I have a question to the Americans in the room
Why does it matter that the US president must be born in the US?
To me, it makes no sense. In a country that is built on immigration, surely a first generation immigrant is just as capable of being the US president as anyone else? Wouldn't a requirement that the President be a citizen be fairer?
I do not think it is unfair at all. I am not claiming that a person not born in american can not be a good leader. I am claiming that the anchoring bias would effect the leadership of that person.
But you are saying they would not be good enough to look past that anchoring bias.
The job of the state is actually to judge before knowing. That is why no felon can serve in executive office and only those above 35 can be president.
I would argue against both of those. If you're out of prison, you've paid your debt to society, and you should be accepted as an adult, not an adult of a particular age.
By your logic there can be no prerequisists for any public office.
No, there can be some. Mental illness for example, where someone would not be physically capable of performing their duties, or children, who don't have the nessecary legal recognition to function to perform the duties.
Lets say the person who becomes president grew up in Russia. They were forced to flee Russia due to some circumstance and spend the rest of their lives with a deep hatred of Russia. Once they are president it is reasonable to assume that the person is going to use his power to put sanctions on Russia and quite possibly attack them.
That assumes in advance that the person cannot ever see past their anchoring bias. You are implying that it is impossible for people to be objective enough to see the causes of what they are doing.
I am not saying that a person born in america is automatically fit to be president, i am saying that a person born outside of america has too strong an anchoring bias to lead.
Here's the fundamental point. Banning the right for foreign born nationals to hold US executive office is working on the basis of an assumption, not proof. IE you assume that the person has too much of an anchoring bias to make their tenure in office work. I would argue that you need to switch to a system of only using proven basis for such a ban, not assumed ones.
Naw It is only banning them from holding 2 positions on the assumption that they are more likely to have conflicting loyalties. It is to important of a position to take that chance. That is the way it is and it ain't gonna change.
Not only do you have to look at the anchoring bias, you also have to look at the fact that Americans such as myself have turned the Founding Fathers and some later presidents (Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt) into Demigods. Like how George Washington could not tell a lie, or how James Madison was a learned man who read the classics and so knew how to create a democracy (Never mind that it's a republic or that it's stolen almost directly from the Iroquois League). How often have we changed our constitution? 27 times? And most of those are things that were grossly unfair, like the outlawing of slavery, or giving all men the right to vote, or giving women the right to vote. There is a very strong sense in America that if it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it was good enough for us. So something that isn't seen as too unfair (as you have to be really rich to run for president, so pretty much no immigrant is going to run for it) will not be struck from law, because there isn't enough reason to allow us to see past the bias of the Founding Fathers being these supernaturally smart guys who knew how to run a country in their sleep better than we ever could.
Good job KYLE awsomely put.