President of the USA - place of birth

Firstly, I absolutely agree that the laws of the USA, as those of any country, must be such as to ensure that foreign influence is indeed kept to a minimum. There is not, nor will there be (unless my opponent asserts something extraordinary indeed in R2) any contention that my opponent is being intolerant or unfair. My opponent has put the following two propositions: 1. "Opening up the highest office in this nation to those who are not natural born citizens, opens the floodgate to possible foreign influence on the oval office. " 2. "An unnatural born citizen would likely not be as qualified to represent mainstream America. " I will now address them both in a single argument. I contend that the place of a person's birth does not bear on where the person's loyalty lies, nor does it bear on the person's ability and qualifications to represent mainstream America. As things stand at present, a person who was born outside of America but arrived in America at 2 days of age cannot ever be President, irrespective of how otherwise suitable a candidate he or she may be. Consider the two hypothetical scenarios: 1. Joe Smith. Both Joe's mother was born in the USA and lived there her whole life. She was a true patriot, completely devoted to her country. Joe's father was a Canadian citizen who lived in the USA since 10. In the 1970's they went on a weekend trip from their home in Altadena CA to Mexico. Joe's mother went into labor and gave birth to Joe on the Sunday. They remained in Mexico for another week, until she was well enough to travel back. Joe's father and mother divorced when Joe was 3 years old. Since then he was raised by his mother only. Since a every young age, Joe has been a model citizen, his loyalty undividied, a true American, as patriotic as his mother. Joe Smith will never be President. 2. Abu Ahdir Maka Abu's situation is almost the opposite to Joe's. His parents were from a hypothetical Middle Eastern country. In 1965 they went on a two week trip to Hawaii. This is where Abu's mother gave birth. Abu spent his entire youth hating America and everything she stands for. He was a member of an ultra-fundamental sect of a hypothetical religious sect that interprets its religious dogma in a way dictating the destruction of the Western culture, focussing on the USA. In 1995 he migrated to the USA, gave up his foreign citizenship, became a US citizen. As of 2009 Abu Ahdir Maka will be able to run for President. I doubt that my opponent would suggest that Abu Ahdir Maka is more likely to be qualified to represent mainstream America than Joe Smith is. I also doubt that he would further argue that Abu Ahdir Maka is less likely to bring foreign influence into the office if elected President than would Joe Smith (if he were able to run for President). These are extreme examples, I agree. They are here to illustrate a point. A point that place of birth, in today's climante of cheap and fast international travel, place of birth means little to nothing. There are scores of people born from an American parent and who have always lived in the USA with the exception of the first few days or weeks of their lives. They can never be leaders of their country. I contend that is not fair and not reasonable. There are also scores of people who were born from immigrant parents shortly prior to their arrival in the USA and who have lived in the USA ever since their arrival and yet can never be President. I again contend that this is not fair and not reasonable. When it comes to the question of loyalty or ability to represent the interests of mainstream Americans, the question of place of birth is simply of such minute relevance that it should not even be given consideration. WHAT THE PRESENT SITUATION IS At present, to qualify to run for President, a person must be born in the USA, be 35 years of age and must have resided in the USA for at least 14 years with a permanent resident status. At the minimum therefore it must be a person who has resided in the USA just under one half of his or her life. They are allowed to have lived in another country for a whole 16 (at minimum, if they are 35) years previously. They are allowed to have been a permanent resident of that other country, to have served in its Defence Forces (in some countries), to have held political and diplomatic positions of that country (of course this would only apply to those older than 35 at the present time), to have been educated in that country, to have children who are born and bred in that country. The question to be asked is then: Is it really the position that we are trying to minimise foreign influence? After all, the present situation allows ENORMOUS foreign influence and outside loyalty. All that a candidate has to be is born in the USA. If the true intention behind this restriction were indeed to minimise foreign influence and maximise the ability to represent mainstream America, would it not be more restrictive? Of course it would. A person born overseas, and having lived in the USA for 30 years (at present 35 years old) should arguably be considered infinitely better qualified for the Office than a person who was born in the USA, has lived overseas for 30 years and then again moved to the USA and lived there for 15 years. I would further contend that a President who has a foreign wife would be much more likely to be subject to foreign influence than one who was born overseas and yet lived his entire life (with the exception of a few months) in the USA. And yet we do not see a prohibition against presidents marrying foreigners. I conclude this round by saying that while the reasons are right, the measure is not. Perhaps it made more sense when it was originally implemented. However, in today's world it simply does not.