The Debate 24: Becoming President: Natural-Made Citizens

     Those opposed to ending the clause in the Birthright Citizenship Amendment argue “The framers' intent was to create an objective basis for establishing citizenship—birth—not a subjective standard left to the whim of a majority. The United

elementary schools are introduced to lessons about U.S. presidents in kindergarten. Although children’s understanding of the methods, purpose, and effects of government increases over time, even young children have a rudimentary understanding of the role of the president as a leader of government. The research questions concerned children’s knowledge of the links among gender, race, and the presidency. And the conclusions were, that it is unlikely that children are explicitly taught that only European American men have been presidents of the United States. Nonetheless, children might acquire such knowledge through observation and constructive processes (Bigler et al., 2008).

It will take great strides to create a system in which American citizens will be represented in the political process, and only then will young Americans be truly compelled to vote. One way to achieve this goal

Over a century ago, the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution was implemented to grant citizenship to individuals born within the country. This was the first time that it was defined what it means to be a citizen in the U.S. While the amendment was created to address the citizenship of slaves, it is currently under speculation in regards to granting U.S. citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants (Gans, 2012). While there have been many arguments to place restrictions or eradicate granting children of undocumented immigrants U.S. citizenship, the constitutional right remains the same: if you are born on U.S. land, you are a citizen (Angelo, 2013). This paper argues that the birthright citizenship of U.S. born children of undocumented immigrants should continue to be granted based on the underlying principles of the 14th Amendment and the possible implications of ending birthright citizenship. First, this paper describes birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment, as well as its use in several Supreme Court cases that are significant to this issue. Then, various implications of eradicating birthright citizenship are discussed. Before discussing the possible consequences of eradicating birthright citizenship, it is imperative to discuss the history and principles underlying it.

Many people have different theories. As mentioned earlier, this clause in the Constitution is to protect the United States from influence from outside countries. What this means is that a group can form a conspiracy in which they plan to become the POTUS (President of the United States) and other major parts in government to keep the conspirators in power. This could lead to tyranny in the nation and utterly destroying what America stands for, Democracy. There are, however, good things that can come out of the removal of the Natural Born Citizen Clause. These foreign leaders could bring in new ideas and philosophies. This would be beneficial, but would you take the risk of being ruled by another country? I don't think you

The United States is a nation built on independence and freedom. This freedom, established through the constitution, allows American citizens to be able to participate in their government. The same constitution also restricts freedom of some Americans however. The naturalization clause amended to the constitution in 1790, forbids naturalized citizens from becoming president. Many naturalized citizens have lived in America for most of their lives and contribute to society just as much as a natural born citizen does. The naturalized clause of 1790 should be removed from the constitution so that naturalized citizens also have a chance to run for the presidency.

In the political world today there are so many different opinions about several different topics. The topics that I will address to you will be, should the 22nd Amendment be repealed and also should the foreign born be allowed to run for president. In both topics you may have your pros and cons, but I am strongly against the both of them because I feel that the Constitution should not be taken advantage of. Government should not be allowed to manipulate the Constitution to suit his or her needs. While making adjustments to the Constitution to allow different things to take place for convenience doesn 't leave any form respect of the Constitution. There should be a line drawn to keep this from happening for years to come on these issues

In the political world today there are so many different opinions about several different topics. The topics that I will address to you will be, should the 22nd Amendment be repealed and also should the foreign born be allowed to run for president. In both topics you may have your pros and cons, but I am strongly against the both of them because I feel that the Constitution should not be taken advantage of. Government should not be allowed to manipulate the Constitution to suit his or her needs. While making adjustments to the Constitution to allow different things to take place for convenience doesn’t leave any form respect of the Constitution. There should be a line drawn to keep this from happening for years to come on these issues and

Rhetorical Analysis: The primary audience for this paper includes every citizen aged eighteen and above eligible to vote in the United States. The proposed topic mostly concerns these individuals due to the fact, they are affected by presidential voting institutions. Throughout this paper, I will be arguing in favor of the Electoral College, with an end goal of persuading my audience of the benefits of the system.

Background: The issue of the Electoral College as the entity responsible for appointing the President of the United States of America has been among the most controversial aspects of the legal framework set forth by the American Founding Fathers. Throughout different times in history, modifications to it, have been proposed in the form of more than 700 Congressional Bills, some of which have even received the endorsement of incumbent Presidents or the approval of one of the legislative chambers. [1] This is the matter that has drawn the most proposals for Constitutional Amendments, displaying the discontent that certain sectors of the population have expressed about the status quo. [2]

This article is a letter to the editor about the controversy about the 14th amendment and whether letting illegal immigrant children becoming citizens follows that amendment. According to the 14th amendment, a person must pass two requirements in order to become an automatic citizen; they must be born in the U.S and be “ subject to its jurisdiction and with no other allegiance to another country”. Senator Jacob Howard explained that the 14th amendment excluded the Native Americans and “persons born in the U.S who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. Said differently, the amendment didn’t refer to what are called “ partial’’ jurisdiction, as “sojourners” and the amendment absolutely did

The presidency of the United Sates of America has been an evolving office since the term of our first president, George Washington. This evolution has occurred because of the changing times and the evolution of society itself, but also because of the actions of the men who have become president. Starting in the 20th century, most have referred to the presidency as the modern presidency due to changes in both a president's power and the way that the office itself is viewed. As the office of the president has evolved so has who can become president evolved. Yet, even today there are certain individuals who because of their gender or race have yet to hold the office of the presidency. The men that

Become a citizen of one of the best nations in the world is a privilege that not many people have. I’m talking about the United States of America. If you are an U.S natural born citizen you have rights and responsibilities that protect you based on the Declaration of Independence and the U.S Constitution. People who are in the position to become U.S. citizens gain the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities of citizenship as natural born American with the only restriction that they can’t be eligible for President of the United States.

The modern conventional wisdom of the phrase “natural born citizen” in the presidential eligibility clause referred to anyone who was a U.S. citizen at birth either by a U.S. statute or via the Constitution. The Constitution has no “definition” section, and subsequently the Supreme Court has stated that when the Constitution is silent the law “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.” My argument is simple, it is reasonable to assume that the framers, most of whom were well-trained lawyers, purposely did not define the term ‘natural born citizen’ believing that the controlling common law principle was Jus Soli, and that Congress would pass corresponding statutes to accommodate any exceptions to this principle similar to the practice that occurred in England with Parliament.

There have been millions of people that are immigrants who try to become a citizen, in the United States. As far as they can become citizens, is as far of American history knowledge they have. The Naturalization Civics Test makes a person become a citizen a bit more easy. The Naturalization Civics Test is important, because even if you get 6 answers correct on the test, you still have a fifty percent chance to pass. The question was intended to be harder and more difficult to answer but became easier, if you study your history it’s an easy pass.