Question: Should the state grant citizenship to undocumented immigrants?

Birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegal immigrants is a contentious issue. Objections 1. My opponent's argument seems somewhat muddled. Instead of speculating about my family background or referencing a movie, I would appreciate a clearer stance. However, if I understand correctly, my opponent is suggesting that America is a land of freedom, devoid of persecution and religious intolerance. If that's the case, I argue that illegal immigrants, who are fully aware of their status, do not deserve to live in our tolerant society. Their children are no exception. If America is indeed a land of freedom, why does the Constitution, which defines America, include the three-fifths clause for slaves and the prohibition of outlawing the Atlantic slave trade? My opponent has not effectively refuted my argument, so it remains valid. 2. What's the issue with the children of illegal immigrants becoming citizens? All they need to do is follow the legal path to citizenship, just like true immigrants to the United States and other countries. It's not a significant problem. According to the Pew Research Center, 8% of newborns, 5.4% of the workforce, and 4% of the total US population are attributed to illegal immigrants. This debate is less about illegal immigrants and more about their children's citizenship. My opponent's arguments seem to focus on illegal immigration as a whole, which is not relevant to this specific topic. 3. Although the debate is not solely about Hispanic immigration, Hispanics make up the majority of illegal immigrants to the US. My opponent asks what's wrong with a disproportionate number of births. The issue is that illegal immigrants have the ability to reproduce in the US and bring new citizens into the country, which exacerbates concerns among immigrants who feel they are at a disadvantage. Instead of eliminating entitlement programs, why not allow these immigrants to provide the best opportunities for their families? Immigrants to the US in the past had to be self-reliant and were some of the most enterprising individuals on Earth. We are not "getting rid" of or deporting people with birthright citizenship; we are simply requiring them to obtain true citizenship instead of automatic citizenship without any cost. These are the children of illegal immigrants who have disrespected US laws and immigrated illegally, only to have a legal child who can advocate for them when they face legal consequences. In the second sentence, my opponent mentioned "immigrant" but did not specify illegal immigrants. I would like to see examples of illegal aliens who became "the most enter

Hello, You pointed out that 1/5 of the illegal immigrants live in one county. You then proceeded to argue that if one county is affected so much, then the rest of the nation must suffer a lot. This logic in no way works, as no other county as the heavy concentration of illegal immigrants that this county has. You mentioned something quite intriguing: "What could we use that money?" Despite the grammatical errors, this has some logic. Think of all the money it would take to end illegal immigration in this manner. There are so many problems that are pressing and immediate that we are ignoring, yet there is so much complaining about illegal immigration. In fact, we are losing a lot more money on things, which many people are ignoring, for instance: As of an analysis in September of 2006, we are spending about $2,000,000,000 (2 billion)…..A WEEK, on the Iraq war. All of this Tax money from the 300 million people of the US. Is this immigration issue really priority? There are so MANY more important things that are government should be investing on WAY before we even bother about solving illegal immigration. In fact, solving illegal immigration should be near the BOTTOM of our list of things to do. We should be investing on such things as global warming. Now, imagine just sending out 5% of our population across the border. Is your thinking so delusional so as to believe that this would not affect over-all state of life and economy? You complain about money spent because they do not pay taxes. Did you ever consider that they do labor for YOU, at a sub- minimum wage salary? THEY have the bad end of the deal, republicanview. You complain about taxes, but they do labor, putting food on YOUR table, and do not get what they deserve. Did you ever consider that they BENEFIT society more than they damage it? What would we do if suddenly they were all over the border? Think of all the roles in society that 5% fills. One in twenty people; that is a lot of jobs; a lot of niches in society that would not be fulfilled. I would like to provide my own, more cost-efficient, least society damaging method: It is simple; all we have to do is make it a lot easier to get citizenship. Lets not be hasty though; I am not saying we should just open the flood gates (metaphorically), that would be a true disaster. I think, though, that this would be a reasonable solution. This way, we do not have to send 5% of our population away, but merely give them easier citizenship so that they CAN pay taxes. We do not have a population problem in the US, so I see no reason for there not to be easier citizenship. No matter what solution we try, though, there will always be some illegal immigration.

On 9/11, the dead included eight children: five on American Airlines Flight 77 ranging in age from 3 to 11, three on United Airlines Flight 175 ages 2, 3, and 4. The youngest victim was a 2-1/2-year-old child on Flight 175. Overall, more than 55,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico since 2006. That same level of violence will eventually show up in major U.S. cities unless something dramatic is done about illegal immigration. According to the FBI, there are approximately 1.4 million gang members living in our cities. Illegal immigration has been one of the primary factors that has fueled the growth of these gangs. Thanks to illegal immigration, California"s overstretched health care system is on the verge of collapse. Dozens of California hospitals and emergency rooms have shut down over the past decade because they could not afford to stay open after being endlessly swamped by illegal immigrants who were simply not able to pay for the services that they were receiving. As a result, the remainder of the health care system in the state of California is now beyond overloaded. This had led to brutally long waits, diverted ambulances and even unnecessary patient deaths. At this point, the state of California now ranks dead last out of all 50 states in the number of emergency rooms per million people. It is my belief that you cannot approach the issue of protecting America from future terrorist attacks as an isolated issue, that it is necessary to consider the broader issue of border security to include terrorism, immigration enforcement, and drug trafficking as a whole. Because the same deficiencies that exist - at least along our borders and ports of entry - that would allow a terrorist to gain entry to the U.S. are the same deficiencies that allow for the entry of millions of illegal aliens and many thousands of pounds of illegal drugs every year. After all, if hundreds of thousands of illiterate, unskilled, uneducated peasants from the interior of various Latin American countries can successfully navigate the holes in our borders and ports of entry to successfully take up residence inside the United States and remain here indefinitely, what makes anyone believe that a more sophisticated, better financed, and dedicated member of a terrorist cell could not do the same thing? If international drug traffickers can successfully smuggle hundreds of thousands of pounds of cocaine, marijuana, heroin, amphetamines, and other illegal drugs into the U.S., why is it not equally likely that a terrorist group could successfully smuggle a few pounds or gallons of biological, chemical, or nuclear material into this country? How many illegal aliens stopped by local police for a traffic violation and released under a local policy which provides sanctuary for illegal aliens could be tomorrowA533;s terrorist? Which student admitted on a temporary visa who overstays that visa, or in fact never shows up for school, will be the next terrorist to kill Americans? It is my understanding that approximately 500 million people enter the United States each year (or more specifically, there are 500 million entries), and approximately 8 million containers are brought into the U.S. through our various seaports annually. This is indeed a formidable challenge to our Homeland Security authorities, but its size cannot and should not be the sole determining factor in how we protect ourselves from the threat of terrorism. We as a Nation must do what we have to do to protect ourselves - that must be our first priority. If there is a way to protect ourselves that minimizes the impact on the speed with which people and containers are admitted, that would be our preferred option. But we must finally abandon the notion that it is more important to allow people and containers to enter the U.S. quickly and easily than it is to protect ourselves from future terrorist attacks, increased availability of harmful drugs, and the demonstrably harmful effects of illegal immigration. This country must remember that it is based upon the concept of the rule of law. We are a nation of laws - we must abide by the laws we have adopted to deal with the problems of immigration, drugs, and terrorism. It is not enough to pass laws in Congress or in the state legislatures and then ignore them because we are afraid of offending special interests or because of notions of political correctness. And there is no way a country can fight a war against terrorism when it ignores its borders, refuses to enforce its laws away from the borders, and provides sanctuary or informal immunity to those who have broken our laws by coming here illegally or staying beyond their welcome.

Note Extended Arguments: Pro did not dispute the fact that Marriage is not an unalienable right. Rebuttals: State Rights: Pro says “While each state does have the own rules and requirements to marriage each state must recognize the marriage of another state.” This is half true, as it depends on which Government Agency you are dealing with… Federal or State. “Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DOMA's definition of marriage as unconstitutional, the federal government must now recognize valid same-sex marriages. However, the eligibility rules for benefits do vary among federal agencies. Some agencies, such as the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the IRS and the US Office of Personnel and Management, will recognize all valid same-sex marriages, regardless of where same-sex married couples reside. All legally married, same-sex couples will qualify for immigration status, federal tax benefits and federal employee benefits (if either spouse works for the federal government), even if they reside in states that don't recognize their same-sex marriage. But other agencies, such as the Social Security Administration, only recognize marriages that are valid in the state where the couple resides. So a same-sex married spouse living in a non-recognition state will not qualify for Social Security benefits under his or her spouse's work records.”(1) So the Federal Government must recognize valid same sex-marriages however, the States do not. The flaw in my opponents argument is easily seen when applied to other State “rights.” For example, States do not always honor conceal carry permits from another State. “recognize there are so many variances in our state to state laws, the average individual may have difficulty keeping up with those laws well enough to prevent them from breaking the law, especially as they travel.”(2) Imagine using the argument my opponent has when it comes to Marijuana. Say I legally buy some in the great state of Colorado, and then take it to Utah and get arrested then to claim Full faith and Credit Clause from the Constitution of the United States. Not all laws or rights protected in one state are honored by others. Pro says “Is it reasonable to allow each state the ability to make requirements that in sure each party is of able mind and body to enter into the contact that marriage is under the law? Yes more than reasonable it is a sound logical principle.” I agree, however the logic my opponent and I see in this is matters little. Pro argued initially that a ban on gay marriage "is also in violation of the principles of democracy, as 55% of Americans agree with allowing gay marriage.” However, now that it has been established that such a ban is the result of the principles of democracy he rebuts by saying “Mob rule cannot be allowed to do anything it wants. Yes it is great that we as a people get to have a voice in the laws of our states. This has to be kept in check though.” Just to be thorough, my opponent first argued that a majority supported his side and we are a democratic country and thus should support the resolution. Then when shown that an argument of democracy could easily be used to support the opposite view he calls the application of the same democratic principle “mob rule.” Which is it, does my opponent believe in the principles of democracy… or believe that democracy is “mob rule.” Thus far it seems that pro supports democracy so long as it agrees with his view. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. State by State majorities can decide what should or should not be legal. As marriage is not recognized as an unalienable right, this is reasonable. Also, as each State has different requirements as to what qualifies one for a marriage license it is reasonable to allow each State the ability to determine the criteria to be met. Including defining marriage as between a man and a women if that is the case. Therefore if a majority in any given state, like Utah, deems same-sex marriage illegal. That should be respected. (1) http://www.nolo.com... (2) http://www.handgunlaw.us...

I hope we will have an exciting debate and maybe I will get my mind changed on this topic. The first point that I would like to make is that the border wall will not stop illegal migration. The statistics show that about 40% of undocumented immigrants arrive here by plane, And that is a conservative estimate. Moreover, The boarder wall still wouldn't stop the other 50-60% of illegal immigrants. This is because of the "circular flow" this states that people would come to the United States, Work for a while and then leave. But when the Clinton and Bush administration increased the border security, The stats showed that illegals decided to get to America and then stay here due to the fact that it would get harder to go back out. So this made it harder for undocumented immigrants to leave the USA.

citizen ship is stupid in my views...we shouldnt stand as a country (id be proud to do tho)we should stand as citizens of the world not countrys but my point is that illegal immigrants shouldnt have to be citizens.....dou peopl feel threatin by our bothers and neighboors or something?these people have the abiliy to find cures for illness we havnt fond yet,they hve the ability to reach the stars to not only serve our country but our world.....but our goverment stands in their way

I'm sorry I didn't specifically say that the Native Americans were by and large murdered off by foreign disease and guns. The Native population of America were largely murdered by the non-native European immigrants. Therefore, you cannot say that immigrants have *always* been beneficial to America. You said beneficial to America you didn't specify which America. Further, isn't it applicable? Aren't a number of anti-immigration people saying that Immigrants are going to take over and establish their own country. Where I might think this to be a little bit conspiratory, it has happened before. If you would like to contest the facts of my claims in Round 1, I will happily provide them. Note, there are very few native Americans left; clearly something happened. A liberal policy on immigration might likewise be a bad idea for our America. Certainly a number of immigrants work jobs for cheaper than Americans however, the laws of supply and demand are such that those jobs would pay more if there weren't so many people ready to work them for cheaper. Further, the idea that simply working a job for less money is a social good is suspect to say the least. The fact that a Chinese worker will do the job for a dime when the American worker might get 7 dollars an hour isn't a clear cut good in my book. Certainly it lowers the price of the goods produced, a quick look at Walmart will show this is true, however what good are cheap goods if Americans can't buy them? Flint Michigan has one of the highest crime rates in the United States, unemployment is about 30% though it's actually higher because many have given up looking and just haven't tried in the last six months (technically definition of unemployment). It exists as it does because it lost its jobs when they were moved to Mexico to employ cheaper labor. How exactly are you reaching this conclusion that lower pay for jobs is universally beneficial? They helped this country when people had jobs to do, working manufacturing and labor jobs with Americans working those same jobs. But, the markets have changed. The US is largely changing from manufacturing to service. How do you go from, they use to be beneficial to, "they have always been beneficial"? Your second point was that because my grandfather was an immigrant (really he was a kid at the time and my great grandfather moved the family) that I should somehow kowtow to the idea that it's a good idea in general. Let's say, I steal five dollars from a store. I like my five dollars. I'm the happiest person around having stolen this money. Should I then advocate that everybody steal five dollars from that same store? No. The store would shut down and it would end poorly. Am I happy my grandfather immigrated here? Yes. Do I thusly believe everybody should immigrate here? No. I don't see how either of your points are valid. Further, my primary objection stands. The immigration policy of the native Americans lead them to be essentially killed off. It might be pedantic, it might be amusing (as far as the topic goes, generally genocide isn't amusing), but it's also correct. Clearly the topic fails. Further, even the heavily restricted view of your argument is unsupported.

My opponent opened up with a quote, and I coincidentally have decided to do the same. My opponent quoted FDR, but I will quote a much lesser known politician. His name was Marc Morial and he served as the 59th mayor of New Orleans. "We must continue to have voting rights in the state, not to politicize this, but they must have a voice in the rebuilding effort in the community from which they have been displaced. " . http://www.brainyquote.com... What does this mean other than that we should expand voting rights? I think it means that the people most effected by the messes caused by the government must be heard, instead of a select few who passed a test. Every vote counts. We cannot allow ourselves to be silenced. Now, before I start arguing my side for legal and moral purposes, I should let my opponent know that the effort to suppress the vote is already abundant in this country. Five states have strict voter ID laws and many more have laws where ID is requested. Voter ID laws are a violation of civil liberties and should not be put in place anywhere. How can we call ourselves the land of the free if we require voter ID laws? . http://www.motherjones.com... . http://www.usnews.com... . https://www.aclu.org... Another huge problem that currently exists in our voting system is felony disenfranchisement. That's right. If you are a convicted felon in this country, you lose your voting rights (usually for life). Of course, this has racist outcomes as well. Felony disenfranchisement was originally put in place in the south in order to silence the voices of black voters. It was and still is much easier to convict poor people (usually poor and black people) and so once they got out of prison, they couldn't vote, and they still can't. Poll taxes were also used for this same racist intention. We should constitutionally restore voting rights to all. . http://www.nytimes.com... Now I shall move on to my legal argument. Now, there is no constitutional amendment guaranteeing voting rights to all, but there are several steps that we have to add on to. Firstly, the fifteenth amendment, which says that voting rights cannot be based on race. The twenty fourth amendment outlaws poll taxes. Finally, the twenty sixth amendment lowers the voting age to eighteen. Now sure, these do not guarantee voting rights to all, but my opponent must agree that these all take steps in the direction of equal voting rights for all. So if we were to add a constitutional amendment to have a test to see if you could vote, that would actually be a step backwards in everything we have fought so hard for to this point. Now for a moral argument. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, " Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. " Notice he didn't say that our lives begin to end the day that educated people become silent. He said we, as in all people. I know this because M. L. K. gave his life for civil rights and voting rights. He knew that if a group of people were silenced, then the country's decline would follow. Are we going to so carelessly give up the right to vote to all, or are we going to be like Dr. King and fight to preserve those rights? I await my opponent's rebuttals.

I want to make it clear to anyone who has a doubt that immigrants are and always have been great to our country. Number One: Many immigrants work jobs for less money than Americans. And at the time of Industrialization when they came by the millions, they helped this country be what it is today. Number Two: Traditionally, this country is all about immigrants and the difference of culture. Earlier I saw a debate.org member (mikegj1077) saying she is "anti-immigration". Anti illegal immigration is arguable, but how can you be an American against immigration if you are an immigrant yourself? So basically, America would be nothing without its immigrants. We should all just admit we're all immigrants to a certain extent and help those who came to the country most recently, so that that immigrant will help other immigrants in the future and we can keep building up this great country.

Hello, republicanview, glad to debate you. You are right; there are certainly about 15 million illegal immigrants now living within the US. Yes, I agree that this is a problem; there is no dispute of that. It appears, then that the solution is the only thing we disagree on. It certainly would be wonderful if it was as simple as shipping them across the border, and then the problem was solved. Unfortunately, there are several problems with this solution, and it is a lot more complex than this. First, in my opening argument I will focus on the practicality of this solution. So, you are suggesting that we deport give or take 15 million people across the border. That is interesting. First of all, the illegal immigrants live in every corner of this nation. They live everywhere in this 3,537,441 square mile expanse that is the United States. Funding a project of this magnificent size (trying to solve this problem via your suggestion) is unthinkable. Though it may help the cause somewhat, it would overall just scratch the surface of all the illegal immigrants within these borders. It would overall be a waste of money. The population of the US is about 300 million. Your claim of 15 million illegal immigrants (which is probably about right) being in the US would indicate that they consist of about 5% of our population. You do the math. How the heck will we reasonably ship 5% of our Population across the border within reasonable cost? Let me remind you that 5% means one in twenty This is the only the FIRST reason I will provide for why this idea does not work. -Harlan

Hello there username: libertarian, thank you for giving me a chance to express my opinion in this debate. You gave 6 bullet points as to why you believe the United States federal government should legalize and recognize same sex marriage. I'm first going to write up a semi-syllogism to explain the con side. 1. A nation's Constitution is the supreme law of that country. 2. The United States has a Constitution. 3. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the country. 4.Amendment X of the United States Constitution grants the States and the people power over matters not listed in the Constitution. 5. The Constitution lists the powers that Congress (federal Government) has in Article I, Section 8. 6. Matters of legislation unlisted in Article I, Section 8, are under the power of the States and the people. 7.Matters of legislation unlisted in Article I, Section 8, are under the power of the States and the people. 8.The power to establish laws regarding marriage legality is not listed in Article 1 Section 8. 9. The Constitution did not give the federal government power to establish laws regarding marriage legality. Congress simply doesn't have the authority to legalize or explicitly recognize same sex marriage. Without authority over a matter, Congress should not legislate over a matter. On to Rebuttals 1. Article 14 is regarding states, not the federal government, as stated in the resolution. It really doesn't apply in this situation. 2.The Declaration of Independence said "all men are created equal." And on the front of the Supreme Court building the words are etched in "Equal Justice Under Law." Equality is a basic American principle that should be respected. Neither of those writings, while both inspirational, have any legal value. Only the Constitution does. Its one thing when a person doesn't follow the law, but rather uses inspiration to guide them, but a completely different thing if a whole government did. Imagine how messed up we'd be if government leaders did whatever they felt like doing. 3.States have the power to address this issue of visitation rights, states such as mine, Maryland, have. 4.I believe you are making a policy proposal, not really making an argument. This would be a discriminatory policy, and goes against your previously cited works in argument #2. 5. I know its a shame, but the federal rights do fall into place as soon as a state recognizes marriage, or writes law that makes it the same as marriage. The problem can be solved within The Constitution, unlike how the resolution suggests. 6.Many nations including Canada and the Netherlands allow same sex marriage. Many nations also behead people for being gay. It really doesn't matter what other countries do. I cannot wait for your reply, as to continue our debate.


Question: Should the state permit undocumented migrants to attain citizenship?

Republican Nominee
Donald John Trump, an American businessman, politician, television personality, and the Republican nominee for President of the United States in the 2016 election, has outlined his stance on various issues. Immigration: Trump asserts that illegal immigration must be stopped immediately, as it is causing an increase in crime in the United States. He proposes to strengthen the border to make it impenetrable, effectively putting a halt to illegal immigration. Trump has also expressed his intention to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, stating that they will have to leave the country and re-enter through a process that may not be quick. However, he has assured that the "best" will be allowed to return. Trump has criticized Mexico for using illegal immigration to export crime and poverty from their country, and he has vowed to stop this practice. Abortion: Trump identifies himself as pro-life, but with certain caveats. He supports exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk. He has criticized Planned Parenthood for performing abortions and has stated that he is not in favor of public funding for abortion providers. Gun Patrol: Trump is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and has vowed to fully support and back it up. He believes that law-abiding gun owners should be allowed to defend themselves and that the right to bear arms should not be restricted. Trump has also called for an expansion of treatment programs for mental illness, as he believes that this is the root cause of recent shooting incidents. He has criticized opponents of gun rights for using "scary sounding phrases" like "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" to confuse people. Taxes: Trump has proposed a tax plan that he claims will provide major tax relief for middle-income and most other Americans. He has stated that his plan will affect only 1% of Americans who control 90% of the wealth in the country, while the other 99% will receive deep reductions in their federal income taxes. Trump has also expressed his intention to cut the Department of Education and reduce taxes on businesses. Budget and Spending: Trump has proposed a funding plan that will result in higher deficits, greater debt, less economic liberty, and more corporate welfare. However, he has also stated that he will cut spending to curb the national debt. National Security: Trump has vowed to build a strong military to deter potential adversaries. He has also stated that he would support and endorse the use of enhanced interrogation techniques if they would enhance the protection and safety of the

Let it be said that some immigrants are hardworking and do contribute to our country's greatness. But you said that they pay security tax even if they don't benefit from it, but in reality they do. I make on average $40 a fortnite and at least $20 go to immigrants. It is impossible for hard working people to receive a pension because they are too rich and that money has to go to immigrants. It is really unfair to those who want a (excuse my metaphor) wel deserved piece of the cake themselves

The US being created and funded by immigrents doesnt mean they were illegal. The red people had no laws so it cant be illegal immigration. And Im discussing now, current events! The past dont mean sh1t. THERE IS a reason why it would eslode. If we allow illegal immos in to the nations we allow more peoples in the nations. the more peoples there are the more likely one of those people is going to be a crazy demolitions expert. By extension the more illegal immos we allow, the more likely it is we are going to have a crazo demolotions expert. THe more likely it is for him to explode america! America is getting more and more people in there each day. If we have a ton of people on the surfice of american the more they will push down the surfice of america. The more people over time the more the surfuce of america will be pushed the the hot areas under the earth. Once we have too many people the surfice of america will be all burned and cause chemical reactions which will make it explode. It is simply science and math. If we allow illegal immos. we are allowing the destruction of america

I know the Pro's wall of text may look scary, let me summarize it - 1 - Illegal babies are harmful to the economy - 2 - Its hypocritical - 3 - Other countries dont have this right - 4 - It promotes racism. 1) The economyThe Pro is placing his entire economical argument only on the basis that illegal children drag down the economy, however he has not taken into account that the parents of those children do pay taxes, often for services they dont even use, and that those children do grow up to be taxpayers since they are legal citizens because of the birthright citizenship. " Yet the consensus among most economists is that immigration, both legal and illegal, provides a small net boost to the economy. Immigrants provide cheap labor, lower the prices of everything from produce to new homes, and leave consumers with a little more money in their pockets"http://www.thedailybeast.com..."The money that illegal immigrants spend on goods and services in their local communities and around the state "reverberates throughout the whole economy, creates more jobs, more spending and more revenue," he said. "The scale of economic benefit far outweighs any costs on the fiscal side." "http://www.southcoasttoday.com..."Since they pay payroll taxes, they're helping to bankroll Social Security and Medicare but won't get to participate in the programs because of their immigration status." http://www.ggu.edu..."All undocumented immigrants pay sales and property taxes, and—contrary to popular belief—most pay federal and state income taxes as well, even though they're not eligible for Social Security, Medicare, or the many other programs their tax dollars help fund"http://teacher.scholastic.com..."even Sum would concede that the U.S. economy is larger, and growing faster, due to the supply of illegal immigrants, and that most Americans with higher job skills are better off for their presence"http://money.cnn.com..."Immigration is good for the financial health of Social Security because more workers mean more tax revenue. Illegal immigration, it turns out, is even better than legal immigration"http://www.nytimes.com..."There is little doubt that unauthorized -- that is, illegal -- immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of our economy,’’ http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com..."The contributions by unauthorized immigrants to Social Security -- essentially, to the retirement income of everyday Americans -- are much larger than previously known, raising questions about the efforts in many states and among Republicans in Congress to force these workers out."http://www.washingtonpost.com..."That finding... suggests that neither side of the immigration issue has a strong economic argument to make..."http://immigration.procon.org..." Some believe that undocumented immigrants benefit from federal programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, SCHIP, and welfare. In fact, undocumented immigrants are ineligible to receive these benefits; anyone seeking to obtain them must provide proof of legal status"http://mediamattersaction.org..."A stunning two-thirds of illegal immigrants pay Medicare, Social Security and personal income taxes"http://reason.org..."Here’s what you get when you get the Mexicans to leave: Rotting crops, businesses closing, concerned police, children missing school. And, of course, families torn apart. This is what we’re seeing in Alabama, which this month began enforcing the most rigorous immigration law in the country"http://obsprimary.blogspot.com...The truth of the matter is, it is not entirely proven that illegal immigrants harm the economy since the complete economic influence illegal immigrants have on the economy is very complex. However, economic experts do argue that illegal immigrants do provide enough of a benefit to the economy to have a rather neutral impact on it overall. That being said we should not abolish a long treasured birthright citizenship on the grounds that anchor babies drag down the economy when after years and years of studies experts mostly agree that illegal immigration does NOT harm the economy overall....On another note, nations that do abolish birthright citizenship have seen economic setbacks almost immediately, including Germany, Japan, and Israel. Abolishing birthright citizenship would really hurt the economy. http://articles.latimes.com...2) Hypocritical"Citizenship by birth lacks legitimacy because the person did nothing to earn the citizenship"When did we have to earn our rights? Our forefathers and ancestors fought tooth and nail to give us these rights that you and I take for granted right now, why should we make it so that every generation has to fight for the same thing over and over and over??? If we have to earn citizenship maybe we should all have to earn all of our other rights too, maybe the Pro thinks we should have to earn our right to free speech or earn the right to bear arms or earn something that our ancestors already sacrificed to give us. The Declaration of Independence itself states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"..... It certainly does not say anything about people having to earn their right to life, to have to earn their right to liberty, or to earn their right to pursue happiness. http://www.ushistory.org...3) Other countries dont have birthright citizenshipJust because other countries dont do something, it doesnt mean the US shouldnt do it either. Countries that dont have birthright citizenship include most of socialist Europe, North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. Do we want to abolish rights that have been around since the Civil War just because Iran and North Korea doesnt honor those rights either? Hell no. Other countries dont have freedom of speech or the right to protest, should we as a country also abolish our beloved rights just to blend in with the rest of the world? (most of which is in pretty bad shape too)http://worldimmigrationguide.net...We shouldnt get rid of our rights just to blend in to society, it is our rights that make us unique.4) RacismThis one doesn't even make sense, the Pro is blaming racism on the people who are just living their normal lives rather than on the people who are being racist and treating people bad. Thats like blaming racism on a Mexican for being Mexican instead of blaming the guy whose being racist towards the Mexican who did nothing wrong to begin with...

I'm going to start the round off by making my own constructive case, then go on to refute some of what my opponent said, since the rules never specified if this round was to be used solely for constructive cases or not. Each of the "parts" that I use in my first part of the round are going to be parts of my constructive case, just as an FYI. -----Part I: Washington D. C. Our founding fathers never meant for Washington, D. C. to be a state. In their minds, this would grant more power to an individual state (D. C. ) than to the others (such as Nebraska or California), since they are in charge of the central government. State powers and federal powers ought to be separate, since the establishment of federalism is that very basic concept. One could argue about the whole "No Taxation Without Representation! " deal that is going on in the D. C. area, but we can actually off-set this entire argument by just amending the constitution to allow D. C. to have a representative and a couple senators, since they actually ought to have some representation. Another reason that I believe that Washington, D. C. should not become its own sovereign state is because it is such a small area, that it would be pretty bad to make it its own state. If we should make Washington, D. C. a state based on population, we should make "North New York City" and "South New York City" states too, because that is just as logical. Having a city-state will lead to the erosion of federalism, which come on, we don't want, since that is basically the erosion of the basic idea of the united states. Bad, bad, bad. Part II: Puerto Rico. I want to start off this little "part" of my constructive speech by giving you this statistic: 14% of Puerto Ricans are out of work [1]. Now, do we want to give statehood to a territory that would bring down this great nation with such high unemployment numbers and such high poverty rates? Do we want to gain statehood to a territory that would lead to the downfall of this nation? NO! One of the main points that people have about granting statehood to Puerto Rico is that they ought to have the right to vote. Yes, I totally agree! BUT, we can give the right to vote to territories WITHOUT bringing down this nation! We can just pass a bill in the congress that says, "hey, puerto rico, you can vote. thanks for waiting <3". Another point that I want to make, is that establishing statehood to Puerto Rico would mean that we would be cutting out their culture by enforcing the Westernization and America-nization to them. -----Rebuttals:Puerto Rico: Yeah, you are correct in saying that 61% of people in Puerto Rico want to be a state, but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea. 61% of people could say "we should kill all blacks", but that doesn't mean that we should in fact do that. Your logic doesn't really follow through, unless you can provide a card that says that 61% of already STATE-BORN Americans want Puerto Rico want to be a state. North Colorado: Because you like ending political disputes, I assume that you're in favor of gerrymandering? Just because it would reduce debate on the state level does not mean that it is beneficial to the state. You have some okay logic in saying that only 11 counties are republican, and thus we should make those 11 counties their own state, but then that would mean that we should make "Omaha, Nebraska" it's own state, since it tends to vote democrat in a red state. Logic = false. State of Jefferson: Thanks for conceding that the work that it would take to make this a state would be VERY much. Besides that, it's just not the morally right thing to do. "Trololol california im takin ur land that u rightfully own trol! " is basically what you are trying to do, and that's immoral. Taking away federally given things is not good, so you cannot stand in affirmation of granting statehood to the State of Jefferson. [1]: . http://www.tradingeconomics.com...

An answer to this problem certainly is easy nor won't it cost money but it doesn't have to cost alot(atleast to the goverment). Nor will it be a waste of money. The North County Times reports that illegal immigrants directly cost the county of San Diego 101 million dollars last year and an indirect 155 million in unpaid health care. I know thats just San Diego county but California is one of the countys in California. California hosts 3 million of our illegal immigrants approximaTLY 1/5 Of the immigrants in our country. So if it costs one county of Californis that much money imagine how much it will cost our whole nation. I promise you I will get that info next round but i don't have much time. Now Harlan I'm sure you know that 256 million dollars is alot of money especially for on county in our country. And that was only last year. Imagine how much in the last 5 years. 10 years. What could we use that money? Maybe use that money to make sure the immigrants get our and don't get back in. Now im not saying that we have to put 100% of our effort immediatly but at least 25% or more has to be put in to at least get rid of a substantiol amount of them. Then when we see some results we can slack. We can even use the minutemen that patrol our borders. Use them as bounty hunters only w/out the kill. Place them in los angeles, san diego all the known places with high illegal poputations. It will take time and effort to catch these illegal immigrants. but for all the money they cost us its worth the time & effort

Rebuttal 1: I will begin my argument by addressing my opponent's statement about crime in the United States as a result of illegal immigration. He talks about the amount of illegal immigrants that are currently in American prisons as a result of crimes, but the problem with his case is that he does not compare this to the amount of illegal immigrants that are in the country. According to the recent news, including this article http://www.breitbart.com... among others show that an estimated amount of 12 million illegal immigrants currently live in the United States. Compare this to the amount of illegal immigrants in prisons and you will realize that it is a drop in the bucket. As for the average of seven arrests statistic, I was looking through the source that my opponent has posted and nowhere does it show the methodology of gathering the statistic nor the actual data used in order to come to this conclusion. It only reported the average, as far as I know. We won't know for sure, then, if it was an outlier because averages are not resistant to changes in data. I believe that it was Newt Gingrich, the current frontrunner of the GOP candidacy for 2012, that made a plan where illegal immigrants can go through a screening process in order to take out the illegal immigrants that have been considered to be threats to the security of the nation and place them into the deportation process. The actual condition of having illegal immigrants, according to the PRO, isn't inherently bad if it can be done correctly, and in the long run, it can be beneficial for the country. This will come in the economics question, which I will address later. Rebuttal 2: Firms in the country require resources in order to be functional, and this includes the input by human capital. This human capital can come in the form of not only illegal immigrants working in the jobs that no one wants to work in, but it can also come in the form of intellectual capital if more illegal immigrants can enter into the American education system, acquire diplomas and other required pieces of education, and they can become functional inputs in the private sector, increasing the revenue of firms and allowing them to expand to more labor. What my opponent doesn't seem to understand is that economics is a careful game, and if played correctly, everyone in the American citizenry can be able to prosper, illegal or otherwise. With an expansion in the amount of human capital, coupled along possibly with a reduction of regulation on businesses in order to reduce the amount of costs that firms have, not only will illegal immigrants be able to occupy jobs, but it will leave space for more labor to be able to enter into the private sector. Firms have more labor in the end, the people have more jobs, and the economy will be able to expand. The question is by what margin individual taxes for an American will go up in the end, and regardless the answer, illegal immigrants can be benificial for the economy in the long run because they provide resources that firms are able to use, especially if more of them enter into the education system and become our country's next doctors, lawyers, and engineers. Rebuttal 3: As for the Al Queada suspicision, we already have regulations in place, including the PATRIOT Act in order to deal with terrorist activity as well as more regulations in order to keep terrorism at bay in the country. Even if this activity occurs, the United States has been more prepared for such attacks after 9/11.

Positive Economic Benefits Of Immigration: S.744- Bill offering a detailed strategy to legalize approximately eleven million undocumented laborers.According to the CBO(Congressional Budget Office) Enacting the bill will reduce the federal defecit.(The provisions of the bill are considered in its entirety, which is an important distinction.)Like amnesty, the bill also provides an incentive for immigrants to enter legally. Amnesty provides a reason for illegal immigrants to turn themselves in and enter legally. Thus S.744 and amnesty both promote legal immigration. So the question is does immigration hurt the economy, because the amnesty law promotes legal immigration.Point Of Consensus: It is agreed upon by all studies, on both sides of the debate, that increases in legal immigration will have a positive economic impact and raise tax revenue. Given this fact alone I should win the debate.P1) Increased legal immigration positively effects the economy.P2) A provision or law that enables and promotes legal immigration, positvely effects the economy. P3)The amnesty law enables and promotes legal immigration. C1) The amnesty law positively effects the economy.P2 neccesarily follows from P1.If P1->`33;P2 P2->`33;P3{P1,P2,P3} ->`33; C1Only p1 needs defending.On P1: It is said that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes, this is untrue but I guess it is fair to say they don't pay equal tax. I'm not sure what a "Fair share" is, I would argue the top 1% don't pay enough, but that's a different point. Obviously legalized immigrants will pay more taxes if legalized.The taxes from immigrants being legalized will result in a GDP growth of 0.3%-0.8%(80-150 billion dollars). Each legalized immigrant would contribute $10,000-$17,000. Contribution= (X-Y)X=Addition to economyY=Expenses (Parameters obtained from three studies).CAP-$10,000CBO-$12,000IPC-$17,000Wages: Wages would increases for newly legalized and natives.IPC:X=NativesY=Newly legalizedWage: X$74-$162^Y:$4000-$6000^CAP: X: NA(but given Y, it's safe to assume some kind of increase)Y:15%^CBO:{X,Y}: 10 years: 0.1% decrease: 20 years: 0.5%^Job Creation: IPC: 83,500 jobs created.CAP: 121,000 jobs createdCBO: (2014-2023): 600,000 jobs created per year!Specific Demographic Analysis: IPC: Positive wage increase overall(especially in lower demographic)CAP: Increase in aggregate wage bill.CBO: At the highest percent of wages there will be a 0.3% drop and in the middle sector there will be a 0.5% increase.I think, due to these statistics, we have a rational basis for thinking the amnesty law will positively affect the economy(ultimately).Sources:http://www.usamnesty.org...http://www.nber.org...http://www.jstor.org...http://www.cbo.gov...

Note Extended Arguments: Pro did not dispute the fact that Marriage is not an unalienable right. Rebuttals: State Rights: Pro says “While each state does have the own rules and requirements to marriage each state must recognize the marriage of another state.” This is half true, as it depends on which Government Agency you are dealing with… Federal or State. “Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DOMA's definition of marriage as unconstitutional, the federal government must now recognize valid same-sex marriages. However, the eligibility rules for benefits do vary among federal agencies. Some agencies, such as the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the IRS and the US Office of Personnel and Management, will recognize all valid same-sex marriages, regardless of where same-sex married couples reside. All legally married, same-sex couples will qualify for immigration status, federal tax benefits and federal employee benefits (if either spouse works for the federal government), even if they reside in states that don't recognize their same-sex marriage. But other agencies, such as the Social Security Administration, only recognize marriages that are valid in the state where the couple resides. So a same-sex married spouse living in a non-recognition state will not qualify for Social Security benefits under his or her spouse's work records.”(1) So the Federal Government must recognize valid same sex-marriages however, the States do not. The flaw in my opponents argument is easily seen when applied to other State “rights.” For example, States do not always honor conceal carry permits from another State. “recognize there are so many variances in our state to state laws, the average individual may have difficulty keeping up with those laws well enough to prevent them from breaking the law, especially as they travel.”(2) Imagine using the argument my opponent has when it comes to Marijuana. Say I legally buy some in the great state of Colorado, and then take it to Utah and get arrested then to claim Full faith and Credit Clause from the Constitution of the United States. Not all laws or rights protected in one state are honored by others. Pro says “Is it reasonable to allow each state the ability to make requirements that in sure each party is of able mind and body to enter into the contact that marriage is under the law? Yes more than reasonable it is a sound logical principle.” I agree, however the logic my opponent and I see in this is matters little. Pro argued initially that a ban on gay marriage "is also in violation of the principles of democracy, as 55% of Americans agree with allowing gay marriage.” However, now that it has been established that such a ban is the result of the principles of democracy he rebuts by saying “Mob rule cannot be allowed to do anything it wants. Yes it is great that we as a people get to have a voice in the laws of our states. This has to be kept in check though.” Just to be thorough, my opponent first argued that a majority supported his side and we are a democratic country and thus should support the resolution. Then when shown that an argument of democracy could easily be used to support the opposite view he calls the application of the same democratic principle “mob rule.” Which is it, does my opponent believe in the principles of democracy… or believe that democracy is “mob rule.” Thus far it seems that pro supports democracy so long as it agrees with his view. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. State by State majorities can decide what should or should not be legal. As marriage is not recognized as an unalienable right, this is reasonable. Also, as each State has different requirements as to what qualifies one for a marriage license it is reasonable to allow each State the ability to determine the criteria to be met. Including defining marriage as between a man and a women if that is the case. Therefore if a majority in any given state, like Utah, deems same-sex marriage illegal. That should be respected. (1) http://www.nolo.com... (2) http://www.handgunlaw.us...

If we abolished Birthright Citizenship, then we would have to keep up with all the babies that are being born every minute in the United States which would be very hard to handle for the Government. Even though its true that having millions of immigrants have babies and have their babies become citizenship at that moment they are born is a bit unfair. But those immigrants should have their records check to see if they have citizenship in the country. If they don't, they should obviously be marked down on a list and have their information recorded so that they can apply and get citizenship. The parents should take the test to gain citizenship even though they have the baby and if they don't. The Government can fine them for not doing so. You speak of the country to be equal and fair but in reality, it can never be unless everyone's mind set is set to that. The Government has not been fair with us in the past couple of years so how can they care about abolishing birthright citizenship when they have bigger issues at hand? Having birthright citizenship should not be abolished because its too much work to handle to handle with all the citizens. Knowing that it is unfair to some people, but in life, everything is unfair and will stay that way no matter what happens. So birthright citizenship is a smaller issue for the country which is why its still a law and that its not going to be abolished anytime soon.

Over the course of this debate, my main arguments have been about cost, effectiveness (or rather, the lack thereof), the price in human lives, environmental impact, and the fact that there is a better alternative. 1) Cost Pro drops this argument completely. She does not contest that extending the border fence will cost billions of dollars, but rather tries to justify this by arguing that the border fence is effective, even though the evidence she cites to prove this are not directly linked to her argument. 2) Effectiveness Pro cites statistics showing that the number of apprehensions has gone down since the border fence was constructed, but she fails to explain how the border fence is the cause of these declines. As I mentioned, they could easily be explained by increases in border patrols or improved technology. In addition, the Border Patrol itself admits that they only apprehend 1 in 5 illegal migrants. It has also been proven through the testimony of migrants themselves that the border fence in no way deters them from attempting to cross the border. Even if the fence was actually effective, the benefits of extending it remain questionable and do not outweigh the far more solid harms of cost, loss of human life, and environmental damage. I will also reiterate that extending the fence will do nothing to take away the incentives that migrants have for crossing—namely our country’s strong demand for immigrant labor, the large wage gap between the U. S. and Mexico, and the desire for reunification among families. 3) Price in Human Lives Pro drops this argument as well and posits that it is not our fault the migrants attempt to cross the border. If harms to humankind indeed outweigh other harms, however, then certainly loss of life should win out over the uncertain economic harms that she proposes will occur as a result of immigration. Extending the fence will only increase the number of deaths caused by forcing migrants to cross in ever more treacherous terrain. It will also contribute to the growth of people smuggling as prices rise due to the necessity of having a coyote guide in order to cross safely. 4) Environmental Impact Pro also drops this argument. No matter when this point was made, the fact remains that Pro did not rebut them and so they stand uncontested. Pro also does not explain how any of the harms she presented about employment outweigh the endangerment and extinction of many species in the Southwestern U. S. 5) Better Alternative Pro argues that more immigration along the lines of what HR-15 proposes will be detrimental to employment. I refuted this by pointing to the numerous industries in this country that rely almost entirely on immigrant labor. HR-15 also partially solves for the incentives that drive migrants to cross the border, while extending the border fence does not. Immigration will exist whether the border fence is expanded or not, but the difference is that under Pro’s proposal these immigrants remain illegal, while under mine they become valuable contributors to our nation’s society and economy. Regarding Pro’s list of ten points, she lets her source speak for itself, providing no warrants that connect the evidence she cites to her arguments. Furthermore, I have already countered a number of these claims when I pointed to the benefits of legal immigration on the economy and the job market. The remainder of her points are not very potent, especially since they are unsupported, and they certainly provide no reasoning as to how extending the border fence will be beneficial to the U. S. I would like to remind readers that it was not my burden in this debate to respond to these poorly-constructed points; rather it was Pro’s burden to show beyond a doubt that extending the fence—not merely having the existing fence, but expanding upon it—is a net benefit to the United States. She has not done so, and as a consequence I should win this debate. Thanks to Pro for an engaging debate, thanks to voters for taking the time to read and vote on this debate, thanks to our mentors who gave me tips and advice, and thanks to Bsh1 for organizing this Beginner’s Tournament.


Question: Should the state grant citizenship to undocumented immigrants?

The resolution to illegal immigration necessitates the enforcement of current regulations. "1. I'm not referring to the barrier depicted on CNN. I'm referring to this barrier: http://www.usillegalaliens.com... It has double panels, with surveillance in between. It's not as simple to breach as the one on CNN. Concerning those who overstay their visas, no single method will prevent all, but the barrier will deter some." Response: Consider any public housing project. After a few years, it deteriorates. Why? Because the government maintains it, and without an incentive to keep things in good condition, it disintegrates. Even if the government constructed a futuristic, high-tech barrier, it would be in ruins within five years. Those who want to enter this country would find a way to circumvent it, dig beneath it, climb over it, or just demolish sections of it. The barrier would be as futile as building a massive escalator to nowhere, akin to The Simpsons. "2. The expense is justified. Those who enter the country illegally jeopardize our sovereignty." Response: How so? Unless they're arriving with tanks and planning to overrun your house, I doubt they're jeopardizing your sovereignty. "Rather than the federal government engaging in activities it isn't supposed to, let's have it do one thing it is supposed to: secure the border." Response: Secure from whom? Foreign armies or people seeking a better life? "Moreover, they're not just entering the country illegally. If they're working and paying taxes, they've committed fraud with American documents. If they're working and not paying taxes, they've committed tax evasion." Response: They earn very little, certainly not enough to be significantly taxed. We should facilitate their path to citizenship, not make it more difficult. "3. Money? Are you serious? We have illegal immigrants in our prisons, on government-funded healthcare, and in our schools. All these things cost us money, so that's clearly not the reason." Response: Deporting someone isn't as simple as throwing them in a van and driving them to Mexico. You must ensure there's a place in Mexico you can take them, verify they're not supposed to be in the country, etc. Additionally, some situations are complex, such as if a child born in America is a legal citizen and the parents are illegal. Therefore, the cost of implementing a mass deportation policy doesn't offset the minor reduction in costs for schools, healthcare, and prisons. If the issue

I'm going to take this as a two prong debate. In order for the resolution to stand, both parts must be refuted. If either stands, the resolution falls. Since my opponent's resolution only deals with legal immigration, and not illegal immigration, that is what will be argued. C1) According to the resolution, immigration from Asia should no longer be allowed. This includes, but is not limited to Japan. The Japanese American population is only .3% of the US (1,200,000 people), however, they make up so few in prision that they are not even counted in most incarceration charts [1]. These individuals are more often than not, law abiding citizens, and contributing members to society. The resolution would greatly harm our relationship with Japan, and the companies, and economic gain we receive by doing business with them. C2) It is better to discriminate based on criminal history, than on nationality. Several stats that were given were rather poor. Example is the "non-citizen Hispanics were 74 percent of immigration offenders. .. Non-citizen Hispanics are 5.1 percent of the nation's adult population. " These two numbers do not go together. It would be more accurate to point immigration offenders to the imigration percentage, not total population percentage. Of which, hispanics make up 67% of all our immigrants [2]. That said, only a small minority of immigrants commit crime, so preventing all imigration based on nation of origin, is a poor decision, especailly when considering that criminals can immigrat from other European nations. A far superior method would be to base immigration off of criminal history and usefullness to society. I will leave this as these two short points and allow my opponent to address them. [1] . http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks Con. I'll be presenting the same case that he ignored in his vote against me, because I'm extremely curious what his response to my arguments will be. ==My case==Framework:Obs 1: You can only eliminate a policy if you have a viable alternative, so it isn't enough to merely show birthright citizenship to be bad, but my opponent must also show another system to be good. Further, all advantages he offers must be unique to abolishing birthright citizenship, or else I can just solve the problem by other means. Non unique advantages should be ignored because they can, by defintion, be achieved in a simpler or less damaging way. Obs 2: I am not obligated to defend the status quo, I must only defend the basic principle of birthright citizenship, because other harmful or adverse effects can be solved using other means. Nonetheless, if both of us refute eachothers contentions you vote Pro because Pro is the status quo. Contention one: The slippery slopeConsider the concept of legitimacy; all governments can only perform actions if their ability to do so is viewed as legitimate by the majority of their people. For example, if the U.S. governments ability to collect taxes lost it's legitimacy and the entire population refused to pay taxes there would be little if anything the government could do about it. Likewise, governments cannot undertake actions if it doesn't have the legitimate ability to do so. How does this relate the birthright citizenship? To abolish the institution would require an amendment to the constitution, either revoking or changing the 14th. In the past, the government has nly amended the constitution in the face of turmoil and public distress, and most if not all of those amendments were to give more rights to the people. Doing the opposite, taking away rights from a large subset of the population, legitimitizes governmental authority to change the constitution on a whim, and places every constitutional right in danger. My opponent has made no impact substaintial enough to warrant a change in our fundamental law, immigration is nowhere near significant enough to justify this. Reason magezine reports[1]: "Actual instances of “birth tourism,” where moms expressly came here to deliver babies on American soil, accounted for about two-tenths of 1 percent of all births in 2006. And most of these moms were not poor, illegal Hispanics—Smith’s target group. They were rich Chinese moms on tourist visas." 0.2% of all births does not warrant an amendment. Contention two: JusticeLet's consider what happens when we abolish Birthright Citizenship. To assume that it will make the illegals go home is woefully ignorant; what will happen is that we have a group of people who were born and raised in the U.S., followed it's laws, and become a part of its culture who are not citizens. When they become adults and apply for jobs or colleges, their illegal status will be discovered and they will be deported and sent "home" to a country they've never lived in and they know nothing about. The only way for them to avoid this would be to work in jobs that traditionally belong to the illegal population such as low paying construction or janatorial positions, which would create a permenant under class and stamps out any chance of success that these individuals may have had. It is fundamentally unjust to force someone out of their home without good reason, and simply not having the proper papers cannot warrant forcing someone off of their private property. My Opponent must prove:A. Birthright citizenship has multiple unique disadvantages that outwiegh any harms of a new system and the harm of implementing that system. B. Abolishing birthright citizenship will lead to his alternative and C. Birthright citizenship is a problem that warrants a change in the constitution.1. http://reason.com...==Opponents Case==His first Contention relies mostly on anti-immigrant rhetoric. He hasn't really explained why I should have some divine right to live here because my ancestors may have aided in the takeover of the country and the extremination of the Native Americans. There's really no logic to asserting that I should be rewarded for what my ancestors did, unless I should be punished for their actions as well. Besides, he hasn't offered an alternative system anyway, so we have to go with Jus Soli. His second contention merely re-affirms my first. The worldview that we can change the Constiution because we dont want to help people whos ancestor came from Third world countries leads to constiutional rot and national destruction. Thus, I urge a vote for the Aff. I greatly anticipate my opponents response.

I'll divide this into 3 parts: 1) My Case2) Con's Syllogism3) Con's case 1) My CaseCon ignores my entire case in favor of an absurd assumption that: "when we offer citizenship to immigrants, we don't need to offer them all rights as well"The government doesn't grant rights to its citizens in bits and pieces. When immigrants are naturalized, they become American citizens with all the same rights as all other US citizens. The only place the constitution uses the word "native-born citizen" in particular is in its presidential eligibility clause. "US Citizenship is not defined by Pro's ideals; it is defined by the US."Con attacks a strawman. I never said it was defined by my ideals. I was using the 14th Amendment which says:All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. [1]With his 2 unsubstantiated claims above, it is Con who is attempting to define citizenship by his own ideals. I don't think Con understands the concept of citizenship. Colonialism & CriminalsCon's case rests on the fact that the law provides security. I have shown that it is misguided and provides no security. Far more dangerous people such as convicted criminals exist in our current pool of presidential candidates. The fact that criminals are allowed to run shows that pre-emptive security is unnecessary in presidential elections. People should decide for themselves who is dangeous and who is not. Con attacks my statements on criminals out of context. My rebuttal to Con's contention about security was that security doesn't increase by allowing criminals but disallowing immigrants to run. It had nothing to do with whether or not criminals should be allowed to run. Con's attempts to differentiate Naturalized US citizens from "Americans" are misleading. They are not mutually exclusive terms. 2) Con's syllogismCon makes a syllogism that seems to work at first glance but is deeply flawed becase it relies on the assumption that naturalized US citizens must not be included under the definition of US success. 1. Changes to Pres. requirements .... likelihood of US successCon doesn't address my point that choosing from all citizens gives a greater likelihood of success than choosing from just 7/8 of it's citizens. Con gives no justification for excluding 1/8 of the US population from the definition of "US success." Extend. 2. Success .... decisions to be made based solely on US interests.Con misrepresents my rebuttal. He COMPLETELY ignores my assertion that the interests of all US citizens count as US interests. By saying that "we agree on the basics" he claims a false concession whereas it is he who conceded by not addressing my rebuttal. 3. People have a natural loyalty.... Con never shows how caring about a nation is dangerous in and of itself. Bush hates Iraq (Con's admission) and dragged the US into a war. Isn't that more dangerous?4. More likely to include foreign interests Bush example: This negates Con's contention and works for my side because a US-born citizen is just as likely to have a personal connection to a country as a Naturalized citizen. Bush hated Iraq so much because of the conflicts his father started with Iraq. Bush was not born in a country like Iran which is an enemy of Iraq. Bush was born in the US, yet he had this intense, emotional response to Iraq because his father had a conflict. His emotions did not serve US interests. Could this have been any worse if Bush was born in Iran? Why is it that being born in the United States is of any importance at all? Personal conflicts are not exclusive to Naturalized citizens. A Naturalized US citizen may love the country of his birth, but a native-born US citizen is just as likely to hate a country that his father had a conflict with. Con wonders how we would know if a person is exceptional. I already answered this by showing how their previous decisions in a position of power as a senator or governor are public. Extend those as Con dropped them. Con never responds to my contention that Naturalized citizens will be more heavily scrutinized than Native-born citizens because people will be cautious with them to begin with. He concedes. It is less likely that a Naturalized US citizen will be able to convince the people to elect him if his real intentions were dishonorable. "The US lost over $ 3 tril and 4000 lives over something that didn’t exist." We lost this because a US-born citizen couldn't put his emotional hate aside. It completely contradicts Con's assertion that Naturalized citizens are dangerous because they have "personal connections." He says they are more likely but so far, all he proved was that immigrants love their country of birth which by itself does not show that they are any more dangerous. Should we stop people whose fathers had been president because it is more likely that they would hold a grudge? Why not? This fits in perfectly with Con's argument and actually makes more sense than preventing immigrants from running. 5. Will not increase US success. Con ignores my rebuttal. I'd like to remind Con that in a debate, unaddressed points count as concessions [2], and if Con brings any of these conceded points back up in the last round when I can't respond, voters are to disregard it. 3) Con's case(a) "[Pro] is suggesting here that the constitution has no place enforcing a rule that will protect the country"- Con appeals to the constitution's right to enforce laws, yet disregards the fact that the law was not written for the reason that he claims. It was written to protect the US from colonization, not from immigrants. - I proved that no protection occurs. It doesn't stop people who are truly dangerous (criminals) nor people with a bundle of confused emotions (Bush). The average risk of the current pool of candidates with criminals and all is the same as, or more than, the average risk with immigrants included. (b) "decision must be based on having the best leadership possible to lead the country, not fulfilling the desires of those who wish to run"- The government has no obligation to provide the "best" leadership. The voters do that. - The government makes a decision based on assumptions which may or may not be true but depend entirely on possible likelihood. That is inherently unjust to people who are incorrectly denied because of the government's assumptions. (c) Grandma analogy: "harms caused by the rare instances of the unexpected outweigh the harms caused by the restrictions themselves." If that is the case, then restrictions should be placed on all US citizens and no one should run for president. Con already showed that even native-born citizens can be dangerous (he made my case for me) and the risk exists regardless of who is running. For that reason the above logic cannot be applied to elections. ConclusionCon's argument relies on strawmanning my position, claiming concessions when there were none, dropping points, and misrepresenting my rebuttals. He could not find an effective argument so instead he makes up his own definition of citizenship - a charge he ironically lays on me. He also does not include naturalized US citizens in his definition of "US success" even though that 1/8 of the population is just as American as the remaining 7/8. I have given considerable reasoning why immigrants are not any more dangerous than the people who are already allowed to run such (criminals and people whose fathers had run before them). There is a certain amount of risk already in our current pool of candidates. Expanding it to include immigrants does not increase the average risk that is inherent in a candidate pool.The voters have the right to vote for who they want. While they may not make the best choice, democracy demands that they make the choice, not the government. For all these reasons, immigrants should be eligible to run for president. The resolution is affirmed. Sources [1] http://bit.ly...[2] http://bit.ly...

After doing some of my own research i realize that legalized immigration can significantly have a positive effect on our economy. This is, of course, seperate from security issues involved with this current amnesty process but that is unrelated to the resolution. From the statistics i have obtained and failed to locate, your arguments are nearly impossible to rebut.

There are several reasons that Puerto Rico should vote to become a state of the U.S.A. One reason is the economy boost. Puerto Rico is currently struggling economically, and so is the U.S. The jobs being held by the people in Puerto Rico will boost the USA's economy because those are more jobs, creating more products, creating more money. Also, Puerto Rico has a frighteningly high violent crime rate, especially among youths. A better trained police force might help to lower the violent crimes.

The US being created and funded by immigrents doesnt mean they were illegal. The red people had no laws so it cant be illegal immigration. And Im discussing now, current events! The past dont mean sh1t. THERE IS a reason why it would eslode. If we allow illegal immos in to the nations we allow more peoples in the nations. the more peoples there are the more likely one of those people is going to be a crazy demolitions expert. By extension the more illegal immos we allow, the more likely it is we are going to have a crazo demolotions expert. THe more likely it is for him to explode america! America is getting more and more people in there each day. If we have a ton of people on the surfice of american the more they will push down the surfice of america. The more people over time the more the surfuce of america will be pushed the the hot areas under the earth. Once we have too many people the surfice of america will be all burned and cause chemical reactions which will make it explode. It is simply science and math. If we allow illegal immos. we are allowing the destruction of america

I agree that statements which I wrote have two sides, but benefitial sight are dominate. To conclude the United States, European nations, and other developed nations around the world have improved economically, often times at the cost of third world nations, where they encourage keeping their labor costs low to increase their own profit margins. By doing this they have left immigrants with no choice but to head towards where the money and opportunity lies. The United States does not seem to understand this, as it believes building a fence along its southern border will fix the problem. Ultimately a compromise must be reached. Politicians as well as legal citizens ought to reach out a brotherly hand to help those in need such as illegal immigrants, while any human migrating to another country ought to become familiar with the host countries' political system, language, and culture. Most importantly in order to receive the benefits of a host country the migrants must start off on the right foot by not migrating illegally, and second they must contribute to the system by paying all taxes as legal citizens do.

I concur that some taxes are almost unavoidable such as sales tax on goods and services. I was referring to federal and state taxes, andn FICA type taxes not paid due to the lack of obtaining a social security number. I further concur that many Americans are guilty of abusing the system. Both major parties are guilty of supporting programs that contribute to this abuse of services. Although I agree with my opponent, the debate resolution is more focused toward immigration as opposed to deadbeat citizens. As for the language barrier, I am referring to immigrants coming to the U.S. with the inability to communicate in English. Countless forms, booklets, instructions, pamphlets, phone messages, and the like have to be translated for the for convenience of those who do not speak English at the expense of the taxpayer. My previous arguments that were dropped are extended. Thank you.

Recently, I have been doing a lot of research on the topic of Illegal Immigration and the effect is has on the United States economy. Being from the state of Kansas, most of the people that I am around typically are not big fans of illegal immigrants. They take jobs, they commit lots of crimes, and they are illegally working here. I however am a more objective person, with an anti-Illegal Immigration viewpoint that is more economical than anything. Illegals have been sending tons and tons of money out of the United States. The Center for Immigration Study says that Illegals send $25 billion in remittance money out of the United States every year. And if the average American family only makes between $40 thousand and $48 thousand, you've got the equivalent of thousands of American families yearly incomes being shipped out of the US. Another thing. Illegals also have access to public services that are funded by citizens tax dollars. These public services include hospitals, schools, prisons, etc. Under current law, all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion according to heritage.org These factors lead me to conclude that Illegal Immigrants are a real strain on our economy, and the American taxpayer.

While I agree with all my opponent said regarding the deportation of migrants convicted of crimes (i.e.: non-immigration-related crimes such as drug dealing, pimping or gang violence), I question his other beliefs. Indeed, migrants, legal or illegal are good for the economy. They take the "3D" jobs (Dirty, Dangerous, Dull) which no American citizen would want to take. Therefore, they help remedy the crippling labor shortages in certain sectors of the economy. Moreover, illegal immigrants provide cheap labor. If we were to deport them, consumer prices would rise and counteract any possible individual benefits coming from a slight drop in unemployment. In short, even though migrants may create many social problems, they are good for our economy and should not be deported unless they commit a serious crime.