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

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.