Presidents Should be Natural Born Citizens

Thanks to my opponent for his response. Con begins by badly misinterpreting my first point, which is that changes should be made to increase the likelihood of US success. I am not arguing that changes should be made. The negation of the resolution (Cons position) already states that changes should be made, therefore I am showing what the changes under those circumstance should be based on. For Con to refute this first point he must show that “increasing the likelihood of US success” is not how changes to the constitution should be based. Just in case if it is not clear “US success” is itself very debatable. For this debate I am speaking from a very broad point of view. I would define it as improving the lives of US citizens. While contributing to the rest of the world is a great thing for any country to do, the citizens of any given country should clearly be its first priority. Lets go back to my points: 2. Success requires Presidential decisions to be made based solely on US interests. Surprisingly Con actually argues against this point. He states that if a President was born in another country and that country needs aid, then the President would be more sympathetic and therefore more likely to give aid to that country. Con is completely going against my contention that a country should be concerned about its own citizens before the rest of the world. The point is not about whether we should give foreign aid, but that we should consider our own point of view first. No one donates to charity if they don’t have enough money to pay their rent. According to Cons argument we should have a president who cares more about another country then our own. 3. People have a natural loyalty to the land in which they originate. Con does not seem to argue against this point and in fact seems to agree with it. This is not surprising because I feel it is pretty straightforward. 4. People who have a natural loyalty to a foreign land will be more likely to include foreign interests in their decision making. Again Con seems to agree, but doesn’t seem to see anything wrong with this. However in his attempts to show why, he completely disregarded the far more important question I posed; what if Bush was born in Afghanistan? There is nothing more important and more emotionally based then a Presidents decision to go, or not go to war. The very concept of a Commander in chief having to make this decision and leading a nation through it while having been born in the country in question, is a very uncomforting one. A nation needs to be united during a time of war. Any nation would be divided just because of the concept of this question. Regardless of what decisions a President makes he will be treated with intense skepticism that will not in any way be healthy for that nation. This all comes before we even get to the question of which country the President would be more likely to be concerned about in that situation. When it comes to the scenario of someone who was born in the country they lead vs. someone who was not, there is a far more greater possibility that they will to some extent betray their nation if the country in question is the one from which they originate. This is hardly a debatable point, it is human nature. 5. The proposed changes will not increase the likelihood of US success. The bases of my argument is not that Presidents will never have compromised motives if they were born in the US, or that they will have compromised motives if they were not. My argument is a question of the likelihood of each of these scenarios. If there is a greater chance that our commander in chief will have compromised motives because of these changes, then these changes should not be made. Con’s argument seems to follow the concept that since either scenario is a possibility, they are both equally likely. This is utterly false. The law of probabilities is a real life consideration, which Con must factor in his argument before claiming that changes to the constitution should be made. Rebuttals Con states that a President being born in the US will not affect whether they make “real” promises or not. No it doesn’t, nor was that my point. I was not referring to their political tendencies as a policy maker. The original statement was made to demonstrate that there is no way for us to know what we are getting from the person we elect to lead our nation until it is done. This is why rules have to be put in place to ensure the best chances of success. My argument shows how the rule in place does increase the chances of success, Cons argument has failed to negate the argument of probability. Con states that people born in another country “can do just as good, if not better then people in the US”. Saying that people from other countries can do just as good a job is one thing, and I agree; they can. However, if the argument here is that their abilities are equal, then that is another topic of debate. But more importantly, that does not negate the resolution. If they have just as much ability as we do then the only question is if we would rather be lead by someone who is from the US or someone who is not? As far as Cons statement that they could do better… Con has provided no reason to suggest that people from another nation would do a better job leading the US then someone who was actually born in the US. I am very curious to know how Con would justify this position. Finally Con states that having a President born in another country adds diversity to our nation. There is a great difference between having our first black or female President, and having our first President who was not born here. Diversity is about adding different cultures and perspectives to our own, not being lead by someone who may be from a different culture or have a different perspective from ours. Conclusion Con has failed to answer to my main contentions and relies on an argument that does not affirm his resolution. Yes it is possible that a President born in another nation could be just as good as anyone in the US. But for us to change our laws to allow foreign born Presidential candidates there must be at the very least an equal chance that the changes will lead to a successful term. I have clearly shown that their are dangerous factors to consider which result in the chances not being equal.