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

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