I'm doing a persuasive essay in history class about this topic and I need PRO reasons only.
2007-12-18 12:45:50 · 14 answers · asked by palin sucks! 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
You are misunderstanding. I know that the Constitution says otherwise, but there ARE reasons why naturalized citizens should become Presidents.
2007-12-18 15:50:41 · update #1
if they have become a naturalized citizen and have lived in the country for 15 years , then why not . its long past the time anyone could give the country back to England.
and that was the reason they put it in the constitution , fear that a England supporter would allow English troops to be placed on the American continent
2007-12-18 13:43:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so. Sorry, you may have gotten the rough end of this debate, but I'll give you what I know.
Pro:
Naturalized citizens are due the full rights of citizenship according to the 14th amendment. (I don't believe that particular contradiction has been put before the court, but I'd be curious to see how they navigate.)
What if the best candidate is foreign born? Should we elect a sub-standard president based only on xenophobia?
Many people point to Governor Arnold Schwartzeneger as a likely candidate, but as a Californian I've got to say he isn't that great of a Governor. Not the worst we've had, but not worth amending the constitution to make President, in my mind.
Sorry, that's all I can think of- good luck though!
2007-12-18 12:51:52 · answer #2 · answered by Beardog 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Read Article 2 of the Constitution. It has never been amended so, stands as written. No man shall be elected President that is not a natural born citizen of this nation on the date this Constitution was ratified & thereafter. No Pro reasons can be used.
2007-12-18 13:05:27 · answer #3 · answered by geegee 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Under current law a foreigner can not run for President of these United States. They can run for other elected offices if they have lived here. Such as the governor of California, Arnold Swchenagger (spelling?). It has been rumored that people would like him to run for president, but he can not. Perhaps you could contact him and ask his opinion on why the law should be changed to allow foreigners to run.
2007-12-18 12:56:26 · answer #4 · answered by evelynj1948 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
it is not a regulation it is area of our shape and can require a Constitutional modification. mutually as i do no longer think of Swartzenager has any loyalties to any u . s . a . yet u.s. i do no longer want changing that component of the form. it is designed to guard us from conflicts of interest as are being so for sure highlighted in the Obama presidency and his conflict of loyalty between countless distant places impacts. i've got self belief Obama became born in the U. S. yet he does exhibit illustrate why we don't enable distant places born human beings to run for president. As to in comparison to McCain or Obama or maybe Bush i think of Swartzeneger may be an progression. i admire him greater suitable than each and every person else who's heavily run for prez for the two social gathering in two decades. which isn't announcing lots. Admitedly i concept Bush may be a competent prez while he ran for his first term yet i might voted for Perot if he hadn't grew to become out to be a fruitcake. by Bush's 2d term i became vote casting against Kerry no longer for Bush who I despised. I basically hated Kerry greater suitable than Bush. i could no longer even convey myself to vote for McCain or Obama era. the two disgusted me too lots to EVER vote for. So no Swartz isn't a competent concept. i do no longer think of he'd be any distinctive than the final two decades we've had.
2016-11-23 13:36:36 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When our politicians work shady deals for profit , with other nations, they are , in my eyes, worse than any foreigner could ever be.
Sending American jobs overseas is an act of treason. Don't salute the flag like everything's alright .
2007-12-18 12:52:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
the constitutional requirement of being born in the U.S.A. is a prudent restriction as well as the age requirement. To bad that the same restriction does not apply to all governmental offices.
2007-12-18 13:01:28 · answer #7 · answered by mhp_wizo_93_418 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There are no PRO reasons. This is our country; foreigners should leave.
2007-12-18 13:03:49 · answer #8 · answered by Nothingusefullearnedinschool 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Um no.
The only good argument you could make for this would be if that "foreigner" lived most of his life in the US, but even then that is weak.
2007-12-18 12:51:29 · answer #9 · answered by spartan-117 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
your best argument may be the American we've had in office for the last 8 years, and the ones we have running in 2008
2007-12-18 12:50:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋