The position of president of the United States is supposed to go to the person most eligible for the position.
This eligibility is determined by a vote. Thus, not allowing a foreign candidate for presidency is telling us who we can and can't vote for. It's no different than forbidding women to vote.
The 'most eligible'? What does this mean? The only eligibility requirements for the office are to be at least 35 years of age and native born.
If you mean 'most qualified', that is another story. With rare exceptions, those most qualified never seek the presidency. The presidency is a political plum sought by political types.
Think of the candidates over the past twenty years, or so. Three vice presidents. The governors of California, Georgia, Arkansas, and Texas. Senators from Kansas, Missouri, and Massachusetts. A few congressmen and a CIA Director. Some of these held more than one of these offices. None had any international experience beyond junkets to countries around the world. Some didn't even have that.
The only candidate of note without political experience, but with business experience, was Ross Perot. His ideas on reforming the political system gained him about 20% of the vote in 1992.
Outside the political arena, are heads of major corporations who have a great deal of international economic experience and who, by implementing tried and true successful business practices could do a great deal to improve the efficiency of government, lower the costs of government, and improve international economic relations. One should remember that it has always been the failure of economic relations which has led to hostilities.
These people will never subject themselves to the horrors one encounters when caught between the members of two political parties, neither of which is particularly concerned about improving conditions except to the extent that their own political carreers are improved in the process. The way they scratch and claw at each other reminds me of a gang of alley cats fighting over the carcass of a dead bird.
The career politician is the worst disaster ever inflicted on the US. This is true, not only at the national level, but at state, county, and municipal levels, as well.
Who can truly believe that a politician who has served in the same office for 20, 30, or 40 years is doing the people's work at the level of fidelity required by their oath of office. They are bound to the party and dependent upon it for the support they need to be reelected time and again. Their fealty is not to the people.
I believe that the country would benefit greatly if every political office was filled for a single term of 10 years with no opportunity to be reelected. With the exception of the office of president, elections for all offices would be held biennially at which time 20% of the seats would be vacated by the incumbents and filled with first timers for that office. This would ensure new blood, open minds, new ideas, and no need to tow the party line in the 'tug of war' that has always existed.
Think of the freedom from the pressure of lobbyists; the need for the constant raising of campaign funds. Once elected, the new office holder could devote 100% of time and effort to the people's business. He wouldn't have to couch every decision in terms of how it would effect his chances for reelection.