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

I'll divide this into 3 parts: 1) My Case2) Con's Syllogism3) Con's case 1) My CaseCon ignores my entire case in favor of an absurd assumption that: "when we offer citizenship to immigrants, we don't need to offer them all rights as well"The government doesn't grant rights to its citizens in bits and pieces. When immigrants are naturalized, they become American citizens with all the same rights as all other US citizens. The only place the constitution uses the word "native-born citizen" in particular is in its presidential eligibility clause. "US Citizenship is not defined by Pro's ideals; it is defined by the US."Con attacks a strawman. I never said it was defined by my ideals. I was using the 14th Amendment which says:All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. [1]With his 2 unsubstantiated claims above, it is Con who is attempting to define citizenship by his own ideals. I don't think Con understands the concept of citizenship. Colonialism & CriminalsCon's case rests on the fact that the law provides security. I have shown that it is misguided and provides no security. Far more dangerous people such as convicted criminals exist in our current pool of presidential candidates. The fact that criminals are allowed to run shows that pre-emptive security is unnecessary in presidential elections. People should decide for themselves who is dangeous and who is not. Con attacks my statements on criminals out of context. My rebuttal to Con's contention about security was that security doesn't increase by allowing criminals but disallowing immigrants to run. It had nothing to do with whether or not criminals should be allowed to run. Con's attempts to differentiate Naturalized US citizens from "Americans" are misleading. They are not mutually exclusive terms. 2) Con's syllogismCon makes a syllogism that seems to work at first glance but is deeply flawed becase it relies on the assumption that naturalized US citizens must not be included under the definition of US success. 1. Changes to Pres. requirements .... likelihood of US successCon doesn't address my point that choosing from all citizens gives a greater likelihood of success than choosing from just 7/8 of it's citizens. Con gives no justification for excluding 1/8 of the US population from the definition of "US success." Extend. 2. Success .... decisions to be made based solely on US interests.Con misrepresents my rebuttal. He COMPLETELY ignores my assertion that the interests of all US citizens count as US interests. By saying that "we agree on the basics" he claims a false concession whereas it is he who conceded by not addressing my rebuttal. 3. People have a natural loyalty.... Con never shows how caring about a nation is dangerous in and of itself. Bush hates Iraq (Con's admission) and dragged the US into a war. Isn't that more dangerous?4. More likely to include foreign interests Bush example: This negates Con's contention and works for my side because a US-born citizen is just as likely to have a personal connection to a country as a Naturalized citizen. Bush hated Iraq so much because of the conflicts his father started with Iraq. Bush was not born in a country like Iran which is an enemy of Iraq. Bush was born in the US, yet he had this intense, emotional response to Iraq because his father had a conflict. His emotions did not serve US interests. Could this have been any worse if Bush was born in Iran? Why is it that being born in the United States is of any importance at all? Personal conflicts are not exclusive to Naturalized citizens. A Naturalized US citizen may love the country of his birth, but a native-born US citizen is just as likely to hate a country that his father had a conflict with. Con wonders how we would know if a person is exceptional. I already answered this by showing how their previous decisions in a position of power as a senator or governor are public. Extend those as Con dropped them. Con never responds to my contention that Naturalized citizens will be more heavily scrutinized than Native-born citizens because people will be cautious with them to begin with. He concedes. It is less likely that a Naturalized US citizen will be able to convince the people to elect him if his real intentions were dishonorable. "The US lost over $ 3 tril and 4000 lives over something that didn’t exist." We lost this because a US-born citizen couldn't put his emotional hate aside. It completely contradicts Con's assertion that Naturalized citizens are dangerous because they have "personal connections." He says they are more likely but so far, all he proved was that immigrants love their country of birth which by itself does not show that they are any more dangerous. Should we stop people whose fathers had been president because it is more likely that they would hold a grudge? Why not? This fits in perfectly with Con's argument and actually makes more sense than preventing immigrants from running. 5. Will not increase US success. Con ignores my rebuttal. I'd like to remind Con that in a debate, unaddressed points count as concessions [2], and if Con brings any of these conceded points back up in the last round when I can't respond, voters are to disregard it. 3) Con's case(a) "[Pro] is suggesting here that the constitution has no place enforcing a rule that will protect the country"- Con appeals to the constitution's right to enforce laws, yet disregards the fact that the law was not written for the reason that he claims. It was written to protect the US from colonization, not from immigrants. - I proved that no protection occurs. It doesn't stop people who are truly dangerous (criminals) nor people with a bundle of confused emotions (Bush). The average risk of the current pool of candidates with criminals and all is the same as, or more than, the average risk with immigrants included. (b) "decision must be based on having the best leadership possible to lead the country, not fulfilling the desires of those who wish to run"- The government has no obligation to provide the "best" leadership. The voters do that. - The government makes a decision based on assumptions which may or may not be true but depend entirely on possible likelihood. That is inherently unjust to people who are incorrectly denied because of the government's assumptions. (c) Grandma analogy: "harms caused by the rare instances of the unexpected outweigh the harms caused by the restrictions themselves." If that is the case, then restrictions should be placed on all US citizens and no one should run for president. Con already showed that even native-born citizens can be dangerous (he made my case for me) and the risk exists regardless of who is running. For that reason the above logic cannot be applied to elections. ConclusionCon's argument relies on strawmanning my position, claiming concessions when there were none, dropping points, and misrepresenting my rebuttals. He could not find an effective argument so instead he makes up his own definition of citizenship - a charge he ironically lays on me. He also does not include naturalized US citizens in his definition of "US success" even though that 1/8 of the population is just as American as the remaining 7/8. I have given considerable reasoning why immigrants are not any more dangerous than the people who are already allowed to run such (criminals and people whose fathers had run before them). There is a certain amount of risk already in our current pool of candidates. Expanding it to include immigrants does not increase the average risk that is inherent in a candidate pool.The voters have the right to vote for who they want. While they may not make the best choice, democracy demands that they make the choice, not the government. For all these reasons, immigrants should be eligible to run for president. The resolution is affirmed. Sources [1] http://bit.ly...[2] http://bit.ly...