to smell better. Yet if you try this you are likely to get it taken away. Seems ridiculous? Consider the one instance where it turns out not to be cologne, the results are far worse then a few confiscated cologne bottles. Also consider how much perfectly good food is thrown away every year to stay in line with safety regulations, or how many people travel with those darn uncomfortable seatbelts yet get home perfectly safe. In each of these examples the harms caused by the rare instances of the unexpected far outweighs the harms caused by the restrictions themselves.

Unexpected outcomes are natural because we are all human beings and we can not tell the future. There is no way to know what the results of any event or decision will be, so following policies like these without exception are the only way to prevent the worst of results in any circumstance. My argument will show why electing an immigrant increases the chances of these types of results.

Con Case

1.
Changes should be made based on likelihood of US success

I think I have already clarified what US success depends on. Pros rebuttal here is simply a distraction from the main point; if the likelihood of US success decreases because of these changes then these changes should not be made. This is a fairly simple statement and one I doubt Pro can disagree on.

2.
Success requires Presidential decisions to be made based solely on US interests.

We agree on the basic message.

3.
People have a natural loyalty to the land in which they originate.

Pro correctly assumes that I was referring to most people. His statement that a person who runs for President is likely to have an intense loyalty to the country they serve is correct. By natural loyalty I am not saying that a person will only care about their own nation, but that they will still care about it. It is a personal connection to that nation which is potentially very dangerous for a commander in chief to have. I doubt Pro disagrees that this connection is very likely to exist in any immigrant, and very unlikely to exist for another country in any natural born US citizen.

4.
People who have a natural loyalty to a foreign land will be more likely to include foreign interests in their decision making.

Pro refutes this statement by saying that this will only be a problem for the average immigrant, but not an exceptional one. The ultimate problem is: how do we determine who is an exceptional one? This requires mind reading which voters are not capable of. Presidential candidates are placed under intense scrutiny when running for office but ultimately the person who wins is not always the person who is best for the job but the person who ran the best campaign. Many who voted for Barack Obama now regret it, and Arnold Schwarzenegger won his election for governor with no staff, no plan, and did not even decide to run until two months before the election while he was on his way to the Jay Leno show(2).

With the concept of who will make the best President impossible to accurately determine, we must consider if there is an objective reason to conclude whether the chances of a candidate not being the best choice exists. Earlier I mentioned that a person will have a natural loyalty to the land in which they originate due to a personal connection. It is that personal connection that is so dangerous. There are obviously no examples of immigrants as president to compare, but there is an example of a president who had a personal connection to the job and how it affected the outcome; George W Bush.

When Bush was elected no one was talking about Iraq, yet suddenly a few years later we were at war with them. The entire war was sold on “weapons of mass destruction” which were later found to have never existed. Very few people doubt that some of the decisions made by Bush had to do with the fact that his father was President during the Golf war and that he wanted to finish what his father started. This very understandably is what may have led to his not only being convinced that WMD’s were present, but also being able to convince congress that WMD’s were. With the costs still ongoing, the US lost over three trillion dollars(3) and over four thousand American lives(4) over something that didn’t even exist.

It is also noteworthy that despite all we knew about this in 2004, Bush still won re-election.

Having a personal connection to anything is very dangerous when you are in a position to make decisions concerning it. People have a tendency to be swayed by their emotions even when the job requires them not to. This is why conflict of interest restrictions are enforced throughout our society. This is an objective fact of human nature which must be considered in matters of policy.

5.
The proposed changes will not increase the likelihood of US success.

Because of this objective fact the conclusion is obvious. This personal connection is very dangerous, and far more likely to exist in an immigrant, therefore restricting immigrants from running for President lowers the chances of this connection causing harm.

Rebuttals.

Due to space limitations I will have to make these very short…

B)
Pro states that people are responsible for their own decisions. He is suggesting here that the constitution has no place enforcing a rule that will protect the country, yet that is the purpose of the constitution. Democracy is a general term. The constitution defines democracy in America.

C)
I find Pros conviction argument irrelevant. Whether convicted felons should be allowed to run for President is an entirely different debate, yet Pros statement presupposes it. His basic point is that two wrongs make a right.

C1)
Pro again states that immigrants should have the same rights as naturalized citizens, yet gives no reason why the US should be obligated to offer every single right to them with this offer. His argument here is an appeal to emotion.

C2)
US Citizenship is not defined by Pros ideals; it is defined by the US.

C3)
My argument has nothing to do with monarchy or colonialism. Pros rebuttal is irrelevant.

C4)
Pro asks why should we be limited in choosing a leader. My argument has already addressed this question.
Debate Round No. 3
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Pro

I'll divide this into 3 parts:

1) My Case
2) Con's Syllogism
3) Con's case


1) My Case


Con ignores my entire case in favor of an absurd assumption that:

"when we offer citizenship to immigrants, we don't need to offer them all rights as well"

The government doesn't grant rights to its citizens in bits and pieces. When immigrants are naturalized, they become American citizens with all the same rights as all other US citizens. The only place the constitution uses the word "native-born citizen" in particular is in its presidential eligibility clause.

"US Citizenship is not defined by Pro's ideals; it is defined by the US."

Con attacks a strawman. I never said it was defined by my ideals. I was using the 14th Amendment which says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. [1]

With his 2 unsubstantiated claims above, it is Con who is attempting to define citizenship by his own ideals. I don't think Con understands the concept of citizenship.


Colonialism & Criminals

Con's case rests on the fact that the law provides security. I have shown that it is misguided and provides no security. Far more dangerous people such as convicted criminals exist in our current pool of presidential candidates. The fact that criminals are allowed to run shows that pre-emptive security is unnecessary in presidential elections. People should decide for themselves who is dangeous and who is not.

Con attacks my statements on criminals out of context. My rebuttal to Con's contention about security was that security doesn't increase by allowing criminals but disallowing immigrants to run. It had nothing to do with whether or not criminals should be allowed to run.

Con's attempts to differentiate Naturalized US citizens from "Americans" are misleading. They are not mutually exclusive terms.



2) Con's syllogism

Con makes a syllogism that seems to work at first glance but is deeply flawed becase it relies on the assumption that naturalized US citizens must not be included under the definition of US success.

1. Changes to Pres. requirements .... likelihood of US success

Con doesn't address my point that choosing from all citizens gives a greater likelihood of success than choosing from just 7/8 of it's citizens. Con gives no justification for excluding 1/8 of the US population from the definition of "US success." Extend.

2. Success .... decisions to be made based solely on US interests.

Con misrepresents my rebuttal. He COMPLETELY ignores my assertion that the interests of all US citizens count as US interests. By saying that "we agree on the basics" he claims a false concession whereas it is he who conceded by not addressing my rebuttal.


3. People have a natural loyalty....

Con never shows how caring about a nation is dangerous in and of itself. Bush hates Iraq (Con's admission) and dragged the US into a war. Isn't that more dangerous?

4. More likely to include foreign interests

Bush example: This negates Con's contention and works for my side because a US-born citizen is just as likely to have a personal connection to a country as a Naturalized citizen. Bush hated Iraq so much because of the conflicts his father started with Iraq. Bush was not born in a country like Iran which is an enemy of Iraq. Bush was born in the US, yet he had this intense, emotional response to Iraq because his father had a conflict. His emotions did not serve US interests. Could this have been any worse if Bush was born in Iran? Why is it that being born in the United States is of any importance at all? Personal conflicts are not exclusive to Naturalized citizens. A Naturalized US citizen may love the country of his birth, but a native-born US citizen is just as likely to hate a country that his father had a conflict with.

Con wonders how we would know if a person is exceptional. I already answered this by showing how their previous decisions in a position of power as a senator or governor are public. Extend those as Con dropped them.

Con never responds to my contention that Naturalized citizens will be more heavily scrutinized than Native-born citizens because people will be cautious with them to begin with. He concedes. It is less likely that a Naturalized US citizen will be able to convince the people to elect him if his real intentions were dishonorable.

"The US lost over $ 3 tril and 4000 lives over something that didn’t exist."

We lost this because a US-born citizen couldn't put his emotional hate aside. It completely contradicts Con's assertion that Naturalized citizens are dangerous because they have "personal connections." He says they are more likely but so far, all he proved was that immigrants love their country of birth which by itself does not show that they are any more dangerous. Should we stop people whose fathers had been president because it is more likely that they would hold a grudge? Why not? This fits in perfectly with Con's argument and actually makes more sense than preventing immigrants from running.

5. Will not increase US success.
Con ignores my rebuttal. I'd like to remind Con that in a debate, unaddressed points count as concessions [2], and if Con brings any of these conceded points back up in the last round when I can't respond, voters are to disregard it.



3) Con's case

(a) "[Pro] is suggesting here that the constitution has no place enforcing a rule that will protect the country"

- Con appeals to the constitution's right to enforce laws, yet disregards the fact that the law was not written for the reason that he claims. It was written to protect the US from colonization, not from immigrants.
- I proved that no protection occurs. It doesn't stop people who are truly dangerous (criminals) nor people with a bundle of confused emotions (Bush). The average risk of the current pool of candidates with criminals and all is the same as, or more than, the average risk with immigrants included.


(b) "decision must be based on having the best leadership possible to lead the country, not fulfilling the desires of those who wish to run"

- The government has no obligation to provide the "best" leadership. The voters do that.

- The government makes a decision based on assumptions which may or may not be true but depend entirely on possible likelihood. That is inherently unjust to people who are incorrectly denied because of the government's assumptions.


(c) Grandma analogy: "harms caused by the rare instances of the unexpected outweigh the harms caused by the restrictions themselves."

If that is the case, then restrictions should be placed on all US citizens and no one should run for president. Con already showed that even native-born citizens can be dangerous (he made my case for me) and the risk exists regardless of who is running. For that reason the above logic cannot be applied to elections.


Conclusion
Con's argument relies on strawmanning my position, claiming concessions when there were none, dropping points, and misrepresenting my rebuttals. He could not find an effective argument so instead he makes up his own definition of citizenship - a charge he ironically lays on me. He also does not include naturalized US citizens in his definition of "US success" even though that 1/8 of the population is just as American as the remaining 7/8.

I have given considerable reasoning why immigrants are not any more dangerous than the people who are already allowed to run such (criminals and people whose fathers had run before them). There is a certain amount of risk already in our current pool of candidates. Expanding it to include immigrants does not increase the average risk that is inherent in a candidate pool.

The voters have the right to vote for who they want. While they may not make the best choice, democracy demands that they make the choice, not the government. For all these reasons, immigrants should be eligible to run for president.

The resolution is affirmed.


Sources
[1] http://bit.ly...
[2] http://bit.ly...
Double_R

Con

I would like to thank Pro for a very interesting debate. Unfortunately however Pro had to resort to attacking myself and my position in the last round more then he did my actual arguments. While Pro is certainly guilty of doing nearly everything he is claiming I have done, despite the incredible temptation, I will spare the readers of a childish back and fourth bickering match and focus on the resolution and how my opponent failed to uphold it.


Pro claims on a number of occasions that I dropped or conceded his arguments. What Pro doesn’t seem to realize is that the counter argument I presented attacks the basic premise of all of his arguments. Because of this, there is little reason for me to spend much of my time refuting each individual argument he made, nor is there enough space for me to do so. If my argument stands then all of his arguments are automatically refuted because they are shown to be based on a false premise.


Citizenship


Pro begins by showing the following quote (which BTW is not my quote, I have no idea where Pro is quoting this quote from):


"when we offer citizenship to immigrants, we don't need to offer them all rights as well"


Pro refers to my position as absurd. I think this only demonstrates how little Pro understands my position, or what this debate is even about in the first place. The question we are debating is whether immigrants should be eligible to run for President. Pro has defined this privilege as a right which I have accepted. Therefore the subject we are debating is whether immigrants should be granted citizenship with equal rights. My position is Con. The statement above is simply the very statement that Pro has challenged me to defend in this debate, yet he calls me absurd for defending it.


Pros entire citizenship argument is nothing more then the position he has taken in this debate. He must support that position, not state it. My syllogism already shows why immigrants should not have equal rights in this one instance so there was no reason for me to individually address this particular point. Pro must refute my syllogism or this point automatically fails.


Colonialism & Criminals


“The fact that criminals are allowed to run shows that pre-emptive security is unnecessary in presidential elections.


Cons criminal argument does not in any way refute my syllogism. The criminals Pro is referring to are generally Americans. Yet my syllogism explains why being born in a foreign land may affect decision making for a President. This argument does not apply to the criminals Pro is referring to, therefore it is a subject for a whole other debate and should have nothing to do with this one.


The point Pro makes about pre-emptive security is once again the point of this debate. My syllogism shows why pre-emptive security in this case is appropriate. If Pro does not adequately refute it, this argument automatically fails as well.


Cons Syllogism


Pro continues to claim that he has refuted my syllogism by pointing out that immigrants must be included in the definition of US success, without realizing that immigrants are already included. His argument is implying that ensuring the best possible leadership for everyone somehow leaves out 1/8th of the population. I do not see one ounce of logic in this conclusion.


The only productive point I can see about Pros argument here is that naturalized citizens would live a better life if they had equal rights. This is true except that as I already pointed out, the right we are debating would have no significant affect on the quality of life of any of them as so few would ever seriously aspire to achieve this. In the 200+ year history of our nation we have only had 44 Presidents. How many immigrants can this law possibly affect? My case on the other hand focuses on the security of the country. Which argument weighs more, the desire of immigrants to be President, or the security of the entire country (including immigrants)? Pros main point here is insignificant next to mine.


1. Changes to Presidential requirements should be made to increase the likelihood of US success


Pros only rebuttal is my definition of US success. He does not refute what changes to Presidential requirements should be based on. Point extended.


2. US success requires Presidential decisions to be made based solely on US interests


Pro here is still stuck on my definition of US success and claims I conceded his rebuttal. His rebuttal is the same point made over and over again which I have already shown to be insignificant. Pro does not refute my point however that success requires decisions made based solely on US interests. Point extended.


3. People have a natural loyalty to the land in which they originate


Pro states that I never showed how caring about another nation is dangerous. I did not show it under this point because that is what point 4 was for. The purpose of this point is to establish a very basic fact of human nature which Pro did not refute. Point extended.


4. People who have a natural loyalty to a foreign land will be more likely to include foreign interests in their decision making.


My syllogism so far has shown how people who originate from a foreign land are more likely to have a loyalty or personal connection to another nation. In the last round I made an argument which showed why having a personal connection in a responsibility such as President is a conflict of interest. Pro however tries to turn my example to claim that because a natural born citizen can have a conflict of interest, that this somehow proves that the chances are equal. How does Pro conclude this? Pro gives no logical support for a completely illogical conclusion. For Pro to show that the chances are equal he would have to explain how, or why, perhaps in a syllogism similar to what I provided, but instead all he does is simply state this. Pro provided no valid argument to refute my point therefore my point must be accepted. The chances are not equal. Point extended.


Pro states that he already showed how people will know if a candidate is an exceptional one and claims that I dropped his argument. In the last round I gave an entire paragraph response to Pros statement which showed that Presidents win more so with good campaigns then actual abilities. Pro should read it.


Pro asks “Should we stop people whose fathers had been President because it is more likely that they would hold a grudge?” Pros question is about restricting people from running based a particular scenario. Restricting immigrants in the writing of the constitution does not set the same precedent as limiting possible scenarios over 200 years later. My position, which was clarified in a pm chat with Pro prior to the debate, and made in my syllogism since round 2 is based on making changes to the constitution, which Pro has clearly accepted. Pros statement would be a change that would set a very dangerous precedent in America and thus, would not increase the likelihood of US success. So to Pro: the answer is No.


5. The proposed changes will not increase the likelihood of US success.


Since Pro has provided no adequate rebuttal to any of my main points, this conclusion still stands.


Syllogism Concluded


According to the arguments made in this debate: Changes to the constitution should be based on increasing the likelihood of US success, Pro is arguing for a change to the constitution, yet his change will not increase the likelihood of US success. Therefore this change should not be made. None of Pros arguments were able to negate this.


Conclusion


While there were some contentions I did not individually refute I have already made it clear why it was not necessary. My argument begins with the very basic concept of what changes to the constitution should be based on and Pro never refuted it. From there it is quite impossible for Pro to win this debate without negating my argument and I have clearly shown why he has not.


The resolution is negated.

Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 21 through 22 records.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
What does "tracked" mean? I see a lot of members posting that comment on debates?
Posted by 000ike 2 years ago
000ike
tracked
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
F-16_Fighting_FalconDouble_RTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter to immabench
Vote Placed by Raisor 2 years ago
Raisor
F-16_Fighting_FalconDouble_RTied
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: Countering Crypto votebomb
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
F-16_Fighting_FalconDouble_RTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a very awesome debate, tip of my hat to both sides. I agree with the Pro only because my Dad came here from Germany, but he was born there because my grandfather, in the US Air Force, was stationed there. My Dad also served in the US air force so i naturally sided with the pro from the start. Both sides had awesome arguments both of which centered around rights of immigrants against best for the country. Con did use more sources so he gets a point but a really great debate you guys :)
Vote Placed by Crypto247 2 years ago
Crypto247
F-16_Fighting_FalconDouble_RTied
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: Had a better all around reason for him, and plus pro was very wrong.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 2 years ago
BlackVoid
F-16_Fighting_FalconDouble_RTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Commentos
Vote Placed by Lickdafoot 2 years ago
Lickdafoot
F-16_Fighting_FalconDouble_RTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate. Most of pro's points were not effectively refuted by con, who said that Americans are the top priority, rather than immigrants. Pro showed how this is flawed because immigrants are Americans. Con's basic premise is that an attachment to a country can be dangerous, and used bush as an example. Pro was correct in pointing out that anyone can have a personal agenda, and excluding immigrants is not protecting this; but denying an immigrants equal opportunity rights.