The Instigator
bored
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
fo-shizzle
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Resolved: That naturalized U.S. citizens should be able to run for President of America

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 1/15/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,272 times Debate No: 6536
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

bored

Pro

Friends, Countrymen, Citizens, lend me your ears...
First of all, I would like to state that I do not mean to personally offend or attack any of the people here, but I have to profess my disagreement with Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the great United States Constitution which states: 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;
http://www.law.cornell.edu...

It is here that the problem arises. America, my country and perhaps many of yours, is founded upon the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for every citizen, no matter nationality, race, creed, gender, or even sexual orientation. Our country became the melting pot of immigrants and a haven for diversity, creating a beautiful, free, and contemporary culture. The American dream is that anyone can succeed, rising from any background to accomplish his or her goals, namely, persuing happiness. People from other countries hear that we are the country with streets paved with gold, the land of opportunity, and the nation of unalienable rights. We ought to be proud, and live up to our name. However, the highest position, that of leading our country, is unattainable to many. It is the ultimate hope of all, being the head of such a forward, wonderful nation. People may not be able to choose where they are born but they can choose where they pledge their allegiance. People become naturalized citizens in hopes of becoming part of the dream, and really leaving a mark for the good of our kind in this world. Why should we take away what we have long propagated as our best aspect? We are the land of the free, the home of the brave. We should not be closed to anyone based on the temporal figurehead of nationality.

P.S. This is my first time on this site, so any advice is greatly appreciated.
fo-shizzle

Con

Thankyou for offering up this interesting debate.

To give you an idea, viewers, of exactly what we will be debating is the reasonability behind this paragraph of the constitution.

"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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

Argument one:
First, we need to have some one born and raised in america to make the proper the decisions for our country. People from other countries, our born and raised differently and in their countries, tought different ways of government. Some one born and raised in our country, has more experience with our customs and ways of living. People who have grown up watching great leaders of our country pass, and learning the ways in which we can be a better country from first hand experience. We need leaders who know whats best for our country form what they've been taught from birth.
for example, if we had a chinese immigrant run for president who has been raised learning that communism is a good thing, we are imposing that are government take a course we have sworn never to enter. Our presidents need to make the right decisions for our country.

argument two: Age limits... Why do we have the age limits? We want the best fit person for leading our country. The older the person is, the more experience with life they have. They have learned more things in life than say a 22 year old has. They have had oppurtunities at learning, most have experienced what it is like to be a father, which helps judge leadership. we need some one who can take care of our country. being a president is alot of hard work. It takes, alot of wisdom, all your time and effort, and some one responsible enough to do it. The older people are, the more of a sense of responsibility they have because they have had more experience with it.

argument three: Its not that we are racist or sexist or anything. If so miss clinton, or Obama would not have made it in the elections. All the candidatess have had experience with life, which allows them to be more trustable for presidents. immigrants, alot of times have different views they have adopted from their own countries.

MY OPPONENT-
"People may not be able to choose where they are born but they can choose where they pledge their allegiance."

This is true, but that person is always going to carry aprat of his old beliefs with him. We cannot know that they will not adopt them into the ruling of our country. Its not like their completely useless in law without being born here though. They can still vote, they can still run for other positions of power, such as supreme court membership, etc.
But choosing some one for president is a very important process. it involves Choosing the person who holds are freedom in the palm of his/her hands. We need to make the besst decision possible.

Thnaks for offering this debate bored. It should be interesting and fun. i look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 1
bored

Pro

Thank you, fo-shizzle, for accepting the debate!

I would like to state, for the understanding of everyone, that anyone born to American citizens is an American citizen, regardless of his/her birthplace and/or upbringing. For example, a boy born to an American citizen, but raised in China for most of his childhood, is still an American citizen and able to run for President.
It is not fair to allow such a person the honor of running for President while excluding someone who was simply born out of the country and to non-American citizens. Many exemplary figures have not been born in America, yet have long upheld the beliefs of freedom, justice, and equality for which we stand. Some examples might be Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and perhaps more currently popular, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"We need leaders who know whats best for our country form what they've been taught from birth.
for example, if we had a chinese immigrant run for president who has been raised learning that communism is a good thing, we are imposing that are government take a course we have sworn never to enter. Our presidents need to make the right decisions for our country."

A person running for President would not likely get far with a Communist platform in America. Also, people born inside America do not necessarily make the right decisions for the U.S.A.

America has a nickname-the Melting Pot--because of all the different ideas and cultures that are given an equal chance, here, to express themselves. We weed out the ideas that are not good for us, such as Communism, and tend to the ideas of Democracy, Equality, and an honest Republic. People come to America for change, because they are tired of the old systems. We epitomize freedom to a lot of people and refusing to allow them into our highest position is hypocritical.

As for age limits, I am not against them at all. I think that experience is an important factor in leadership, but so is passion and energy usually found in younger people. I think that the age limit, at 35, is where it should be. I am also all for the minimum of 14 years as a resident. I think this will prove a good judge of character and loyalty.
Apart from behavior after becoming naturalized, a person must go through rigorous background checks by a department of the FBI and be able to recall information about our country, to a point where naturally born American citizens might have a hard time.

I found one part of my opponent's arguement very interesting: "This is true, but that person is always going to carry aprat of his old beliefs with him. We cannot know that they will not adopt them into the ruling of our country. Its not like their completely useless in law without being born here though. They can still vote, they can still run for other positions of power, such as supreme court membership, etc.
But choosing some one for president is a very important process. it involves Choosing the person who holds are freedom in the palm of his/her hands. We need to make the besst decision possible."

I think it is entirely unrealistic to imagine that anyone growing up in America cannot be influenced by other countries and their governments and decisions. We are a free country, and we do not censure access to any information, whether our government agress with it or not. Is it so hard to believe that an American can be influenced by a foreign figure so much so that the judgements and ideals from that person come through in the American? Likewise, it can go in the opposite direction. A foreigner might be so impressed by, say, Martin Luther King Jr., that he/she begins a new movement against apartheid in other countries. I think that a good outside influence can be very good for a country, opening it to new beliefs for it to pick and choose at the best.

I have to go but I look forward to reading your response later.

http://immigration.findlaw.com...
fo-shizzle

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for the swiftness of his response. we may be able to finish this debate before the end of the day.
:)

MY OPPONENT-
"Many exemplary figures have not been born in America, yet have long upheld the beliefs of freedom, justice, and equality for which we stand. Some examples might be Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and perhaps more currently popular, Arnold Schwarzenegger."

GHANDI- Ghandi brought the nation of india to have its independence. He was a very great man with his efforts of peace. But even though his method worked well for India, america is a different story. We are cannot start a peace brigade and live through it. Right now with our current wars it would do more harm than good. How ever even though Ghandi is a really great person, there still remains that TRUST issue. (i'll refer to later)

NELSON MANDELA- Before his presidency, Mandela was an anti-apartheid activist, and the leader of the African National Congress's armed wing Umkhonto we Sizwe. The South African courts convicted him on charges of sabotage, as well as other crimes committed while he led the movement against apartheid. He too falls under the trust issue.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER- Is a perfect example of what i was talking about before. He is still part of our government, although not president of the united states. He is still offered a vast amount of oppurtunities with his position.

TRUST ISSUE- With all these examples i have been there lies one major issue. we cannot trust them. I will give you a perfect example. Heres an example:
Hitler was an austrian born political leader of germany from 1934 to 1945. I emphasize austrian born. meaning born and raised in a different country. any ways, before everything, hitler was Considered a very smart, very inspirational man. He was loved by many. His expertise and brilliant-ness soon adopted him as the president of germany. Instantly he assumed power, and used it to the best of his abilities. for the first year he did well as a president. Then he got new ideas which led him to the writing of the 'Mein kumpf' and then onto the slaughterings of the jews, and of his own country me If we were to allow Ghandi into our country's head because of his feats in india, we could not know what he would do after assuming power. He has never been in a state of rule, not even in india. He was highly respected and honored, but never could issue order to them. all he did was Just offer his kind loving advice to his friends. but once in power, he could take a different mind set. thus comes the quote "with great power comes great responsibility."

mbers. Most of the views represented in the 'Mein Kumpf' Are based on australian beliefs.

If we were to let a man like Nelson Mandela become president, we could be in alot of trouble. He has obviosly spent time in prison. We do not let felons or ex felons vote or other wise assume positions of power. to do so would put our country in great dangers. not a risk any one is willing to take.

MY OPPONENT-"A person running for President would not likely get far with a Communist platform in America. Also, people born inside America do not necessarily make the right decisions for the U.S.A."

I was not implying that they would get in elections with a communist platform. My point was to say that we don't know whats going to happen once their in office. this is where the trust issue pops up. No, people in america do not always make the right decisions. But by allowing more bad decision making into the country, are we bettering it, or worsening it? At least they stand For America in its highest perspective. All the presidents will not be perfect. But every single one has his opinion to better america through familiar ways. Which is what our constitution is based on.

you say you are not against the age limit. In your first argument, you opt that the whole paragraph 5 was wrong. however if you are not against the age then we shsall dismiss it from this debate.

MY OPPONENT- "I think it is entirely unrealistic to imagine that anyone growing up in America cannot be influenced by other countries and their governments and decisions. We are a free country, and we do not censure access to any information, whether our government agress with it or not. Is it so hard to believe that an American can be influenced by a foreign figure so much so that the judgements and ideals from that person come through in the American?"

This is why these types of people never make it far into the leadership campaign in america. look at ralph nadar. This poor guys been running for years without any luck. What it really comes down to is what the people want for america. Obviously, not a lot of people would vote for someone if their cause was not the same as ours.

Thankyou again bored for the neatness and formality you have kept for the duration of this debate. I look forward to your answer.
Debate Round No. 2
bored

Pro

This debate seems to be based on the concept of whether we can trust non-native Americans or not. The con side has done a marvelous job of explaining why history can never exactly repeat itself; I am not trying to say we should follow the example of others simply because it has worked for them, I am pointing out that many types of leadership are necessary for this world. We do not need to instate Gandhi into our government. However, I think that it is a violation of basic rights, and a slur to the intelligence of American citizens, for the government to censure and limit the candidate pool based on something that no man can plan, his birthplace.

Hitler, despite being Austrian, never seemed to want to anything that put Austria in front of Germany. He was, I believe we may generally agree, not consciously trying to lead to the downfall of Germany. He was, to put it simply, insane. Being born in Austria did not change or create that effect. I have read nowhere that implies Hitler's Austrian birth led to his anti-semitism. Also, to clear up any misunderstandings, Hitler was not well loved in Austria. He was an orphan, a vagrant and a starving artist. Only after he went to Germany and excelled in its army did he become well known and admired. He was invited to join the German Workers' Party after fiercely rebutting a statement he heard earlier. It was then that he became overtly power-crazed and was discharged from the army. He expanded the party and exercised strict control over it. The rest is, well, history. Hitler's problem was not that he was Austrian born. His problem was much deeper than that, a severe psychosis that probably set in at a young age. However, I only mention this to reiterate the fact that trust is an issue that is more than nationality.

Racism has roots in nationalism, though nationalism is by far the more acceptable term. There is the unpredictable, often dangerous demeanor of superiority in the form of harsh patriotism. It is difficult to draw the line between praise of one's own and slander of another's. "TRUST ISSUE- With all these examples i have been there lies one major issue. we cannot trust them." I do not want to put words into my opponent's mouth, or try to twist what he/she has actually said, but I can see no reason for this mistrust other than the origin of birth.

We see the media trying to embarrass and defame prominent menbers of society all the time. It is almost unrestricted; the media can attack religion, physical appearance, diet, acquaintances, and old, forgotten events. One of the main areas of attack for politicians is their birthplace, even though there is no good reason whatsoever. We ought to judge our leaders by how they perform their jobs, not how they act in their personal lives. For instance, I would like to ask you a few questions, to determine your worthiness as a debater.
#1. How long have you participated in debates, either on this site or outside of it?
#2. Are you in a relationship? If so, how often do you fight?
#3. Do you support abortions?

If you are offended, you have every right to be. The last two questions have nothing to do with your debating skills, just as a person's birthplace has nothing to do with his or her governing capabilities. What matters is the ideas, the morals, and the intelligence of the person. We have no more right to exclude a man because of his birthplace than we have a man because of his skin color.

As I gather my opponent believes, Americans have just as much potential, if not more to create trouble and turn traitor to America, than foreigners. I fully support that. Here is a list of American traitors to provide some back up information. http://americanhistory.about.com...

"My point was to say that we don't know whats going to happen once their in office. this is where the trust issue pops up. No, people in america do not always make the right decisions. But by allowing more bad decision making into the country, are we bettering it, or worsening it? At least they stand For America in its highest perspective. All the presidents will not be perfect. But every single one has his opinion to better america through familiar ways. Which is what our constitution is based on."

What I understand from this, implies that foreign decisions are always bad ones, at least concerning America. I do not understand the reasoning, nor do I see the information to support a statement of this kind. Some of our best government officials, such as Henry Kissenger and Madeline Albright, could never run for President, the highest opportunity of them all, despite many years of faithful service to the country they now see as their own, and have for many years. They were both naturalized and rose to Secretary of State upon their ideas, productivity and dreams, not on their birthplace. To limit them in our government because of where they were born is not only prejudice, hypocrisy, and blatant iniquity, it is an affront to all that America holds dear! We cannot let ourselves fall into the fiery pit of stigmatism!
http://www.dance.net...
I am not saying that we abandon all semblance of government and follow blindly behind a shepherd. No, we need to put power back where it belongs, in the hands of the democracy, to the benefit of all. Our intense scrutiny of our political figures throws out the bad and cultivates the good!
For all that America has provided, a welcome communtiy for ideas and beliefs, let us take the step of releasing the old bonds that tie us to monarchy! If we honestly and truly believe in the inherent, unalienable rights of man, let us not hesitate to provide opportunity to those honest, brave and intelligent enough to take it!!

Thank you again for the interesting debate; it has been a pleasure.
fo-shizzle

Con

MY OPPONENT- "I am pointing out that many types of leadership are necessary for this world. We do not need to instate Gandhi into our government. However, I think that it is a violation of basic rights, and a slur to the intelligence of American citizens, for the government to censure and limit the candidate pool based on something that no man can plan, his birthplace."

It is true, however, that no man can plan his birth place. But this is not the problem. The problem here is the trust issue. Having some one, say an iraqi, become president because he shows good views the world may agree on, would not be the best of situations. Because again once assumed power, we have no idea what they will do. How horrible would it be to find we have a member of the taliban leading our country, pretending to have different views? Of course, they would take advantage over america, and we wouldn't even know it. We need americans, who were born and taught the basic principiles of freedom. Being born here, Americans have better knowledge of why were here and how we came to be a free country.

Since this has now turned into a history discussion, here is an exerpt from the happenings in austria.

"In middle of the 15th century, following the establishment of the Anti-Catholic movement of Jan Hus in the Czech Republic, the condition of the Jewish population worsened as a result of accusations that the movement was associated with the Jewish community. In 1420, the Jewish community hit its lowest point when a Jewish person from Upper Austria was charged with the desecration of the Sacramental bread. This led Albert the Fifth to order the imprisonment of all of the Jews in Austria. 210 Jews were burnt alive in public and the rest were deported from Austria, leaving their belongings behind."
Let us also not forget the jewish-roman war that started by the austrians.
I believe this is sufficient enough proof that hitler has adopted his beliefs written in the mein kumpf from his home country, Austria.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

RACISM-
MY OPPONENT-"Racism has roots in nationalism, though nationalism is by far the more acceptable term. There is the unpredictable, often dangerous demeanor of superiority in the form of harsh patriotism. It is difficult to draw the line between praise of one's own and slander of another's."

now my opponent is saying that america has adopted racism. Let me show you an earlier quote given by my opponent-

MY OPPONENT-"America has a nickname-the Melting Pot--because of all the different ideas and cultures that are given an equal chance, here, to express themselves."

If we are are racist, then how would you explain our current black president? Or our previous people in the government such as condaleeza rice etc? They are granted every same oppurtunity as the whites, and they're race doesn't effect theyre positions in the least bit. Not allowing non-american born citizens into presidency is not racist.
You say there is no way for us to mistrust them other than the origin of birth. Well this is indeed correct. The only reason we mistrust them, is because of their birth. We don't know what they've been taught in their countries, such as theyre sense of ethics. Alot of People are taught that slavery is right, or that sacrificing yourself with a bomb strapped on your back to kill a hundred innocent people is okay, and that they will be rewarded in the afterlife for doing so. Bottom line, we DONT know what these people are capable of. Not knowing is a very risky thing. Thus the war in iraq. We dont know whether thay have weapons of mass destruction there, but are we willing to take the chance?

And as for the media situation. The media is biased. I understand that. But the media has in no way discriminated any one from any country. This law was made in the constitution, BEFORE the media ever came to be.

MY OPPONENT- "a person's birthplace has nothing to do with his or her governing capabilities"

I understand this. But we just dont know what will happen once theyre in often. its a risk we arent willing to take. If they are so into theyre governing skills, why cant they apply them into theyre own origin country?

As for american traitors go, none of the traitors listed on that site were once a president of the united states. The only president ever who has 'betrayed' the united states whas nixon. but he actually did not ever harm america with his leading america. All he did was do some things on personal levels.

MY OPPONENT- "What I understand from this, implies that foreign decisions are always bad ones, at least concerning America. I do not understand the reasoning, nor do I see the information to support a statement of this kind. Some of our best government officials, such as Henry Kissenger and Madeline Albright, could never run for President, the highest opportunity of them all, despite many years of faithful service to the country they now see as their own, and have for many years. They were both naturalized and rose to Secretary of State upon their ideas, productivity and dreams, not on their birthplace. To limit them in our government because of where they were born is not only prejudice, hypocrisy, and blatant iniquity, it is an affront to all that America holds dear! We cannot let ourselves fall into the fiery pit of stigmatism!"

No i never said all there decisions are bad ones, just that we are unsure of what kind of decisions they will make. It is better safe than sorry to just stay safe with our own american citizens as political leaders. However the two individuals you pointed out, were part of the government, meaning they still have some influence over the the ruling of our country. To say that we are limiting them, would be undermining the oppurtunities they hold.

I believe that america needs to be kept safe, and the only way to make sure of that is to keep all political leaders american born. Thankyou my opponent, and all the viewers of this debate.

-Foshizzle
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
"[Being president] is the ultimate hope of all, being the head of such a forward, wonderful nation."

Not really...
Posted by bored 8 years ago
bored
I have debated, just not on this site and mostly informally. Thank you; you are a very good debator too.
Posted by fo-shizzle 8 years ago
fo-shizzle
are you sure this is your first debate? if so i don't think you need advice at all. you are very good at this.
Posted by fo-shizzle 8 years ago
fo-shizzle
interesting topic...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by DrumBum1234 8 years ago
DrumBum1234
boredfo-shizzleTied
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 
Vote Placed by bored 8 years ago
bored
boredfo-shizzleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
boredfo-shizzleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60