Should Foreign-Born Citizens Be Eligible for the U.S. Presidency?
This essay examines the U.S. Constitution's Article II requirement that only natural-born citizens may serve as President or Vice President. It traces the Founding Fathers' original rationale, surveys arguments by scholars like Larry Sabato who contend the provision is outdated and excludes millions of loyal Americans, and considers real-world examples such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and the 14th Amendment's citizenship provisions. The paper ultimately argues that while certain ambiguities in the natural-born clause warrant clarification, foreign-born citizens should continue to be barred from the presidency due to legitimate concerns about divided loyalty, foreign policy conflicts of interest, and public confidence in the nation's highest office.
- Introduction: The Constitutional Barrier: Article II bars foreign-born citizens from presidency
- Origins of the Natural-Born Citizen Requirement: Founders feared foreign influence in new nation
- Challenges and Proposed Amendments: Congressional efforts to change birth requirement stall
- The Case for Reform: Sabato's Argument: Scholar argues clause unfairly excludes millions of citizens
- Foreign-Born Leaders and the Loyalty Question: Schwarzenegger example tests loyalty assumptions
- Foreign Policy Conflicts and Public Trust: Foreign-born president risks policy bias and divided loyalty
- Conclusion: Faith in the Commander-in-Chief: Public confidence requires undivided presidential loyalty
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It presents a balanced structure: the paper acknowledges reform arguments fairly before defending the existing constitutional requirement, giving the argument genuine credibility.
- The use of concrete examples — Arnold Schwarzenegger, Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, and Teresa Heinz Kerry — grounds abstract constitutional questions in recognizable public figures.
- Direct quotation from the Constitution and from Sabato's A More Perfect Constitution lends authoritative support to both sides of the debate.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper effectively demonstrates concession and rebuttal: it engages seriously with the strongest counterarguments (Sabato's claims about excluded citizens, the 14th Amendment's broad citizenship grants) before explaining why the original restriction should nonetheless remain. This technique strengthens the writer's own position by showing awareness of opposing evidence.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens by establishing the constitutional rule and its historical context, then surveys reform arguments and real-world cases involving foreign-born public figures. The middle sections build the counterargument around loyalty, foreign policy risk, and public confidence. The paper closes with a practical illustration — voter attitudes toward Teresa Heinz Kerry in 2004 — that brings the abstract constitutional debate back to lived political reality. Citations draw on legal reference works, a political science text, and primary source constitutional text.
Introduction: The Constitutional Barrier
In most countries of the world, the position of supreme commander of a nation can only be held by a person who was born in that country. The rationale behind this requirement is that someone with immediate blood ties to another country may be unwilling to take arms against that nation should the two countries go to war. Article II of the United States Constitution forbids anyone who was not born in America from becoming President. That document states: "No person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President" (United). This requirement also applies to the Vice President, since if the President becomes incapacitated the Vice President assumes the highest office in the land.
Since the creation of the Constitution, certain factions have argued against this provision and demanded that the birth requirement be removed. The central discrepancy is between native-born and naturalized citizens. The Constitution states that only people born in the United States may ever become President. Someone who becomes a naturalized citizen of the United States possesses all the rights of a natural-born citizen, with the sole exception of being ineligible to run for either of these two offices (Schultz 35). Many people have argued that this particular article of the U.S. Constitution is outdated — a remnant of the Continental Congress. While certain modifications are required to the current interpretation of the Constitution given that some qualified individuals are being wrongly excluded, foreign-born citizens should still not be permitted to hold the office of President or Vice President of the United States.
Origins of the Natural-Born Citizen Requirement
When the Founding Fathers were drafting the Constitution, they wanted to ensure that their new nation would be led by a person beyond the influence of England, from whom they had just separated. They feared that placing a man born in England or France at the head of government could undermine the new authority of the American state and put the fledgling nation in jeopardy. Although the United States is no longer in danger of reverting to British rule, nor of foreign powers using the Executive Branch to seize control of the country, the risk of international influence within the United States government remains real should a foreign-born person occupy the office of President or Vice President.
Works Cited
McLaughlin, Andrew. Cyclopedia of American Government. New York, NY: D. Appleton, 1914. Print.
Sabato, Larry J. A More Perfect Constitution: Why the Constitution Must Be Revised. New York: Walker, 2006. Print.
Schultz, David Andrew. Encyclopedia of the United States Constitution, Volume 1. New York, NY: Facts on File, 2009. Print.
United States Constitution. 1789. Print.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.