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

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! !