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

To clarify that when I say "US citizen" I refer to sole US citizens not dual citizens. Con agreed to this in the comments. REBUTTAL1. Changes should be made based on likelihood of US successCon 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 caseA) 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 opportunityCon 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 officeCitizenship 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 lawCon'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 wantCon'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. Sources1) http://1.usa.gov...(pg 608)2) http://bit.ly...3) http://anse.rs...4) http://bit.ly...