The election of Barrack Obama as the president of the United States was historic because it showed that any US citizen with the desire, dedication and talent could become the president. However, in reality, not all US citizens are eligible for the office of the president. The constitution prevents anyone born outside the US from running for the presidency, even if they are legal citizens of the US. This is a double-standard and against the spirit of democracy and equality. How can someone be told that they can achieve anything they want, only to be told later that they are ineligible to become the president of their own country? The concept of “citizens” with limited rights (essentially second-class citizens) promotes the idea that “all citizens are equal, but some are more equal than others”. Therefore it is a necessity to remove the native-born clause from the constitution in order to preserve and promote the ideal of democracy. Opponents of removing the native-born clause claim that naturalized citizens are a disloyal group; but they are simply being xenophobic, since naturalized citizens have more reasons to appreciate the freedoms and opportunities of the US. Also, they fail to consider the fact that native-born citizens are equally susceptible of putting their personal interests above the interests of their country.
To understand why the constitution disqualifies foreign-born citizens from the presidency, we must understand the political and social atmosphere of the US during the 1700s. The US had gained independence from the British Empire after a long and bloody revolution. After becoming a sovereign nation, it adopted the then-radical idea of democracy. As a young nation and a pioneer of democracy, the US was very vulnerable at the time. There was a very real possibility for an enterprising monarch to send a subject to become the head of the US, thereby gaining vicarious control of the US. In other words, democracy was a liability if everyone was allowed to run for president. The founding fathers believed that anyone born in the US would be much more likely to be loyal. And that is why they included the clause that only native-born citizens can become the president of the US. There was a need for this measure during the 1700s since there was a viable threat back then. But today, in the age of globalization and cultural interconnections, such a threat no longer exists.
About 8% of Americans are naturalized citizens. Many of them came to the US with their parents when they were infants. They grew up with American culture, they went to school in America, they pay allegiance to the US and they know only ONE homeland – the US. They love the US as much, if not more than any natural born citizen . And for all their patriotism and loyalty, they are ineligible to run for the presidency. Should kids be told that they can achieve anything they want in life if they work hard and do well in school only to be told later that they cannot run for president? And only because they are naturalized citizens? This might lead them to have an inferiority complex. They will feel like second class citizens. In some extreme cases, it may even lead to a loss in motivation. Sure, not everyone who wants to become the president achieves their dream. But the idea that they can achieve anything is a placebo to keep them motivated. Take away the placebo and u have a loss of motivation.
Preventing naturalized citizens from becoming the president is against democracy. In a democracy, all citizenz are equal. denying a large percentage of “citizens” the right to run for president fosters the image of second-class citizens, and is a double standard. There shouldn’t be any stratification in citizenship – if anyone deserves the right to gain citizenship, they should have the same rights as other citizens, including the right to become the president.
Some opponents of this amendment claim that certain foreign people could buy their way to the presidency and then be a puppet to another nation. People who make such claims obviously lack knowledge about the political institutions of America. They lack basic knowledge about the core ideals of the consititution – about the numerous checks and balances devised by the founding fathers to preven just that. And most importantly, they ignore the American public – any candidate would have to win the heart of the American public; and to do so, they would have to understand how the American public thinks; what the American public cherishes; to be PART of the American public.
Other opponents of the amendment argue that naturalized citizens are not loyal citizens. Once again, there claim is not based on any facts. Naturalised citizens are one of the most loyal groups in America. They have a much higher perception of how great America is. Many of them had to work hard to become naturalized citizens of the US and appreciate the US even more so for that. Natural born citizens may sometimes take the US and the perks of living in the US for granted; however a naturalized citizen would never do so and cherish the opportunity to nbe in the US.
1. A) How not all U.S. citizens can run for presidency; only U.S. born citizens can, while naturalized citizens can’t.
ReplyDeleteB) The writer is taking the position that all U.S citizens should have the privilege to run for president.
C) It hooked my attention by mentioning a recent event that took place; President Obama being elected.
D) I think the introduction is way too long, maybe shorten it a little. Also I think the thesis statement is not strong enough to support your view, maybe switch it to something that is straight to the point.
2. –Most naturalized citizens grew up in the U.S. and they love America as much as the U.S. born citizens.
-The image of “second class citizens” stating that all citizens should be equal, if not, then it can’t be called as democracy.
-Just because you’re a U.S born citizens, it doesn’t mean you will place the interest of the country above your own interest.
3. –The fear that foreigners might buy their way to the presidency and act as a puppet for other countries.
-The founding father fearing that anybody not born in the U.S. leading America would be a threat to the nation.
4. A) The writer deals okay with the opposition.
B) I think the strong point of the writer is by giving good arguments on why naturalized citizens should be able to run for presidents as U.S. born citizens.
C) The weak point is that there are way too many spelling and grammar errors that need to be fix, as well as there are too little statistics to back up your arguments, so maybe you can Google some statistics up. Also there sentences that confuses me, for example, “Some opponents of this amendment claim that certain foreign people could buy their way to the presidency and then be a puppet to another nation”, shouldn’t it be supporters of this amendment and not opponents, since opponents would not be claiming things that are bad for their argument.
D) I believe the points are organized in an okay manner.
E) Maybe elaborate more on why U.S. born citizens are as easily placing their own interests above the interests of the country as a foreigner.
F) Can’t think of a good counterargument to include.
5. All U.S. citizens should have the privilege of running for the office of president.
6. “Some opponents of this amendment claim that certain foreign people could buy their way to the presidency and then be a puppet to another nation”
Revised: Supporters of this amendment claimed that without this rule, then foreign people can buy their way into the presidency and act as a puppet to other countries.
“Other opponents of the amendment argue that naturalized citizens are not loyal citizens.”
Revised: Supporters of the amendment also argued that naturalized citizens are not loyal as the natural born citizens.
7. Way too much grammar and spelling errors, especially right after the third paragraph, the errors starts to begin. Also don’t use abbreviation in the essay, which is in the sentence “Take away the placebo and u{you} have a loss of motivation.” I believe the essay is not finish yet, it seems there’s no conclusion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJessica You
ReplyDelete1A) I think this essay will be about how the United States allows all citizens to become President, but there are still contradictories to this idea, because saying that all citizens are equal, some are more equal than others.
1B) The writer is taking the position of why the United States should make it so that naturalized citizens can have equal the opportunity to become President, just as much as the native-born citizens.
1C) This year's election has been a great deal, because of Barack Obama; having a mixed background and becoming President...has stirred a lot of attention throughout the World. And also the fact that it's been the talk, and is current news, it makes us want to know more.
1D) Maybe place the thesis sentence at the first sentence or the last. Statistics would be good also. Other than that, the introduction is great.
2) Arguments to support the thesis:
*Founding fathers believed that anyone born in U.S. would be loyal to their own country, so that's why they only allow native-borns to become President. During the 1700's there was a need to, but now, in modern days with all the globalization and cultural interconnections, they don't need to worry as much.
*Many of those that are not native-borns grew up in the U.S. and learning the ways of American culture. They also pledge allegiance to the U.S. flag.
*The non-natives love U.S. as much as the natural-born citizens. They also see the U.S. as their one and only Country, to which they feel they belong.
*Preventing naturalized citizen from Precidency is against Democracy.
*Natural citizens is one of the most loyal, and cherish their opportunity to be in the U.S.
3) Counterarguments:
*The counterarguers claimed that naturalized citizens are a disloyal group.
*Democracy was a liability if everyone was allowed to run for President.
4A) The writer gave a supporting answer for each counterargument that he mentioned.
4B) The writer's strongest point is that many non-native citizens were born here or grew up at a young age and learned the ways of how to be an American, and living its culture, they look at America as their own country. And also the contradiction of a democratic Country.
4C) The writer's weakest point...none.
4D) Yes...
4E&F) The writer has a strong and stable constructive paragraphs.
5) thesis statement: Non-native citizens should have as much opportunity to become President as the native-borns.
6) "Opponents of removing the native-born clause claim that naturalized citizens are a disloyal group; but they are simply being xenophobic, since naturalized citizens have more reasons to appreciate the freedoms and opportunities of the US."
[suggestion] Maybe break up into two sentences.
[revised] Those who are against removing the native-born clause, claims that naturalized citizens are a disloyal group. Those against it are simply being xenophobic, because the majority of naturalized citizens appreciate the freedoms and opportunities of the U.S. much more.
"There was a very real possibility for an enterprising monarch to send a subject to become the head of the US, thereby gaining vicarious control of the US. In other words, democracy was a liability if everyone was allowed to run for president."
[suggestion] Maybe combine those two sentences.
[revised] Democracy's a liability if everyone was allowed to run for President, since controlling the U.S. would be made more easier and be possible for an enterprising monarch to send a subject to become the head of the U.S.
7) It's overall well written, though I feel there should be a proper conclusion...
1.A.This essay will be arguing about the removal of the native born clause.
ReplyDeleteB.He wants every citizens to have the right to run for president even thought they are not born in United States.
C.It hooked me by saying that people are taught that everyone is equal, only to know that later on they are not.
D.Give examples and details for the native born clause.
2.Many of them came to the US with their parents when they were infants. They grew up with American culture, they went to school in America, they pay allegiance to the US and
they know only ONE homeland – the US. They love the US as much, if not more than any natural born citizen . And for all their patriotism and loyalty, they are ineligible to run for the presidency.
3.loyalty concern of naturalized citizens.
4.
A.The writer deals well with the opposition.
B.Strong point-Many non-native-born Citizens grew up with American culture, they went to school in America, they pay allegiance to the US and they know only one homeland – the US.
C.i dont know.
D.The arguments are organzied in the most effective manner.
5.In reality, not all US citizens are eligible for the office of the president.
6.Preventing naturalized citizens from becoming the president is aginst democracy.
7.The word Preveneting is spelled wrong. ---preventing
1.
ReplyDelete-eligibilities to become president
-removal of the native born clause
-talking about president obama and giving facts
-i think the intro is very good but it could be shortened a little
2.
-against the spirit of democracy and equality
-when people come into the US they are told they can achieve anything they want, but they cant become president
-native-born citizens are equally susceptible of putting their personal interests above the interests of their country
-The founding fathers believed that anyone born in the US would be much more likely to be loyal back in the 1700's, but thats not a threat anymore
-some naturalized citizens are born in the US, and it's the only country they know
3.
-Opponents of removing the native-born clause claim that naturalized citizens are a disloyal group
-The founding fathers believed that anyone born in the US would be much more likely to be loyal
-Some opponents of this amendment claim that certain foreign people could buy their way to the presidency and then be a puppet to another nation
4.
-the writer deals with the opposition well
-the writers strongest point is how many naturalized citizens came to the US with their parents when they were infants
-the writers weakest point is when he states how preventing naturalized citizens is against democracy. he can add more details and facts
-the points are organized well
-e&f- I can't think of anymore arguments or counterarguments for this paper
5.
Naturalized citizens should be able to run for president
6.
-Preveneting naturalized nitizens from becoming the president is aginst democracy. In a democracy, all citizenz are equal.
-In a democracy, all citizens are equal. Preventing naturalized citizens from becoming the president goes against that.
- People who make such claims obviously lack knowledge about the political institutions of America. They lack basic knowledge about the core ideals of the consititution – about the numerous checks and balances devised by the founding fathers to preven just that.
-People who make such claims lack basic knowledge about the core ideals of the constitution and numerous checks and balances, which were devised by the founding fathers to prevent.
7.
I would suggest to shorten your intro a little, and also to read your paper out loud because you have many spelling mistakes that can be fixed that way.
1) - Only natural born Citizens are allowed to become president.
ReplyDelete- The writer is taking the position of letting anyone become president no matter where your from.
- The introduction hooks my attention by stating facts and speaking about our current president.
- To improve the introduction, I would try to rephrase the first sentence and try to shorten the introduction up.
2) Arguments:
- The founding fathers believed that anyone born in the US would be much more likely to be loyal back in the 1700's, but that is not a threat anymore
- against the spirit of democracy and equality
- some naturalized citizens are born in the US, and it's the only country they know
3) Counterarguments:
-The founding fathers believed that anyone born in the US would be much more likely to be loyal
- They grew up with American culture, they went to school in America, they pay allegiance to the US and they know only one homeland
4) Questions:
The writer deals with the opposition well.
The strongest point is where the writer begins explaining how families came while their children were infants, and growing up in a certain place, they tend to learn how to be a certain way, yet they still are not citizens so they cannot take place as the President.
The weakest point that the writer demonstrates is the statistics. More can be added to support your argument.
The points are organized in a well manner, but can be fixed due to the first paragraph.
5) Thesis:
- Citizens that are naturalized, should have the full right to run for presidency.
6) Revised Sentences:
- Preveneting naturalized nitizens from becoming the president is aginst democracy.
REVISED:
- As naturalized citizens, being prevented from becoming president is against democracy.
- Naturalised citizens are one of the most loyal groups in America.
REVISED:
- As naturalized citizens are one of the most loyal groups in America.
7. Grammatical errors, spelling errors and more statistics should be included.
1. A. The essay will be about the inequality that exists between citizens that are born in the U.S. and those born out of the country regarding eligibility to president.
ReplyDeleteB. The writer wants every citizen to have equal opportunity to become President.
C. The face that some citizens have more rights than others hooked my attention.
D. The paragraph is a bit long; it could be shortened.
2. –Some naturalized citizens only know America as their home.
- Does not promote democracy.
3. – The law was made due to a matter of loyalty to the country.
4. A. The writer deals with opposition well.
B. The strongest point is that most naturalized citizens only know the U.S. as their home.
C. There aren’t any statistics.
D. The essay is well organized.
E. I don’t think there are any other arguments that can be made.
F. Same as E. ^^
5. All citizens of the United States should be able to
6. And most importantly, they ignore the American public – any candidate would have to win the heart of the American public; and to do so, they would have to understand how the American public thinks; what the American public cherishes; to be PART of the American public.
Most importantly they ignore the public, any candidate has to win the hearts of the Americans; to do so they must understand how Americans think and what they value to be a part of the society.
They grew up with American culture, they went to school in America, they pay allegiance to the US and they know only ONE homeland – the US.
They grew up accustomed to American culture, went to school here, and pledge allegiance; they only know one homeland.
7. - Second to last paragraph typo- “prevent”
- You used the word public a lot in the second to last paragraph, especially in one sentence, try to find synonyms.
- “their claim” not “there claim”
1. A) this essay is going to be about the difference went natural born citizens of the united states and citizens, and that only natural born citizens are allowed to run for presidency.
ReplyDeleteb) The writer is taking the position that allows all U.S Citizens to be president not just natural born citizens. To allow all equality to citizens.
c) The writer hooked my attention by mentioning how dedicated Obama was to be elected but not all U.S citizens can be elected.
d) To improve the introduction I would make the first sentence your thesis statement which lets the reader know what your paper is about.
2. the writers arguments are: Back in the 1700’s, the fathers were trying to prevent anyone not loyal to the country from becoming president and that cant happen in now. Gives equal rights to all citizens. Against democracy.
3. The writer counterarguments are: That some could buy their way to presidency and then be a puppet to another nation. And that some could be disloyal to their country.
4. a) I feel that he deals with the opposition very well, he have very good counterarguments.
b) the writers strongest point is that citizens should have equal rights but for some you are not allowed to become president.
c) his weakest point is that there is not that many statistics, I feel that statistics sway the reader more.
d) I believe that the points are in the most efficient way possible.
e) Another strong point that you can add, is a lot of foreigners that become citizens know more about the United States then natural born citizens.
f) I cant think of a good counterargument, but you might look up some other countries that only allow natural born citizens to become president and write why they do that.
5. All U.S citizens, not only natural born, should be allowed to become president of the united states of America.
6. Take away the placebo and u have a loss of motivation. REVISED: If you take away the placebo, you would have a loss of motivation.
Some opponents of this amendment claim that certain foreign people could buy their way to the presidency and then be a puppet to another nation. REVISED: Opponents of this amendment claim that certain foreign people would buy their way to presidency and be a puppet to another nation.
7. I would add some statistics, fix some grammatical errors. And maybe you might want to look up some countries that only allow natural born citizens to become president, and countries that allow all citizens to become presidents.
1) A. foreign-born American citizens are unequal to native born American citizens
ReplyDeleteB. the writer thinks that it is unfair that there is a difference in rights among legal citizens.
C. by starting off the essay mentioning president Obama and his election
D. There is a lot of information for an introduction. It can be a little shorter.
2) - Double standard against spirit of democracy in the US
- Native born citizens are just as capable as foreign born citizens to choose personal interests over their country’s interests.
- Preventing naturalized citizens from becoming president is going against the purpose of a democracy.
- Naturalized groups are one of the most loyal in the US
3) –it is thought that those who are native born citizens are probably more loyal than those who are not
4) A. The writer deals with opposition very well. The counterargument is clear and explained well.
B. The writer’s strongest point was explaining how naturalized citizens can be patriotic and have a great amount of pride for the US
C. the weakest point is the amount of evidence he has for this essay. There are some fact and statistics but more should be including to support the ideas
D. the organization of the points is good
E. I think all the points mentioned are really good…I don’t know what else can be added.
5) Naturalized citizens deserve to have the right and opportunity to run for president just as the native citizens do.
6) “To understand why the constitution disqualifies foreign-born citizens from the presidency, we must understand the political and social atmosphere of the US during the 1700s.”
- It is important to know the political and social atmosphere of the US during the 1700s in order to understand why the constitution disqualifies foreign-born citizens from the presidency.
7) The sentences are structured very well and there are no grammatical errors however, there are some spelling mistakes. It is important to keep the spelling consistent. Is it naturalized or naturalised?
1. A. Requirements to run for presidency.
ReplyDeleteB. The writer wants to remove the native-born clause that prevents naturalized citizens from running for presidency.
C. The introduction "hooked" my attention because it is a controversial topic.
D.
2. -Contradicts with the idea that all citizens are equal.
-Naturalized citizens love the US just as much, or even more than a natural born citizen.
3. -Naturalized citizens may be disloyal.
-Naturalized citizens can buy their way to presidency and then be a puppet to another nation.
4. A. The writer states the oppositions and explains how the opposing ideas are foolish.
B. The writer's strongest point is proving how naturalized citizens cannot be a puppet to another nation due to checks and balances. Each branch insures to prevent too much power in one branch.
C. The writer's weakest point is the lack of statistics.
D. The points of the argument are organized.
E. "People don't choose where they are born, but they sure choose where they want to be"
F. Go google some more.
5. As a legal citizen, foreign born citizens should have the right to run for presidency.
6. "The election of Barrack Obama as the president of the United States was historic because it showed that any US citizen with the desire, dedication and talent could become the president."
Change could to can.
"The constitution prevents anyone born outside the US from running for the presidency, even if they are legal citizens of the US. This is a double-standard and against the spirit of democracy and equality. "
The constitution prevents anyone born outside the US from running for presidency, even if they are legal citizens of the US. This is a double-standard and is against the spirit of democracy and equality.
7. Besides the grammar errors, the essay is good. The arguments and counterarguments are well explained.
1. A) The essay is about eligibility to be voted President of the United States.
ReplyDeleteB) Naturalized US citizens should be allowed to run for President.
C) Mentioning the historic election of Barrack Obama, which caught the attention of almost every American, immediately grabs the attention of the reader.
D) You can remove the question completely or rephrase it as a statement. I like that you introduced a counter argument so early in your essay but I think it could be mentioned in the second paragraph instead.
2. -Naturalized citizens are just as equal as natural born citizens and possibly even more loyal to the US
-Preventing a certain group of people from becoming President is against the ideals of democracy
3. -Allowing naturalized citizens to run would be unconstitutional.
-Naturalized citizens are not as loyal to America as natural born citizens are
4. A) He deals with it very well by addressing and countering his counter arguments.
B) Naturalized citizens should not be banned from running based on the question of their loyalty to America. A candidate often cannot win without the support of the American people.
C) The overall essay is so well written that you should just work on sentence construction, verb tenses and other grammar mistakes. There are a few run-on sentences and fragmented sentences that you need to edit. Read the essay aloud to help pick up mistakes.
ReplyDeleteD) The points of the argument are really well organized especially the way you interweave the counter arguments into the essay.
E & F) I'm really sorry but I cannot think of any other suggestions that haven't been mentioned in other comments.
5.In order to promote and preserve democracy’s ideals Americans must remove the native-born clause from the constitution.
6. ‘Preventing naturalized citizens from becoming the president is against democracy.’ Revised: Banning naturalized citizens from running for President is against the principle of democracy.
‘There shouldn’t be any stratification in citizenship – if anyone deserves the right to gain citizenship, they should have the same rights as other citizens, including the right to become the president.’ Revised: There should be no classification difference between American citizens. If one can become a citizen they should be entitled to the same rights all citizens enjoy.
7. ‘In a democracy, all citizenz are equal.’ Revised: citizens.
1. What do you think this essay will be about?Its about how non natural born citizens are not able to run for president.
ReplyDeleteWhat position is the writer taking?he wants to remove the natural born clause.
How does the introduction try to “hook” your attention?by telling us that we are told that we can achieve anything we want but there are many restrictions that we are not aware of.
Make some specific suggestions for trying to improve this introduction.
i think it is pretty good, but there is a little too much information for an introduction.
2. Read through the essay carefully. As you read, list the writer’s arguments to support the thesis.
-that we are told we can achieve anything here but its not true
-people who have grown up here cannot run, even thought they love this country and they participate in its culture
-not being able to run for president may lead to have an inferiority complex
-all citizens are equal
3. List the counterarguments the author has recognized.
-people can buy into the presidency and act as a puppet for another country
4.How well does the writer deal with the opposition? he deals with it very well, because he disproves it
What is the writer’s strongest point and why? i think his strongest point is that we are all supposed to be equal but it seems that we are not treated that way.
What is the writer’s weakest point and why? Should it be eliminated? Strengthened? Replaced with something else? Make specific suggestions for revision. You use too many words in your sentences, i think you should try just being straight and to the point.
Are the points of the argument organized in the most effective manner? If not, suggest a more strategic order. Yes .
Try to come up with at least one more strong point that supports the viewpoint the writer is taking and would strengthen the essay.
Try giving examples of people that hold other high offices in the US govt. that are not born in the US.
Now try to come up with at least one more counterargument that the author has not addressed. Suggest ways to include this in the essay.
-even if we change the law maybe even people who have been living here for many many years may want to take advantage of the country because of their views from their previous country
5. Rewrite the thesis statement, concentrating on clarity, word choice, argumentative tone, etc. Try to write a better thesis statement for the essay.
I believe that the native born clause should be removed from the Constitution in order for this country to move forward as a democracy.
6. Choose two full sentences you think would benefit from revision. Copy and paste them, then rewrite them in a way you feel is clearer, less awkward, and more effective.
However, in reality, not all US citizens are eligible for the office of the president.
However, not all US citizens are eligible to be elected for the office of president of the US.
Once again, there claim is not based on any facts.
Once again, their claim is not based on any facts.
7. Make mention of several other useful objects for revision: misspelled words, topic sentences, transitions between paragraphs, etc.
try stating your thesis in the first paragraph because its not very clear
1. A. It’s about removing the native born clause for presidency.
ReplyDeleteB. Against native born president clause
C. It tries to hook and capture my attention by stating the facts about the native born president clause and talking about Barrack Obama. Also talks about the different type of people who are not allowed to become president.
D. Personally, I think your introduction paragraph is good. It’s just too much for a reader to digest in one paragraph. Maybe you might want to shorten it.
2. Arguments
- Constitution against foreign people.
- Only 8% of Americans are naturalized citizens
3. Counterarguments
- certain foreign people can buy their way to presidency
- Naturalized citizens are not loyal.
4. A. You have counterarguments, but you want to elaborate more into them. For example, why do people believe that naturalized citizens are not loyal, there has to be a reason why.
B. Your strongest point is that you are able to convince the reader to your argument and have enough background information.
C. Your weakest point would have to be some spelling and grammar errors.
D. yes your argument point are in order.
E. You could add a survey about how many citizens believe this is wrong and how many people don’t care about politics.
F. One counterargument you could mention why many people believe only natural-born citizens should be president.
5. The election of Barrack Obama as the president of the United States was historic because it showed that any US citizen with the desire, dedication and talent could become the president.
6. Your thesis sentence should not talk about Barrack Obama because your essay is not going to be on Obama. So this should be changed.
This should be your thesis (maybe) : “not all US citizens are eligible for the office of the president.”
7. “However, in reality, not all US citizens are eligible for the office of the president.”
- However, in reality, not all US citizens are eligible to run for the office of the President of the United States.