Question: Should the State Permit Undocumented Immigrants to Attain Citizenship?

The cost of mass deportation from the US would be exorbitant. A report published by the Center for American Progress in March 2010 estimated that a policy targeting the deportation of the nation's illegal immigrants would cost the government around $285 billion over five years. (A deportation-only policy would result in $922 in additional taxes for “every man, woman, and child in this country.”) In a separate study released in January, UCLA professor Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda discovered that removing undocumented immigrants from the economy would decrease the U.S. GDP by $2.6 trillion over a decade.

To clarify that when I say "US citizen" I refer to sole US citizens not dual citizens. Con agreed to this in the comments. REBUTTAL1. Changes should be made based on likelihood of US successCon wants the best possible life for US citizens. I agree. If voters think that an immigrant would make the best president, improve the economy and the quality of life, they should be able to vote for him if they want. This leads to increased choices and a better life. Con makes a mistake in not including immigrants in the definition of "US success." For a country to be successful, all its citizens must have a better life, not just a specific subset of its citizens i.e. natural born citizens. 2. Success requires Presidential decisions be made based solely on US interests. Agreed. But naturaized US citizens count as "US interests." 3. People have a natural loyalty to the land in which they originate.All people? That is an overgeneralization. I think, what Con means to say is that most people have a natural loyalty to the land in which they originate. It is far more likely that an immigrant who was elected by the people of the US to be president will have an intense loyalty to those people. 4. People who have a natural loyalty to a foreign land will be more likely to include foreign interests in their decision making. Con says that it is more "likely." Now an average immigrant might be more likely to include foreign interests in their decision making. However, the average immigrant is highly unlikely to be elected as president due to the fact that he will be scrutinized by the American public before the elections. The only kind of immigrant that could possibly be elected is a highly exceptional one who passed the intense scrutiny and publicity of the elections and showed the American people that he is willing to consider US interests above all else. So what must be considered is not whether the average immigrant can put aside his loyalty, but whether the exceptional one can. Since an exceptional person will consider US interests alone, the US benefits from having immigrants being able to run for office as it is now more of a meritocracy with the best person being chosen. The best person not being chosen prevents a better life for the public and is therefore a detriment.Immigrants should have the right to put their name out there and let the people decide whether they want to vote for them. Exceptional people can put aside any loyalty they might have and focus on the job. 5. The proposed changes will not increase the likelihood of US success. Actually they would. The law is detrimental by preventing someone who could be the best and most popular choice for president from leading the country. Any detriment to the people of the US; native-born as well as naturalized must be removed. Con's caseA) Con wonders what if Bush was born in Afghanistan or Obama in Haiti. I answered that they would only be elected if the public considers them to be exceptionally loyal. Their previous political record and their decisions as senators or governors are there for all to see. B) For some reason, Con dismisses the people who want Schwarzeneger for president. Now if the majority votes for him, he should certainly be elected. If the people elect an incompetent president, they are responsible for their decision. That is how democracy works. C) "Their motives are impossible to accurately determine." & "could be compromised" First, I'd like to point out that convicted criminals can run for president. Only people who were convicted while in office and impeached are disqualified from running again. Nowhere in the constitution does it mention that people who committed a crime while not in office are ineligible to run for president [1][2][3]. Lyndon LaRouche was imprisoned in 1989 but was a perennial presidential candidate from 1976 to 2004 [4]. There are far more dangerous people in our current pool of candidates than there could be by allowing immigrants to run. Second, Con says that we can't know the motives of a president before they are elected. Let's consider what Con is really trying to say. Suppose an Afghan or Haitian runs for president, will he be elected? Knowing that he is Afghan/Haitian born, people are likely to be wary of him and only elect him if he has an impeccable record. Politicains may make false promises but it shows through in their decisions as senator or governor. They must have a perfect foreign policy record and be able to make decisions that are exclusively in the interests of the US. In short, they must be an exceptional person along the lines of Kennedy or Lincoln. Otherwise, they will be unable to survive the intense scrutiny of having their entire life open to the public during the elections campaign. As a senator or governor, they already have a position of power in the government. The decisions they make from that position of power are very telling. The extra scrutiny serves as an appropriate countermeasure while preserving democracy. Finally, an immigrant chosen by the American people to lead the country will have intense loyalty to those people. If a convicted criminal can run for office, why shouldn't a law-abiding immigrant be allowed to run? Whether they actually get elected is up to the American people. ARGUMENTS C1) USA: The land of opportunityCon says: "The question of whether an immigrant should be an eligible presidential candidate is one that must be based on what is best for the US, not the immigrants that come here."When immigrants apply for US citizenship and recieve it, they become Americans renouncing the citizenship of their birth countries and becoming US citizens. As US citizens, their rights, and the rights of Americans are the same thing. They live and work in the US for the rest of their lives, so what is best for the US is what is best for them. Perhaps Con is confusing Naturalized US citizens with those who come here temporarily on a visa? C2) Right to run for officeCitizenship by definition invloves giving all rights that a Natural born citizen has, to the immigrant. The government can't pick and choose which rights they offer to US citizens. It is not justified to prevent US citizens from running for president. C3) Archaic lawCon's anologies are inaccurate because the conditions under which other old laws such as "Innocent until proven guilty" were written still exist. Monarchy and colonialism no longer exist. The law outlived its purpose. Once the US was in no danger of European colonialism, the law became irrelevant and a detriment to the immigrants and voters. It prevents people from voting for who they want and immigrants from having the opportunity to run for office. Since it is detrimental to the American people, it must be removed. C4) People should have a right to vote for who they wantCon's grandma example is not analogous to this law. His point is that there must be limitations to rights. Why should there be a limitation on the right to choose your leader in a democracy? I have shown that the law does not protect the US. It targets the wrong people. The protection from people with compromised motives is already there in the form of public scrutiny and democratic voting. What purpose does this law serve?Conclusion Senators and Governors have a position of power over the people and how they used that power is heavily scrutinized during their campaign. This is especially true for an immigrant. This extra layer of scrutiny cuts through the false promises while preserving democracy. - The law does not effectively safeguard the US. It targets the wrong people. - The protection that the law supposedly gives is already there in the form of public records. - It is a detriment to the voters and naturalized US citizens. - Since it is detrimental, has outlived its purpose, and is currently useless, it must be removed. Sources1) http://1.usa.gov...(pg 608)2) http://bit.ly...3) http://anse.rs...4) http://bit.ly...

Open borders are incompatible with welfareNobel-prize-winning libertarian economist Milton Friedman said “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state,” [12. http://www.nationalreview.com...] Friedman was quoted by Robert Rector, a leading national authority on poverty, the U.S.welfare system and immigration and is a Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow. He elaborates on Friedman's point:To be fully understood, Friedman’s comment should be viewed as applying not merely to means-tested welfare programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, and public housing, but to the entire redistributive transfer state. In the “transfer state,” government taxes the upper middle class and shifts some $1.5 trillion in economic resources to lower-income groups through a vast variety benefits and subsidies. Across the globe, this sort of economic redistribution is the largest, if not the predominant, function of government in advanced societies. The transfer state redistributes funds from those with high-skill and high-income levels to those with lower skill levels. Low-skill immigrants become natural recipients in this process. On average, low-skill immigrant families receive $30,160 per year in government benefits and services while paying $10,573 in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of $19,587 that has to be paid by higher-income taxpayers. There is a rough one-to-one fiscal balance between low-skill immigrant families and upper-middle-class families. [12 op cit]We can permit low-skilled labor by having a visa system that ensures that workers are gainfully employed and their employer pays any implicit costs like health care for e worker. With a visa system, workers with seasonal employment can freely return to their home country. It all depends upon having secure borders, which a border fence substantially supports.The border fence is relatively cheapThe border fence is remarkably inexpensive. Talking about several million dollars per mile or more to construct sounds impossibly high, but the amortized cost works out to only about $0.5 billion of the $57 billion Homeland Security Budget. That data show the type of double fence advocated to be extremely effective, and an only slightly more expensive triple fence to be virtually impenetrable. One claim is that if a fence stops conventional overland access, then illegal activities will simply move to remote locations or to other methods of illegal entry. The reason that border crossing is e prevalent method for illegal entry from Mexico is because it is now the easiest method. It is not necessary to make every access method impossible, it is only necessary to make the illegal activity so likely to fail as to not be worth the effort for most. Putting a lock on your front door is not an impenetrable barrier, but it discourages many potential miscreants. Few preventive measures of any type are 100% effective, but many are worthwhile. The border fence is easily justified.The border fence in Israel cut attacks by highly motivated terrorists by 70%, meaning that only 30% found other methods of entry. When a fence is recognized as essentially impenetrable, border patrol officers can be reassigned to policing other methods of entry.A border fence is humaneImmigrants suffer severely in failed attempts to cross the Mexican border. Shoot outs with drug smugglers take a heavy toll on law enforcement officers protecting the border. Strict border enforcement will mean that the routes are shut off and few will attempt to make the crossing. That's positive for both sides.Many reasons for border securityI can see a theoretical argument for open borders for people seeking employment, even though the argument ultimately fails due to welfare costs. However, I don't see even a theoretical argument for unrestricted access by criminals and terrorists, or for human trafficking, counterfeit pharmaceuticals, products of endangered species, and other items on the list of reasons.A border fence is effective and inexpensive. Congress came to that conclusion and appropriated funds for is construction. It should be built.

What is a human right is very relevant because you are using it as a basis for your claim for giving illegals the Dream Act. I need to know what you mean by a right so it isn't a way of trying to inject a nice sounding mystical like word in order to obfuscate from the relevant information. Even establishing what a right is with reasonable justification does not automatically entail that rights should always supersede economic utility, aggregate happiness, or other factors. On to your next statement, most of the founders of the United States were Natives, meaning they were born in North America (12). The vast majority did not immigrate from Great Britain, continental Europe, or other overseas territories to the thirteen colonies in North America. The founding of the colonies in what is now the US was done by pioneers, not immigrants. They did not immigrate and live in Amerindian societies but built their own largely separate societies based on largely European ideas. A descendant of an immigrant is not the same as an immigrant. The United States and its majority European population are NOT immigrants, they are almost entirely natives of a country whose governmental institutions, legal codes, societal norms, common language etc were created by Europeans. Again the "Founding Fathers" helped to pass the First Immigration Naturalization Act of 1790 that restricted citizenship to "free white persons" (see above source 10). Before the Immigration Act of 1965 the previous immigration policy was designed to keep and strengthen the at that time 90% European majority (see above source 11) (13). My claim about Mestizo's more likely to join a gang than any other group in the US along with their greater likelihood to commit violent crime than European Americans is true (see above source 4). Being "oppressed" does not negate their violent and organized crime record. I would argue as well that them being "oppressed" is exaggerated and if you actually start giving evidence as well as sources I will respond to your claims of "oppression". Suffice to say for now this "oppression" is not bad enough for them to want to leave the country or for others to stop coming here illegally. Though "oppression" or current manifestations of problems with the white majority is not an argument in favor of the Dream Act. Quite the contrary, it demonstrates a weakness for the United States by adding more Mestizos to our population. What you said about them getting educated without financial assistance is completely false. Firstly, universities are subsidized by Federal and state tax payers (14). Primary education (K5-12th grade) is completely paid for by tax payers (15). Secondly I have no idea where you harvested the claim that "most educators stand" with you on the Dream Act and frankly it is just a majority appeal with little reasoning. If you could please start citing some of your claims. 12. http://www.archives.gov... 13. http://www.census.gov... 14. http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com... 15. http://www.heritage.org...

It is unfair that immigrants get to stay in the United States because their children were born here. Although their children are technically citizens, illegal immigrants should not be able to stay in the Nation and send their kids to public school paid for by the taxes of citizens. "Although almost three-quarters of the children of illegal immigrants were born in the United States and are therefore citizens, had their parents not entered the U.S. illegally these children likely wouldn't be in U.S. public schools and wouldn't require taxpayer funding. Thus, it's fair to say that their education cost stems from their parents' illegal entry into this country" (Izumi). A lot of the tax problems in the school system stem from the fact that parents are not paying for their children's' education and rely on citizens to pay for them. The costs for schools to function and to maintain is increasing. Many new schools need to be built and there is no money in the system. "Capital costs for school construction may have increased at a higher rate because of the influx of children of illegal immigrants" (Izumi). The need for new schools is because there are illegal immigrants coming to the nation and there is not room for them, and there is a shortage of money because these immigrants are not paying money to support the schools that they are sending their children to. Izumi, Lance T. "Educating Illegal Immigrants Costly." Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 18 Aug 2010: A.13. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 28 Oct 2013.

the problems are that fingers are being pointed at the wrong direction!!!! I actually go as far as comparing this to Nazi Germany!!! Nazi's blamed Jews for their economic troubles. Now we have people blaming illegal immigrants, the majority hispanics for our economic troubles. I do agree illgal immigration is a problem but there has to be a simpler solution. Our government needs to act instead of pointing fingers. Our economic problem is not immigration's fault. It is ours. We have not done enough for country. So everyone nheeds a scapegoat for this and that would be illgals.. before 2005 there was no problems right???? if anything, illegals cant claim any paid taxes... Trust me they have no tax rights and most of them overpay taxes

The border wall will drastically reduce illegal immigration. Smugglers and other people can use tunnels but these tunnels too can be walled off. Immigrants can come into this country, but they should get Americanized first. I can go more into reasoning why in future rounds.

== Democracy == Pro makes the argument that immigration influences government policy, and then interprets my response as an affirmation for Democracy. It would be as if I derailed the topic by bringing up Anarchism, when that isn't what Pro is even arguing here. I made the argument that immigration is an ineffectual factor in national success, while voter bases and legal structures are instead the integral causes. If Pro is worried about the economic calculation problem and individual rationale at the voting booths, I'll address those issues. a) It's true that the masses cannot know market prices, but they don't have to. If the majority of citizens agree that healthcare costs are too high, then they will vote for a system that might bring prices down, such as Single-Payer healthcare, or a public option. It's not as if the masses are voting on ballots that dictate how much carrots should sell for at Publix. b) No, the average vote isn't worth much intellectual investment, but that's why representative democracy prevails over direct democracy. The average person knows what he/she wants, and will subsequently vote in officials that specialize in such matters. Division of labor solves this issue, for actual economists and diplomats are appointed as the heads of governmental agencies that aim to produce national success. == Pro Arguments == 1. Sampling Bias: Pro says that Sweden and Denmark's economies' have unique industry composition, so consequently, they are unable to be used as comparisons: Sweden and Norway are not much different than the US and much of Europe, and ALL of these nations have a degree of unique industry composition[1]. If such subtle distinctions disqualify nations from being incorporated into these datasets, then Pro's entire econometric model needs to be completely discounted. 2. Jurisdictional Competition: i) Theory Pro is still mistaking purposes of immigration as the cause for successful governmental policy: Governments do not shape their policies around attracting immigrants from other nations, but instead around what domestic voters want. Increasing the tax base is a secondary priority to gathering votes, which is why the most successful nations are welfare states with higher taxes and more extensive services. The two outcomes may be largely the same, but one factor is the cause, and the other is an effect. ii) Examples -- Individuals: Pro states that the point is to compare successful and unsuccessful nations in terms of immigration, and poverty is not a sufficient barrier: Developed countries cannot be adequately compared to undeveloped countries due to the incredible differences in migration barriers -- the main one being economic. It's a comparison of apples and oranges, thus the low migration rates are simply correlative and not causative. Also, African limitation of migration doesn't need a source; it's axiomatic, for Africa's infrastructure is terrible [2], so there is little opportunity for movement, which is why migration mostly takes place under extreme circumstances, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc. Even Germans had better chances at emigration during the 19th century than Africans currently have. Pro criticizes the immigration statistics I calculated: Contrary to Pro's claim, developed countries are NOT homogeneous, and they have been ranked by heterogeneous levels of success [3]. One would expect that immigration would linearly trend with these success patterns, but the numbers don't follow (as I calculated). Instead, the stats appear to be all over the place, especially on an individual basis. This might be attributed to legal and linguistic barriers, but Pro's model didn't take these factors into account, nor did it account for the vastly different circumstances that drive migration between Africa and the EU, so his contention hasn't been affirmed. And even if an organized, precise correlation could be drawn out among similar circumstances, it would only prove that success is a necessary condition for immigration -- not the other way around as Pro put it. ii) Examples -- Corporations: Pro does not argue for lower taxes, but instead for jurisdictional competition: Well, not many people argue against the benefits of foreign investment, and I agree that it's something countries compete for, although it's mainly an effect, rather than a cause, of certain public policy. Because such investment creates job opportunities, wealth, and ultimately higher living standards, voters largely support governmental attempts to compete for international business, which is the underlying influence and cause. But, the competition itself isn't behind this success, for high educational standards, infrastructure development, and a vibrant middle-class all increase a nation's success, with or without foreign investment taking place, which is why it's an after-effect. Also, if a government attempted to cut important services to become more globally competitive, it wouldn't happen. For example, if the UK decided to dismantle the British NHS in order to lower corporate taxes, it would likely prove impossible because the popular vote overrides jurisdictional competition in terms of public policy [4]. 3. Market Growth: i) Theory Pro asserts that government can't know what services to provide, nor can it create economic growth: As I stated before, governments can observe market prices and make decisions contingent upon such information. If the government sees that many consumers cannot afford vital services, such as healthcare, then it becomes fairly obvious that medical service is what needs to be provided. Also, government can create economic growth in coordination with markets. In the case of subsidized research and development, beneficial technology can be invented, which fuels economic growth [5]. So actually, both markets AND governments create economic growth and national success. ii) Example Pro explains that his model empirically proves that government can't create economic growth: The problem is that Pro's model presumably uses data points that were retrieved while government had already been involved in markets, so how could this econometric model accurately demonstrate that no growth was derived from the government? Pro says I'm trying to be a statistician like him: No, I only provided some crude averages -- not a model -- that indicated immigration was not linearly correlated with national success, as Pro had claimed. Pro goes through exponential growth and his model: My question is how exactly "C" can be attributed to market mechanisms alone when the data is collected from where the government had already been involved. Also, because a linear correlation is impossible, which you admit, how can a causation be derived from the dataset? From viewing your charts, I don't see any growth trends following tax changes in the US. Pro tries to attribute Norway's success to oil production: For one, Norway does have higher taxes and GDP per capita than the US [6][7]. Also, oil resources are not a fundamental cause of national success, for Denmark and the Netherlands have barely any oil, while Kuwait has more than everyone else by far [8]. == Conclusion == Pro attempts to attribute national success to immigration and foreign investment, yet he ignores the fundamental reasons as to why rich people can travel easier than poor Africans, along with failing to address the correlative inconsistencies among wealthy nations. He also creates a vague econometric model that supposedly proves government has never contributed anything to economic growth, yet even at face value, I can point out problems of sampling bias and significantly incomplete datasets. As presented in Pro's case, the resolution hasn't been affirmed in theory, nor in practice. Sources: http://www.debate.org...

Thank you for challenging me to this debate. Definition: illegal- forbidden http://dictionary.reference.com... immigration- the movement of non-native people into a country in order to settle there http://dictionary.reference.com... Cause we both live in USA, I guess this issue takes place in USA. 1. Illegal immigrant is helpful to our economy. Immigrants illegally entering united states is good because they help out our economy. They make up the 5% of the total number of USA labor force. Illegal immigrant pay taxes which help fund USA economy. http://teacher.scholastic.com... 2. Illegal immigrants work for low cost. Illegal immigrants do the same job as any native and for a cheaper wage. 3.Illegal Immigrant support big businesses. The Burearu of Labor Statistics thinks that there are about 22% percent of construction workers are foreign born. Nationial Association of Home Builders says that about 25%-30% of the workers are illegal immigrants. http://money.cnn.com...

Most pople in developing countries wants to immigrate to the US or Europe for searching good life. They do anything to stay there or try take citizenship. Whether illegal immigration is good or bad. Some people say that illegal immigration is a crime, because they cant find good employment and trying to find easy money. However, illegal immigration has more advantages than disadvantages. Illegal immigration benefits the US economy through additional tax revenue, expansion of the low-cost labor pool, and increased money in circulation. They contend that immigrants bring good values, have motivations consistent with the American dream, perform jobs that Americans won't take, and that opposition to immigration stems from racism. http://immigration.procon.org...

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...


Question: Should the state grant citizenship to undocumented immigrants?

American citizens are against the expulsion of all undocumented immigrants.
According to a USA Today/Gallup Poll from March 2007, only 24% of American citizens supported the idea of deporting all illegal immigrants to their home countries. Conversely, 59% of American citizens supported the notion of allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the United States and potentially become U.S. citizens, provided they meet specific criteria. This indicates that the majority of American citizens do not support a blanket deportation policy for illegal immigrants.

Pro verifies that Undocumented Democrats are here illegally. He then says that humans lose the right to human life if they invades in someone's home. We do have laws that take the right of life away from some individuals but this is not for someone breaking and entering nor Undocumented Democrats. My opponent has not shown that Undocumented Democrats are taking jobs and turning white children into gangsters. My opponent must show that it is legal to shoot someone breaking into your house. I maintain that it is illegal to shoot someone who has broken into your house. My opponent mistakes the human right to live for the American constitution. All people have the human right to live. Pro has yet to provide justification for killing Undocumented Democrats. We cannot kill intruders, we contain them, we disport them. Pro offers us some Biblical passages but then he does not explain what they have to offer on this debate. The state kills people for murder and other mandated violations of the law, like the Bible. Pro has not shown us that Undocumented Democrats are one of those violations.

Immigrants actually do take jobs away from Americans. Roger D. McGrath, author of "Deporting Illegal Immigrants", states that "However, several studies, including one conducted by the President's Commission on Migratory Labor in Texas, demonstrated that if employers paid standard American wages there would be plenty of Americans able and willing to take the jobs. In the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, for example, where tens of thousands of illegal aliens were employed, wages were half that paid in other parts of Texas for the same agricultural jobs" (McGrath 1-2). Employers are more willing to hire illegal immigrants because they will work for less money because they do not need to pay taxes because they are living in the United States ILLEGALLY. Law abiding citizens who pay taxes would obviously need to be payed at least minimum wage because they have to a piece of their salary to the government. Illegal immigrants also cause corruption in the government and Federal services. "It seems that corruption was a fact of life in the Immigration and Naturalization Service and in the Border Patrol... They were also staying here without restraint. Border Patrol agents tell stories of rounding up illegal aliens on large farms, only to have them released after the politically connected employer called the right people (McGrath 2). Even dealing with illegal immigrants once they were caught is an issue. They are able to call their employers who have them illegally employed and they are able to get the aliens out of customs and set free from being deported. Illegal immigrants cause problems even after being captured and they corrupt the government and federal services. Aliens, in fact, take jobs away from tax-paying citizens and cause corruption in federal services. McGrath, Roger D. "Deporting Illegal Immigrants." New American Vol. 26, NO. 15 Jul 19 2010: 35. Sirs Issues Researcher. Web. 20 October. 2013

Under the 14th Amendment: "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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Homosexuals are abridged the privilege(or right) of marriage. By making civil marriage (churches can do what they please, but this is when the government gives you your marriage license) unavailable to homosexuals the government is showing a blatant preference of one group over another, and this is entirely unconstitutional. If you don't want gays to be legally 'married' than neither should heterosexuals. The same term (civil union, whatever) with same legalities must be shared between the two 'types' of marriage in the legal field.

The border wall will drastically reduce illegal immigration. Smugglers and other people can use tunnels but these tunnels too can be walled off. Immigrants can come into this country, but they should get Americanized first. I can go more into reasoning why in future rounds.

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.

It is unfair that immigrants get to stay in the United States because their children were born here. Although their children are technically citizens, illegal immigrants should not be able to stay in the Nation and send their kids to public school paid for by the taxes of citizens. "Although almost three-quarters of the children of illegal immigrants were born in the United States and are therefore citizens, had their parents not entered the U.S. illegally these children likely wouldn't be in U.S. public schools and wouldn't require taxpayer funding. Thus, it's fair to say that their education cost stems from their parents' illegal entry into this country" (Izumi). A lot of the tax problems in the school system stem from the fact that parents are not paying for their children's' education and rely on citizens to pay for them. The costs for schools to function and to maintain is increasing. Many new schools need to be built and there is no money in the system. "Capital costs for school construction may have increased at a higher rate because of the influx of children of illegal immigrants" (Izumi). The need for new schools is because there are illegal immigrants coming to the nation and there is not room for them, and there is a shortage of money because these immigrants are not paying money to support the schools that they are sending their children to. Izumi, Lance T. "Educating Illegal Immigrants Costly." Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 18 Aug 2010: A.13. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 28 Oct 2013.

My case is simple: Failure to comply with the law is immoral. Justification: When I become a citizen of a country, I enter into a social contract. The government promises to protect my safety, and in return, I promise to obey the laws of the government. Of course, at some point, the government will break its side of the deal. For example, the fact that the even after the abolition of slavery, racism was allowed in government policies. This however does not justify one in breaking their part of the contract. Two wrongs do not make a right. You have two options. The first is to fight the law peacefully, and legally. You do not violate your contract, and you point out the government is violating theirs. The other option is to leave the country, and end the contract, and enter into a contract with a better government. Rebuttals: "For my first point is that civil disobedience is a beneficial behavior in bringing about stability to a society. I would like to point out a few examples such as the Women's Suffrage movement from 1848 to 1920; it acquired the women's right to vote. " This is not civil disobedience, as they are not breaking laws. This is off topic. "In Germany 1982-1986, there was a non-violent protest against deployment of Pershing II and Cruise Missiles, 3000 people sat in front of Mutlangen a military base. These people blocked military traffic that goes in and out of the base. After the four year protest the INF Treaty was signed it regulated all land base intermediate range nuclear forces, it marked the end of the Cold War and led to the demise of the Warsaw Pact. " These people are violating their contract by breaking the law, and furthermore they disrupt order. Also, they are ignorant. The government, which has access to secret data can recognize the need to have cruise missiles. Disrupting this could easily lead to a national security crisis. "Governments have been improved by acts of civil disobedience like the examples I have just stated, this is important because if there is an unjust law or policy or an act that is in a government that the people feel need changing then a citizen can fight for what they believe in. And in democratic governments groups and individuals have utilized civil disobedience as a weapon in the fight for justice that has gained rights, created countries, changed social norms, and improved or saved millions lives. " I can do millions of legal things to deal with this. For example, the government is like a business, it wants my money, so it can do what it wants. If I organize a group that leaves the country, and thereby eliminates a source of income, I will bring about change. For example, the Pilgrims, Puritans, Catholics, and Quakers of England helped promote religious tolerance in that nation when they up and left to avoid persecution. Also, a peaceful protest, is totally legal and very effective, think the march on Washington, Million Mom March, et cetera. "My second point that democratic governments provide for and accommodate acts of civil disobedience I would like to use an example in the late 1960s. Two students John and Mary Beth Tinker in Des Moines Iowa were protesting against the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands. This was against the policies and rules of the public school; this is an act of civil disobedience. They were suspended until they returned to school without the armbands. The parents of the students filed a lawsuit; the case was a tied vote at the district court and was appealed to the Supreme Court. In 1969 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of John and Mary Beth Tinker and validation their civil disobedience by a 7-2 decision. " This action was not civil disobedience. They were not breaking any legitimate law. The rules against the armbands had no authority, and therefore, breaking them is not civil disobedience. "To my third and final point that civil disobedience brings immediate attention to an unjust law. If a person writes a letter or sends an E-mail to a senator it has to go through secretaries, then maybe to the senator then maybe bring attention to the problem then maybe the problem will be addressed then maybe to a bill then maybe a law. This method of trying to bring justice is not effective, nor efficient. However civil disobedience brings immediate attention to a problem or unjust law. It gets media coverage it gets people excited and care about the issue. That then puts pressure on representatives to quickly address the issue, to look at the problem and rethink what is the correct way. This will correct the unjust law quicker and make society that much better for its citizens. " A simple march is legal, and just as effective. Also, studies have shown that civil disobedience can alienate more moderate sympathizers with a cause who will view such actions as extremist. In conclusion, even when the government is unjust and immoral, we cannot act in an immoral manner ourselves. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I respect your regard for the Constitution of the United States. However, the Constitution does not contain every right that a person has. In fact I do not care for the word "right", which is why I never used it in my argument. (Only in the title for the sake of succinctness.) A right is an odd fluffy term that doesn't amount to much when examined with scrutiny. That's why I prefer the term "freedom" and think of it as synonymous. Every person has self-evident freedoms. For example, if a person washes up on a deserted island we could say he has absolute freedom to do as he pleases on the island just as easily as we could say he has complete rights over the property. Have we elevated his position by calling them rights rather than freedoms? No. Anyway, the Constitution doesn't grant freedoms to individuals, it is only a document that binds those that swear to uphold it to not infringe upon specific freedoms of others, and was never intended to be an exhaustive list of freedoms as demonstrated by the 10th Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Further, a man that that heavily influenced the Constitution was one called Thomas Jefferson, who in a letter to James Madison on Sep. 6, 1789 said "I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;' that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it." Thomas Jefferson was arguing that debts should not extend over the lifetime of the debtor; that children should not bear the debts of their forefathers. A fortiori, if a contract of debt is not binding, then how could the Constitution be binding to those who have not sworn to uphold it? It cannot. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson was the one who wrote the Declaration of Independence which states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..." Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. So to recap: 1.) The Constitution does not state that it retains all freedoms not mentioned. 2.) Even if it did, the Constitution is not binding to citizens, only to those who swear to uphold it. 3.) Even if it was binding to citizens, they have the freedom declared under the declaration of Independence to withdraw their consent and govern themselves as they see fit. So the argument that people do not have the freedom to own a nuclear weapon because they don't have the "right" listed in the Constitution falls apart on three separate grounds. Now then, the next argument you propose is this: "Safe, civilian ownership of an atomic bomb does not exist." This would be a compelling argument and I would concede if it were at all true. All I have to do is give you one example of the safe release of atomic energy and there are 65 examples in the United States alone[1]. Yes these are nuclear reactors, not nuclear bombs, but the principle is the same; That the release of nuclear power can be safely contained. But if you are concerned about nuclear power falling into the wrong hands consider that the US government to date as done $1,768,093,374 worth of damages due to improper nuclear bomb testing and uranium handling[2]. Clearly we need to get nuclear power out of the hands of the psychotic people in government and hand it over to citizens in the private sector who not only do not cause enormous damage to innocents and nature, but actually produce 20% of the nations energy supply. Now to restate my position: All people have the freedom to safely own nuclear weapons and it is immoral for anyone to infringe upon that freedom. I think of "freedom" as synonymous to a "right", but the word "right" has become a mystical and confusing word. 1: http://www.eia.gov... 2: http://www.usdoj.gov...

State Rights: While each state does have the own rules and requirements to marriage each state most recognize the marriage of another state. A state can’t say it not a marriage because immunity or vaccination for certain diseases was not a requirement by another state. Bans on homosexual marriage have been doing this. One state recognizes the marriage issue a marriage license. The couple moves to another state and then it not a legal marriage anymore. How is this any different than stopping people wearing blue shorts at the state line and making them change into pants? At the state border you have made the couple change from a marriage to a dating couple. http://www.wbir.com... 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. 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. Is it reasonable to allow the state to make a requirement that enables a fundamental right to be denied because of the views of a religious group? No it is not. This was already determined when states had banned interracial marriages. If you allow this were does it stop? Can states ban building permits to Jewish people? Can they ban marriage to white women? Ban brown hair people from gun permits? There has to be a line that says that is too far. 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. Many of my examples sound ridiculous because we all understand this. When it comes to homosexual marriage many people don’t see that the arguments against it are just as ridiculous as my examples. All I have done is change it the arguments to another subject matter. All of my examples are taken from real world arguments against homosexual people.

If you study the history of this country, every time the economy tanks, most Americans want to flush the immigrants down that tank. I don't think it's right to scapegoat immigrants every time the economy takes a downturn. Immigrants aren't here to become a burden to our society, but contributing members of our society. The Arizona debate exemplifies nativist rhetoric that seems to be unaware of it's own discriminatory consequences. This is not right. I don't think it's fair that a Spanish-speaking Latino like me can be asked for my papers but a blonde guy with blue eyes will be passed over. Sorry officer, my passport doesn't fit in my wallet. Are you going to ask the white guy behind me for his papers?


Question: Should the state grant citizenship to undocumented immigrants?

Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants: a controversial debate

Thank you for your response. As this is the final round, I will summarize my refutations and reiterate my arguments to demonstrate why I believe the Opposition has prevailed in this debate.

Refutations

* "He argues that their children do not belong here, but fails to justify why the 14th Amendment should be repealed." My opponent's counter-argument is unrelated to the children of illegal immigrants and focuses on illegal immigrants in general. I have provided reasons for repealing the 14th amendment, and my opponent is aware of this.
* "I ask CON how he proposes infants, babies, toddlers, and children apply for citizenship...?" They don't need citizenship at that age. Illegal immigrants have children in the United States to take advantage of automatic citizenship, which can help their parents gain citizenship more quickly. If the law is repealed, illegal immigrants will be less likely to have children here. If those children want to become American citizens, they can do so when they are older.
* "CON alleges that based on the disproportionate number of births places 'exacerbate the concerns of immigrants that feel they are being put at a disadvantage.'" Here, CON fails to describe the "concerns" immigrants would have and neglects a critical point in this debate. I have repeatedly made a point that my opponent ignores: wouldn't a legal immigrant who worked hard to become a citizen feel angry that a child of an illegal immigrant is automatically granted citizenship? These illegal immigrants should not be rewarded with citizenship for their child. A Rasmussen poll found that more Americans oppose birthright citizenship for the children of illegals than support it, indicating that legal citizens have their own concerns.
* "How can newborn infants apply for citizenship? If you don't want to deport them, but also not give them a legal status they are entitled to under the Constitution, what else would you have them do?" By repealing the birthright citizenship amendment, it deters illegal immigrants from having children here in the first place. The parent should either gain citizenship for herself and the child, leave the country, or face consequences, as they are on US soil illegally.
* "CON states that had the Framers dealt with our current situation, they would not want citizenship for the offspring of illegal immigrants. Historically, he is wrong. The Alien and Seditions Act of 1798 made similar arguments until Thomas Jefferson fought against the unconstitutionality of it, citing the abridging

Thank you for accepting.I will start by countering Con's first argument. The concept of the Mother governing her child implies only in setting rules and restrictions appropriate to raising the child. The concept of the child having no rights unless the mother decides to grant the privilege is ownership and servitude.1: OwnershipThe concept of owning another person is unconstitutional and violates the Constitution and UN laws and acts both signed and ratified by the United States.Amendment XIVAll 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.(1)The 14th Amendment claims in the following:"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property..."This implies no human may be denied his fair liberties, including life. It doesn't imply citizenship or being natural-born, or any being born. It says 'any person', so it applies to anyone who falls into the bottom definitions.Person: noun:a human being, whether man, woman, or child.:a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.(2):human, individual "sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes(3)Person: nounAs defined by the Legal Dictionary::In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, or receivers.(4)If a baby is, by definition, human, it is a person. This grants it the liberties of the 14th Amendment. If the child is human, it's also granted liberties by the United Nations. For this we must prove it's Human.[1] http://constitutioncenter.org...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...[]2: Is it Human?The sperm and egg carry 23 Chromosomes each. Human's have 46 chromosomes(5). At conception, the two create a Zygote, which has 46 Human Chromosomes. The DNA is human. By extension, this means the Zygote is human, even if it's only one cell at this time.(6,7)At conception, the Zygote is genetically human. Since our species is determined by our DNA, as evolution would support, having Human DNA makes it human. We know this because our DNA is 99% the same as a chimpanzee's. It's less than a percent that separates us.(8) With that, we know that what determines our species is if the DNA blueprint is that of a human.Being genetically human means the baby is Human, and (even by the Legal Dictionary) that the baby is a person, even at conception.[5] http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...[6] http://www.biologycorner.com...[7] http://www.healthline.com... [8] http://www.scientificamerican.com...[]3: Is the Baby alive?Being alive is determined by Biology's 7 Signs of Live. Of course those signs don't apply to a One Celled Organism. We will discuss that later.Biologist have generally accepted 4 signs, and debate on 6 others. Instead of making a list of the 10 Signs, they seem to stick with lists of 7.(9)The Signs are as follow:1- HomeostasisThe placenta helps most in Homeostasis by providing the baby with oxygen-rich blood, while hormones and body functions are handled by the babies body.(10)2- OrganizationThe cell of a Zygote has organized Organelles inside it..Since the early stages of being a Blastocyst, (usually 4-5 days of conception) the fetus is composed of many cells.(10)3- MetabolismA baby takes in a supply of nutrients through the umbilical cord, placenta, and amniotic sac. Where the baby gets it's nutrients is irrelevant. Everyone takes in an external supply, and few living things produce their own food internally, including humans.(12,13)4- GrowthThe baby will show continuous growth for 9 straight months. It starts growing from day one to the time it's born.(14)5- ResponseA baby will react to its environment like any other human. A study (in link below) revealed that a baby will move in reaction to noise. This is sign that a baby shows response to its environment.(15)6- AdaptionThe same study later found that over the course of the study, a baby would start to remember the noise, and would stop reacting to it.(15)7- ReproductionA baby is part of a species that can fully reproduce. A baby itself cannot reproduce much like a 3 year old child can't. It's not that it can't, it's that it's too young in its development to.8- ExcretionA baby does get rid of waste the normal way... While their waste is a little different than ours, it comes and goes the same way and for the same reason.Although a baby will usually hold in anything that isn't urine until birth, it can, and commonly does defecate inside the womb.(16)9- MovementA baby is known for moving. Within a relatively short period, they are kicking and twisting inside the womb.(17) 10- RespirationA fetus breaths, in a sense, the fluid around it. The lungs do not process the fluids, but the breathing is important to a fetus. The actual respiration (intake of oxygen) comes from the mother"s blood through the umbilical cord. The process of respiration is clearly found in the fetus.(18)We find that a baby follows all 10 possible signs of life that Biologists accept. The baby fitting into all 10 signs means it's alive.To determine if a One Celled Organism is alive, scientists place it in a medium it can live in. If it's begins cell division, it's considered alive. Since, when put in the proper medium, a Zygote begins cell division, we know it's alive even at that stage.As a one celled organism, the Zygote is determined alive and human, and continues to be as it progresses. Ending the life of a living human without a probably cause or with a reasonable doubt is murder and a violation of Human Rights.[9] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[10] http://www.healthcaremagic.com...[11] http://www.nlm.nih.gov...[12] http://www.livestrong.com...[13] http://www.reproduction-online.org...[14] http://www.babycenter.com...[15] http://abcnews.go.com...[16] http://www.fitpregnancy.com...[17] http://www.whattoexpect.com...[18] http://www.livestrong.com... []3: The Universal Declaration of Human RightsThe Universal Declaration of Human Rights, both signed and ratified by the United States, says in the following Articles.Article IIEveryone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.Article VIEveryone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.Article IIIEveryone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.Article II claims that everyone (all humans) have the rights listed in the Declaration without distinction of any kind. Article VI says that even if you don't like it, the Government must recognize everyone (all humans) as persons. Article III says everyone has the right to Life and Liberty.(19)With this, we can conclude the following;:The Zygote is genetically Human. :Therefore; The Zygote must be recognized as a person, and is granted all rights in the Declaration. :Therefore; The Zygote is granted Right to Life and Liberty.:Therefore; Abortion is a Violation of Human Rights by violating the rights of a Zygote as is determined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.:The Baby is genetically Human. :Therefore; The Baby must be recognized as a person, and is granted all rights in the Declaration. :Therefore; The Baby is granted right to Life and Liberty.:Therefore; Abortion is a Violation of Human Rights by violating the rights of a Baby as is determined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.Before I pass it on to Con...Return to Section 1: OwnershipThe 13th Amendment of the Declaration of Independence and Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:The 13th AmendmentNeither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.(1)Article 4No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.(19)Servitude::A state of subjection to an owner or master.(20)Since servitude is the act of being owned or lacking freedom, and servitude is Illegal, it would be both unconstitutional and illegal for a mother to own their child. As is written in the Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the human Baby is recognized as it's own person, granted Right to Liberty and Life, outside the mother's control.[19] http://www.un.org...[20] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[]=======================I now pass it on.

I apologize for not being able to say anything in the last round i was having a busy schedule which included debating at Harvard between Friday-Monday, and then having school and debate on Tuesday, which brought us to today. I would also like to just ask my opponent why he knows i was on here 16 hours ago, just asking. Please read the rest of this message, it is very important and is a HUGE voting issue in this round. Extend all of MY arguments because he never answered them, all of his arguments are invalid because i have proven that nothing is wrong with birthright citizenship. AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT: IT SEEMS MY OPPONENT CAN NOT READ, HE IS ON THE CON SIDE OF THIS RESOLUTION, AND ALL OF HIS ARGUMENTS ARE FOR THE PRO, BECAUSE OF THIS, I OBVIOUSLY WIN BECAUSE HE AGREES WITH ME. THIS COULD POSSIBLY BE EVEN MORE IMPORTANT: I WANTED TO BE NICE AND TELL HIM THIS NOW, BUT IMAGINE IF I DIDN'T, WE WOULD GO THROUGH THIS ENTIRE DEBATE WITH BOTH OF US ARGUING FOR THE SAME SIDE, WHICH IS MINE, HE IS LUCKY I BROUGHT THIS UP.

Undocumented Democrats are here illegally. Humans have the right to life but humans can lose the right. If someone invades your home you can't just sit there. Just like illegals there taking our food jobs women turning white kids into white gangsters. There just like home take over robbers! We can shoot theves who are stealing our stuff. The Undocumented Democrats have a right to life if their legal or in their country! Undocumented Democrats don't have consititual rights because there not here legally! It would not be murder it would be justified. The illegals striked first in coming here expecting free everything. God lets people kill. The commandments ment not to unlawfully kill. Illegals are here illegaly and its lawful to kill em. Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12) Kill Witches You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17) Kill Fortunetellers A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 ) Death for Hitting Dad Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15) You can kill it must be lawful! Undocumented dumbocrats need to be shot i prove it.

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...

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...

The drean act would benefit The United States.

- Now each of these has a reason. The reasin you have to be born here is b/c that nonborn here cittizens are firstly citizens of another country and might have other prioritys than what are best for our country. that is what a Presidents job is; to do do what is best for our country. + It should be the citizens of America who decide that. Look at Arnold Swarzwenegger, he was born in Europe and has done a great job at governer of California but will never be able to help the American people as president. - The citizen is b/c of dual citizenship. A person might be vacationing from france here in...Las Vgas. And they have a baby there that baby is a dual citizen. When its 18 it will choose what country to live in and then it will get naturalized. + I don't understand your point. I should not have to respond to something that I cannot understand. Anyway, if you are born here, you are a citizen. This qualification is irrelevant and Americans should be able to decide. - And the 35 is for maturity reasons. The job of president is a really IMPORTANT job the most important in the country. And for our country we want the best suited for the job. A 25 year old person who just got our of college and isn't fully matured isn't best for the job. you need experience for the job. Now remember the President runs the country for atleast the next 4 years. Alot can happen when a inexperienced, younggun is living in the White House. + Explain why Americans cannot decide this. There are some 10years old that are more mature than some 35 year olds. Look at Bobby Brown, OJ Simpson, etc. People don't just suddenly become mature when they are 35. When you are 34, why not be allowed to run for president? - your last statement,: " the beginning of America, the president discriminated as well, blacks, women, non- protestants, and the poor were barred from running." Now the only thing i have to say to that is it isn't "the beginning of America" anymore. Just look at the two leading Democratic runners. A black, muslim man, Obama, and a woman, Clinton. + I agree. Discrimination should stop and you just conceeded that! I win!!! I win!!!I win!!! -Now for your last statement,: " if a younger person wants to run for president and stand for youth rights, they should be allowed to" That young person should... run for congress(which the age limit is 25) Then for Senate(The age limit is 30) and if he still desires run again for president this way he/she would have more experience and be more mature to be our leader. + Why should that person be forced to choose? HEY!!! HE WONT BE FIGHTING FOR YOUTH RIGHTS IF HE IS NO LONGER YOUTHFUL!!!

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.

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: "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." The point I was making on American prisons has nothing to do with the number of illegals living in the country, it has to due with the fact that are illegals in American prisons that WE the registered citizens of this country are paying for when they should not be here in the first place. That fact that WE pay for them to be in our prisons is bad and that they should be deported. So my opponent's first rebuttal falls right there. Then my opponent turns to Newt Gingrich and his plan to get rid of illegal immigrants living in the country that provide a threat to our nation. Despite his plan, Newt is not the president, Obama is. Rebuttal 2: First off, I would like to say that my opponent has placed no links in the rebuttal he/she made. Thus, there is no evidence for her to backup on that what she is saying is actually true. "This human capital can come in the form of not only illegal immigrants working in the jobs that no one wants to work in,...." I am sure the 9% unemployed really want to work in jobs right now to get money to live. "....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." This would take the opportunities citizens in the country who wants to go school and get education. One problem with my opponent's statement is that he/she first states that the illegal immigrants could work for jobs no one wants. I would assume that these are low income jobs. Then my opponent states that illegal immigrants have the opportunity to go to acquire diplomas and so on. So if an illegal immigrant is on a low income job how do they afford college? Not many illegal immigrants have enough money and are educated enough for these jobs, unless they are doing good in the country they live in which makes no sense for them to leave it. From my opponent's argument you can conclude one way that illegals can afford college and that is welfare. As I have already stated before *with evidence* 70% of Texas' illegal immigrant are on the welfare system. Now my opponent has provided no evidence (as I have stated before) so we do not even know the demographics of illegals going to colleges and getting educations that provide them go to into the business, law, and medical sectors. Also, in an economic depression you cut back and can only hire so few and if illegal immigrants are taking job that are needed by actual citizens as well as downsizing wages for those lower class jobs then that means they are not providing a benefit to the nation. My arguments still stand that Americans also lose money for paying a whopping $52 billion on illegals in the education system. Rebuttal 3: While the PATRIOT Act is in place, the lack of a fence on our southern border still allows them to infiltrate the country as well as the cartels. We need to stop them from getting in our country by cutting off this route and making locations where people can cross from border to border if they have the certain things needed to.