Presidents Should be Natural Born Citizens

My opponent's first point is that US success is the most important. While this is true to some extent, it is in a better position than a lot of countries. Even though there are many problems with the US, there are other countries in greater need. Between 2.3 and 3.5 million people are homeless in the US, but in Haiti a million people still remain homeless. While there may be more homeless people in the US, many more people live in the US than Haiti. Sometimes the US needs to look at which country has the greater need. If there is another country which has a greater need than the US then maybe they should be the top priority at least for the first couple of weeks of the problem which that country faces. How changes to the constitution should be made is not only what's best for the US, but it also needs to be based on what's best for the countries that the US helps. The US must take both of those into account when changing the constitution. A President from a different country might help the US to think beyond the US alone and about the other countries as well while making the US a good place because if they're becoming president, they must have a passion for the US. Overall, who gets priority depends on need, and as long as we continue to give foreign aid the constitution needs to bear both in mind. I believe I have addressed the point about foreign aid in my first paragraph. Also, I'd like to mention that I 'm not arguing for a President who cares more about another country than our own. If they're becoming President, they must like the US and have a passion for the US. I'm arguing for a President who cares about both. This also begins to address the third point too. We want a President who cares deeply about both this country and other countries in desperate need. The nation shouldn't be divided because they know that the President will do what's best for the country that they're from. Also, their is bound to be some skepticism anyway. Naturally, before a war there are both people who agree and disagree with the war. Even if some people don't agree, it may be what's morally right which is more important than what people agree with. I do not agree that it is problematic as the President will love the country that they were born in, and they will do what's best to help that country. With regards to my opponent's next paragraph it's better if they were born in that country because they feel the connection to that country which will help them decide on whether or not to go to war. It's actually the opposite situation that could be a problem. What about Presidents born in the US? They'd be likely to not see that country's point of view and not care about that country just to increase US success. That situation is equally bad. Having Presidents being born in another country would make them care about that country as well. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't have Presidents born in the US. I'm saying that there are advantages and disadvantages to both. A President born in the US could not give enough foreign aid, but a President born from outside could give too much. Both are risks and equally problematic situations. Therefore, there is some risk with both, and because of this we shouldn't make being born in the US a requirement as there are advantages and disadvantages to both. Overall, allowing Presidents to come from different countries would help them make better decisions with foreign aid. I'd like to ask my opponent why they think that Presidents would be more likely to have compromised motives if they were born in a different country? If they want to be President of the US, I think that shows a passion and love of the US already. The fact that they want to be President shows that they most likely do want to improve the US. The only situation I can think of where there would be much risk is if they wanted to use the US as a resource to help their own country. For example if someone was born in a country that needed aid, and then they wanted to use the US as a tool to help their own country. This is the only situation that I can think of that could have compromised motives, and where being born in a different country could effect decision making? I'd like to ask my opponent what other compromised motives could they possibly have? Even in the situation that I suggested if you look at the chances of that, it's all very unlikely. It's unlikely that someone would become President to try and do that. Then it's even more unlikely that they'd win the election. Then even if they did win there would be enough disagreement for them not to make the decision. Overall, a situation like that just wouldn't happen. I'd like to ask my opponent what other compromised motives they're thinking of? Overall, there aren't really any compromised motives that would be more likely as a result of a President being from another country. My opponent starts their first rebuttal by contradicting themselves. They start off by saying that it doesn't effect whether they make real promises or not. However, looking further down they say that there is no way for us to know what we're getting into until it's done. This argument is totally contradictory and doesn't make sense. They're saying there's no more risk of them making false promises, and then saying that there's a problem with what we're getting into. If there's no more risk, then why would there be more of a problem with what the US is getting into? Overall, this is a very contradictory and illogical statement. Secondly, if there is enough of a disagreement on a decision, for instance if the President and a few other people are the only people who want something done, then there is enough disagreement for the decision to be changed. Overall, this argument is contradictory, and also, my opponent didn't show how it can increase the chances of success apart from their one argument about foreign aid earlier. I was never saying that they would necessarily do better. That's why I specifically phrased it as good if not better. I'm saying that someone from the US could do a better job than someone from the US. I'm not saying that they will; I'm just saying there are people from other countries who could do a better job. My argument was never to say that people from other countries will be better at leading this country than people from the US. I'm simply saying that people from other countries can do at least as good a job, and some of them could do better. Overall, I'm not saying that people from other countries will do better; however, they have as much potential and ability as someone from the US. Here I'd like to ask my opponent what they mean from having a different perspective from ours. My opponent treats the US like it's one person with one opinion. However, even people within the US have a lot of different opinions. There are several different parties. There are many different opinions. It's not as if the US just holds one opinion. Also, there are people in the US who are very different opinions, and they're still allowed to run. Someone could hold the belief that murder is acceptable. If they were born in the US they could run, they'd never get elected though. Someone who's not from the US wouldn't have this opportunity. This is why we have elections. Someone from outside the US should still be able to run and express their opinion even if it is very different. Also, there are people from other countries who have very similar opinions to what most of the population thinks. Overall, even within the US there are many different opinions, and someone from outside the US should still be able to run. Overall, the only big point my opponent makes as an advantage is foreign aid, and I've shown how that can be good and how allowing someone from outside the US to run could be beneficial. Sources http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl...