The Instigator
Leonitus_Trujillo
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
C-Mach
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

Naturalized citizens should be allowed to run for the presidency.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,523 times Debate No: 525
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (15)

 

Leonitus_Trujillo

Pro

America has always been a land of immigrants, the melting pot it has been called. The fact is that a minority of the population can actually trace back their heritage to a family during the revolutionary war. There are more than 300 million people in American's today and there were only a few million people in 1776 only a few hundred years ago, we ARE a nation of EX-immigrants. All the immigrants historically never came here to be Irish,or German, or Spanish, Chinese. They came here to be Americans and they assimilated into the culture, and worked really to do that. They are Americans and if you asked them Ireland is just a geographical destination for most of them. Many people are content with finally conquering English, hosting that flag over their home, obtaining their citizenship and working towards a brighter future. But we don't just got the one who have limited talents other than to be determined and hard working. We get many bright immigrants too, immigrants who can contribute more than the average person. And as they are transformed from being Immigrants to being Americans they really want to contribute and help this great society. And we recognize that, they become Mayors and they are kind to the working class that they were once a part. They become Commissioners contributing their expertise where it can help . They become Representatives in Congress and represent the home town where they first blossomed. They become senators , and even Governors. Yet they cannot become Presidents. And that does a real bad in our society because these people who worked so hard not to be immigrants who worked so hard to be Americans who dedicated their lives for the betterment of ours are prohibited from even aspiring to one day being the leader of a nation who they only held admiration for.They probably value this country more than many Americans who take it for granted, no for them it was hard earned. Becoming an american citizen took a lot of patience and took a lot of effort, and that piece of paper is one thing assimilating into the culture was another difficult feat. If that wasn't enough gaining the trust of the people that voted for you in all the stepping stones that gave you experience to be qualified for the Presidency: Mayors, Governors, Congressman; that was also difficult. And you work so hard and battle so much in your life more than the typical politician and then you have the ultimate goal taken away. This alienated many aspring Naturalized Americans from obtaining any office and contributing. See many of those politicians that persue a career in public service queitly hope for that rule to be overturned and it never is. Still others stive to be the model , the difference and it still isn't overturn. The next generation is just being disenfranchised and we are loosing a lot of talent not just on the executive level, but in every level from the bottom of the bucket to the top of the pack, every level in between. I think we should strike that rule from the presidential qualifications, and leave it up to the people to decide who their next president will be. That rule shouldn't try to define who we can and can't vote for other than basic qualifications that establish merit. How old a person is: so that we know their live has evolved enough to allow them to garner wisdom. How long they have spent time in the country: so that he becomes face to face with the political engine and that situations that face American. But can't be a Naturalized citizen? That doesn't make sense to me. IF this person does become a Presidential nominee it is only because he has overcome some intense hurdles to get there, it is because people trust him . AND IF this person win the presidency is because the Majority of the voters of a population of 300 million voted for him. His revivals will be very candid in pointing out the fact that he is a naturalized citizens, I don't think we need to worry that he will somehow trick the American People. The Presidency is never handed over it is always hard earned. And just giving the people the right to fight for that honor is all I am asking for. I am not asking that we give him anything, not even a hand out. Im just asking that we give him the chance. If we do that we will have the reciprocal event of a lot of people wanting to help this country when before they were disenfranchised.
C-Mach

Con

First off, these people could either come from or be allied to an enemy country and work for that country as spies trying to infiltrate the government and help ensure it's downfall. Also, these people might not know and respect the Constitution, so they might not be viable as the United States' Head of Government and State.
Debate Round No. 1
Leonitus_Trujillo

Pro

That sounds as far fetched as they come. Before 9/11 columbine was the worst terrorist act that ever happened on American soil, and guess what, he was an American.

What determines if a person will do right or wrong is not his nationality, but his personal convictions. allowing naturalized citizens to run for presidency is not a question of a person getting his papers and then running for the highest office in the land. It's a question of voters following a person's career from mayor to governor, and analyzing what he has done with the responsibility that he has had, and then deciding on those personal convictions, and not nationality.

I think that is what makes a great president and allowing Naturalized citizens to run actually empowers the people. They are now in charge to decide if a candidates personal convictions and political career line up with whats best for the nation. Until we undo that policy we are telling the people of America that they are not wise in their voting, that the government needs to pose restrictions on who they can or can't. I don't believe in that and I think America is better than that. Just as Ronald Reagen believed, the people are wise enough to choose for themselves what is best for them. And that includes who is best for them.
C-Mach

Con

I know, some terrorists were American, people shouldn't be judged by nationality (I know, I sound hypocritical), and people should analyze someone's career in public office, but still, you need to know and respect the law of the land, kids. That's just how it goes. We also need to eliminate the risk of espionage (I'm repeating myself, I know). Are you convinced?
Debate Round No. 2
Leonitus_Trujillo

Pro

And when the law does not represent the best interest of the people, it is not only our duty it is our responsibility to change that law , and that is in the constitution. The president has always set an example for the people to follow. If he is a touches the lives of more people, if he is a bad one the opposite is true. But we need to recognize that in addition to the president , also the presidential requirements effect everyone else because the alienate Naturalized citizens from doing any public good becuase the goals for them have been set lower than the goals for anyone else, and that is costing us. These wonderful talented people are turning away and focusing more on them then others and that is selfish but it didn't start with them it started with the constitutional requirements set more than two hundred years ago. Remove the requirement and have faith in the people, and only good will come from that.

And to make sure I hit your points espionage is not widespread and is very impractical to be carried out by spending millions of dollars in campaigns money that by the way has to be gained by spreading out $2,300 transactions per person, because that is the law. And then on the odd chance you win to continue being a spy throughout your tenure its just impractical no one will spend the funds it wont happen at the level. The only levels where it could happen would be perhaps on the City level, and very improbably maybe the state level. But thats a moot point because on both those levels Naturalized Citizens can run for the office.

Taking away the right to run for president on the basis of reducing espionage infiltration In my opinion is not a strong reason for pulling the carpet underneath many ellegable candidates; I don't think we'll gain very any security from that. Ben Franklin once said "Those who will give a little liberty, for the sake of a little security: Deserve neither and will Loose them booth." In the argument that you brought up I think Franklin words are applicable.
C-Mach

Con

You're right, we should change bad laws, but this is an essential safeguard. We should do everything in our power to reduce espionage, no matter how rare it is today.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
You are booth right, I actually had Timothy and the Oklahoma city bombings in mind, but I wrote the wrong thing. Colombin<< Timothy McVeigh
Posted by CongressmanDrew 9 years ago
CongressmanDrew
"Before 9/11 columbine was the worst terrorist act that ever happened on American soil, and guess what, he was an American."

Wow the argument made here is totally erroneous from start to finish! First of all Columbine was not the worst terrorist act on US soil prior to 9/11. The Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh killed 169, and injured 675. (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...) Also Columbine was carried out by two teenagers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Also the concept of terrorism is one where the perpetrators act to influence a political audience. Most believe Harris and Klebold killed because they were loners in school, not because they were trying to make a political statement.
Posted by hattopic 9 years ago
hattopic
"Before 9/11 columbine was the worst terrorist act that ever happened on American soil,"

Actually the Oklahoma city bombing in 1995 that resulted in the deaths of over 100 people was.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by C-Mach 8 years ago
C-Mach
Leonitus_TrujilloC-MachTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Vote Placed by LandonWalsh 9 years ago
LandonWalsh
Leonitus_TrujilloC-MachTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
Leonitus_TrujilloC-MachTied
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 
Vote Placed by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Leonitus_TrujilloC-MachTied
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 
Vote Placed by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
Leonitus_TrujilloC-MachTied
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 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
Leonitus_TrujilloC-MachTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Wharrel 9 years ago
Wharrel
Leonitus_TrujilloC-MachTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Schnozberry 9 years ago
Schnozberry
Leonitus_TrujilloC-MachTied
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 
Vote Placed by Intellicast414 9 years ago
Intellicast414
Leonitus_TrujilloC-MachTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Lacan 9 years ago
Lacan
Leonitus_TrujilloC-MachTied
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