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

Resolved: The United States Should Adopt a Selective Border Policy

The US cannot sustain an influx of unskilled immigrants without proper screening. Con does not dispute that there are millions of refugees in dire situations who would benefit from relocating to the US. However, he does not address the fact that with open borders, there would be no significant barrier to their relocation, and there are ample resources to move them all to the US. The US would receive a large number of predominantly poor, unskilled, poorly educated, and non-English-speaking refugees overnight. Con argues that this will increase housing prices, which could benefit those selling houses. But how will the refugees get the money to buy housing? Their primary source would be welfare paid for by taxes. Welfare funded by high taxes adds no value to society. It takes money that would otherwise be invested and uses it to boost prices without adding value. Consumption is increased for the immigrants, but all the money for increasing it is taken from people who can neither invest nor consume with that money taken by taxes. It's not plausible that adding millions of refugees would boost the economy.

Con claims that millions would move to the US permanently. Those who would like to move temporarily would be at least twice that number. "More than one in four adults worldwide (26%) say they would like to go to another country for temporary work, according to Gallup surveys in 119 countries in 2009 and 2010. This figure is nearly twice the 14% worldwide who say they would like to migrate permanently to another country if they could and translates into roughly 1.1 billion adults." [15. http://www.gallup.com...] Some would prefer other countries, but the premise for this debate is that only the US adopts open borders, so they would have no other option than to travel to the US. Some would stay, but it's likely that many more than would travel to the US given it was the only option. Con did not question the claim that airfare was an insignificant obstacle, so they'll just travel. Once everyone understands that there is immediate free education and emergency room health care, and a median $28,500 welfare package available within a few years, the numbers would likely increase.

The resolution forces selective immigration by the definition of controlled borders. Limiting immigration by setting up quotas for groups to prevent too many from coming is not an open borders policy; it is a policy of immigration quotas.

Mostly unsk

Hello Because my 2nd round was so rushed, and my 3rd round was so filled to the brim, with literally 0 characters remaining, with new information I would like to go back and talk about some of the points that I was unable to talk about before now. I would like to first start with round 3, and will be discrediting your source the Center for Immigration Studies, now just to let you know, I don't just discredit sources because they are on the liberals side, or the conservative side. They must show that they are willing to intentionally falsify their information, have proven their incompetence, and or have a clear conflict of interest contributing to bias reporting, such as fanatical, racial, and the like. I am afraid that CIS, is not a very reliable source, according to www.splcenter.org, (Sothern Poverty Law Center) "But the reality is that CIS has never found any aspect of immigration that it liked, and it has frequently manipulated data to achieve the results it seeks. Its executive director last fall posted an item on the conservative National Review Online (which brings that source of yours into question) website about Washington Mutual, a bank that had earlier issued a press release about its inclusion on a list of "Business Diversity Elites" compiled by Hispanic Business magazine. Over a copy of the bank's press release, the CIS leader posted a headline " "Cause and Effect?" " that suggested a link between the bank's opening its ranks to Latinos and its subsequent collapse." The founder of the Center has even been linked to nearly all major white supremacist groups as well as being a major advocate for the forced sterilization of "undesirables" So I wouldn't trust their statistic that say the wall will save us anything, Much less as you called it, "an investment that would pay for itself very quickly." And if the National Review is willing to publish from such an unreliable source, than maybe they aren't so reliable themselves. Especially when the author of your NR story admitted "I"m a journalism major, so my math is always suspect " and there was some outright guesswork involved." You said, "As I previously stated, we would institute a merit based system that would allow in someone who would fit well in the United States." Who would decide who would fit well into a country as diverse, in every meaning of the word, as ours? Trump? Well that would be great news for Norwegians that want to move in. Which leads us to wonder, who would we allow in, in this "merit" based system that Trump has suggested, because before you give him this power, you should really take a good look at his record, even before his presidency. It doesn't matter what you want or support, what matters is whether you support the person who is making the decisions and what he wants. And he has made it clear that he want's them all out. (except for dreamers, in which he has been using them as political hostages against the Dems) Let's move on to this round. You started by talking about the Special force, attempting to get over the prototypes of the wall, and you had a pretty good source this time. honestly I can't fully prove it's accuracy or inaccuracy, however, I will point out, that because the wall's level of testing and structural is at this point, not available for the public, we can only go by what the 2 sources that the AP used, and they not only are employees of the "your fired", and "Democrats are treasonous because they didn't clap for me" guy, but they also leave us in the dark, about what the testing really entailed. (because, why would you scale the wall, which is the only way they, mentioned) when you could climb it with a latter?) And what did Mr. Judd mean when he said, not many people are going to attempt to go over 30 feet? I would want to attempt it for fun, much less if I needed to go somewhere so importantly that I would be willing to dangerously attempt to cross one of the most militarized borders between 2 non at war nations in the world. Who have armed guards who have proven that some of them are willing to shoot with little provocation. To your point about how to build the wall, Trump might build the wall the way you have said, but he hasn't given us any information supporting your idea, and even if he did, those would be the places that the drug mules. and those attempting to sneak into the country would avoid at all cost. "fight the enemy where they aren't" Sun Tzu. You must remember, those who are trying to get in, aren't attacking, which is what the middle age walls where for, large armies. They are on a stealth mission, which means taking time to go through the tough locations. Perhaps I wasn't clear in my last round, (my apologies) when I said, that we would be effectively, seceding the Rio Grand, what I was saying is that a giant barrier would get in the way of the US's ability to get at the water, and if Trump follows precedent (which is what most people in politics do) with George Bush's fence, than no one would be permitted to cross the wall, effectively loosing that land for the public. I wasn't saying that we would be moving the official border, I was saying that it would be much more difficult to use the river, and it would leave the border towns without running water for a while, while they live in the desert. It would be worse than Flint, Unless if their are enough access gates to let every pipe that leads to the river through, which is thousands. On top of that the US, couldn't risk letting the building of the wall pollute the river as construction of one of the world's biggest infrastructure projects would most likely would, as well as mess with the fish. Plus we don't wish to provoke Mexico, all would mean that they would need to build the wall inland, away from the river, and border, which would cut into the towns, protected environmental areas, and Native American lands. In which if you look at the demographics of the districts on the border, they overwhelmingly where opposed to Trump, with only 7 border districts voting for him. I agree with you by the way, they aren't stupid. You failed to explain what you think Trump would do to those who refuse to give up their privet lands. Many won't give up their homes. (some in which the wall would have to go right through, especially when taking towns into consideration) Your quote by John Kelly basically said, that they knew about the damage but if you remember what Ned Norrice Jr. said, you would see that they didn't care that much, about the damage they where doing. And with Trump assigning Mr. Pruitt as EPA director, (if your not aware, he has basically spent his professional life trying to fight the EPA and hates what it stands for) we can be pretty certain that they won't get involved in trying to limit, what I mentioned before, is a massive project, that would destroy Native American artifacts (including religious) (just like with what happened with DAPL) and prevent many animals, including the 111 endangered ones from being able to get to the river, and possibly going into human settlements out of desperation. You mentioned Access gates, for the reservations, but you failed to account for the fact that we would be building something that they don't want, and that the gates would be guarded by Americans. For the natives who have sovereignty over the land, this could easily be considered invasion, Especially if the Guardian's reports are true, and they already deal with harassment from the BP. And being hunted by armed Americans, might be something that they can empathies with. I believe that I already refuted your sources earlier in this round, and would like to bring up how you said "When you lump in all immigrants ranging those from the legal immigrant from the UK to the illegal immigrant you are going to water down the statistic" The source as I stated with my official percentages, was from the non partisan American Immigration Council. And they (as their name suggest) use American statistics on both Illegal and legal immigrants. Not the UK Unforchantly We come again to the fact that Trump has been committing mass deportations, and is unlikely to care about what you specially would support for those who are here, following the laws, and working. He deports them ether way. Which is a shame, because as I sighted before, they help our economy by nearly 100 Billion a year. Or how many businesses we would loose. (like another recession) Which I note you didn't try to refute. And I didn't even mention the increased price of many goods, and services. This doesn't even include the taxes they pay, or how much they contribute to Social Security funds. Which would increase if Trump would let them become legal, rather than decreasing the amount of people who can be accepted. We would be increasing enforcers, while illegal immigration is decreasing, (CBP) and the majority of people trying to come in now, are refugees, running for their and their families life's, and would be more than happy to contribute to the country that saved them. We turn down a lot of refuges, and they become illegal to survive. Some of them, who we have turned down even would help against the cartels. Trumps plan on how to man the Wall is a bad Idea to, with the massive increase of border agents, even after what happened last time. And I haven't even mentioned how a wall won't stop cartels from sending drugs over the border by means of sling shot, tunnels, or even passing it through the steel poles that makes the wall see through, effectively making it a relay race. You also didn't mention how trump is going to deal with the attempts to stop him by way of DAPL stile resistance. (with good legal positioning) And yes I did just shoe horn a bunch of arguments in because I am out of space again. (what can I say, their is a lot of problems with this wall) I would also like to say, when I called out Trumps racism, I called only him out, not the entire party.-DIT

When you said that the US immigration is biased, you were wrong. They cannot let anyone into the United States, they perform background checks and extensive paperwork for each person. If it is the cost that is a problem, it is still not okay to sneak across the border. If you honestly think that there could be the slightest biased agent, maybe you should think again. There have been many laws passed that support the immigration to the United States. As said at this website:http://nafbpo.org...There are four reasons, none of which are specific to certain races, genders, ect.

Ok, evidently I don't believe that I explained myself well enough in the last round because you still seem to spin my words to fit your agenda. So for one more time I will say it again in order to appease you and the several people who commented on our debate. All white people are not against Black people and all white people are not wealthy and have control over the lives of Blacks! With that being said I continue to feel that you are missing my point. Although there are some whites who are ok I am speaking in terms of a nation. For example, when the issue of abortion was a sensitive and very fragile current issue there was a loud, dramatic, emotional outcry on the behalf of many whites who felt that it should be outlawed! My question to you is, "Where is that outcry from whites when it comes to issues of racism, poverty, freedom, equality and justice?" It simply doesn't exist. There are no protests, picketers, marches, and frequent dialogue about those issues and that simply means that it isn't that important of an issue which makes the rest of white americans just as guilty as the blatant white supremacists. Let me ask you another question. If you see a crime taking place such as an old lady being mugged for her purse are you not just as guilty if you sit back and grab a bucket of popcorn instead of calling the police or doing something about it? Yes, you are just as guilty as the thief and I believe that is the issue that influences my ideas. We as a people are tired of being mistreated and people just stand by and watch from the comfortability of their homes. So as an answer to the problem of being sick and tired of being sick and tired I feel that we need population numbers great enough in size to either make an impact by taking it to the streets or by an overwhelming number of votes, and that takes me back to the real issue at hand. Blacks should be in favor of immigration both legal and allegedly illegal due to the fact that it provides a possible solution to issues of extreme importance through the power of numbers. Last but not least notice that towards the end of my last paragraph I used the term allegedly illegal when referring to Hispanic immigration which brings me to my next point. Say for instance you own a supermarket and business isn't superb but its good. A mob then comes into your supermarket, picks a fight with you and throws you out of your own store. Due to the fact that you are outnumbered and outpowered you say nothing about it for a period of time. But come to find out a few years down the road those mobsters turned your supermarket into a billion dollar industry. Do you not feel the need to be compensated? Do you not feel the need to go to trial and file a lawsuit? Of course you do and any honest person would say the same. This is the very same predicament that Hispanics find themselves in right now in 21st century America. So Hispanics can just as much benefit from our help as we can from theirs, and to form a coalition is not only a great idea but it is a necessary idea that needs to be brought into fruition. If Blacks and Browns can unify and achieve that goal we can then work toward a better America hand in hand with our fellow whites because then we will all be on a level playing field! Thanks for taking the time to listen and respond to this discussion.

i do not think that my opponent understands that his arguments are FOR the abolition of birthright citizenship, that is why i have not answered them, if you do not agree, i will explain. 1. Illegal babies are harmful to the economy- this is a Pro point because this is saying that yes birthright citizenship hurts the economy so we should abolish it. 2. its hypocritical, basically that it should be earned- also a Pro point, it proves that we should not have birthright citizenship and that it should be earned. 3. other countries don't have this right- exactly, other countries dont have this right, so why should we have it? 4. it promotes racism- this contention is not well enough explained, so i believe i know what my opponent is saying, and yes, you guessed it, its a Pro argument. This shows that when you abolish birthright citizenship, you are harming the welfare of average people, which is a Pro point. I would like to ask my opponent, Do you understand the resolution? you are saying that it shouldn't be abolished not that it should. Now, read your case, obviously, you are arguing for the Pro, so my opponent agrees with me so i have to win because he even agrees with me. Thank you.

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?

Everyone knows illegals are taking jobs. Everyone! You just going to let someone steal from you? It is morally legal to shoot an invader. Everyone knows this. You will lose your rgihts if you infringe on the rights of others! Like the right to property and white kids.'Pro offers us some Biblical passages but then he does not explain what they have to offer on this debate"Uhhhhhhh bro you brought it up!I proved killing undocumented democris moral and should happen.

come on man why cant the person become a citizen then? whats the point of citizenship then?

Well think about this, at Six Flags Great Adventure, some people can get flash passes which is a pass where you can cut some people in order to get on the ride faster than them. The people that have the flash pass have to pay a little extra but they get to go on a rides more than the people that don't have it. So that flash pass is like being born in the country, which is like automatic citizenship. The people that are born here are born on their native land which should make them automatic citizens. Whether its fair or not, life is not fair. The people born in the United States are born on this ground, which is there native land which should make them citizens. Even though some people have to take a test, its in the United States Constitution. Our fore fathers wrote it which they want there kids, and there kids kids to pass that on. They want it to make sure it stays with the country forever. It was strictly written for the citizens that live in the United States and for them to follow it. It might not seem fair for other people but they are coming to this country to start a new life or opportunity for themselves. Which means they are coming on new soil to which is the United States. These people have to earn it if they come from a different country. We the people should follow the United States Constitution and not do anything to change it.

Refutations 1. I am slightly confused as to what my opponent is truly arguing. Instead of wondering about what my family roots are, or citing a movie, I would appreciate if you could make the argument more clear. However, correct me if I am wrong, I believe you are arguing that America is a land of freedom, free of prosecution, and free of religious intolerance. If so, I argue that these people are not American citizens and they realize it. They do not deserve to live in our extremely tolerant land when they themselves are not true citizens, but illegal immigrants. And their children certainly do not either. If you claim that America is so free, then why does the Constitution, the very document that defines America, contain the three-fifths slave law and the prohibition of outlawing the Atlantic slave trade [1]? I do not understand how my opponent refuted my argument and thus, it still stands. 2. So what's so problematic with legal children citizens of illegal immigrants becoming illegal citizens? All they need to do is become legal citizens, which is what true immigrants to the United States and other countries do. It's not that big of a deal. "According to the Pew Research Center, 8% of all newborns, 5.4% of the total workforce, and 4% of the total US population are attributed to illegal immigrants. " This debate has little to do with actual illegal immigrants, but more about the children they produce and their citizenship. I feel that most of my opponent's arguments are focused on illegal immigration in it's entirety. I personally believe that illegal immigrants are bad and have a negative effect, but that is useless in this specific debate. 3. No, it is not just about Hispanic immigration, but the Hispanics make up the largest percentage (more than half) of illegal immigrations to the US [2]. My opponent asks what the problem with a disproportionate amount of births is. Here is my response. Because illegal immigrants have the power to procreate in the United States and to bring new citizens into the union, they exacerbate the concerns of immigrants that feel they are being put at a disadvantage. "Why not simply get rid of the entitlement programs, but keep the people who have just come here to provide their family the best opportunity possible? Immigrants to the US in the past had to be self-reliant, learned to be self-reliant, and were some of the most enterprising individuals on the face of the earth. " We are not "getting rid" of or deporting the people who have birthright citizenship, but simply forcing them to obtain true citizenship instead of automatic citizenship of no charge. Plus, these are the children of illegal immigrants who have disrespected US' laws and immigrated here illegally, only to have a legal child who can put in a word for them when they are persecuted due to illegality. In the second sentence, the key word my opponent mentioned is "immigrant. " He never mentioned illegal immigrants and I would like him to cite any illegal aliens that became "the most enterprising individuals on the face of the earth. " "The welfare state, with the promise of instant subsistence, is the real enemy, not immigration itself. " I do not see why the welfare state should be eliminated. Sure, illegal immigrants will no longer exploit or take advantage of the public benefits, but the benefits are taken away from the legal citizens and public who need programs in public health and public housing and unemployment compensation. Illegal immigrant parents, not the United States government, are to blame for immigrating illegally and deciding to give birth to a child in the United States. The consequences to their children are a result of their folly, not of the government for deciding to end birthright citizenship. "Secondly, the United States is very selective with whom they'll turn a bind (blind) eye too, versus who they will allow to come in. " Well, this probably means we simply need to be more fair and less selective. But, this argument is, like the previous one, focusing on illegal immigration which is irrelevant to the topic, birthright citizenship. Arguments 1. The writers of the 14th amendment, if they had known of our situation, would not want birthright citizenship for illegals. If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not. 2. Birthright citizenship is outdated and came from a period of less immigration. The guarantee of birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment came in a time when our borders were wide open and international travel was more difficult. When a family came here they usually intended to settle and stay, not have a child to lay a foothold down and put in a word for them. 3. Once again, birthright citizenship is unfair to true legal citizens. What about those who waited in lines and worked hard and studied hard to learn U. S. history and pass the test to become a real citizen? Birthright citizenship is simply a slap in the face to them. The concept of a pair of illegals having a child in the US and having him or her automatically be born as a citizen is absurd and unfair. 4. The illegal behavior of parents should not be awarded. While it is true that denying the child of an illegal immigrant birthright citizenship is harmful to the child, it is also true that giving them birthright citizenship rewards a mother for having willfully broken US law. Such a reward is unjust and unfair, and undermines the US rule of law. So, this is not about punishing children, it is about not rewarding illegal behavior. 5. Birthright citizenship encourages illegal families to have children in the United States. I have already expanded on this in the previous round. 6. A majority of Americans oppose birthright citizenship. Rasmussen took a poll in June of 2010, asking people if they thought children of illegal immigrants should have citizenship. Fifty-eight percent said no and only 33 percent said yes [3]. My opponent has frequently spoken about illegal immigration and not the main subject of birthright citizenship. I would like him to focus more on the matter at hand and the topic I posted, instead of illegal immigration. If you would like to debate illegal immigration, PARADIGM_L0ST, I would be very happy to do so in the future, but not now. I look forward to the next round. Sources: 1. . http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://www.nationalreview.com...

I agree the immigration system is broken, but probably not entirely in the same way as you. It is true that the children of illegal immigrants are more likely (though less than the native population) to know English than their parents (see above sources). However, the children of illegal immigrants are more likely to commit violent crime, be in a gang, live in poverty, etc more than their illegal Hispanic parents. They actually go backwards in the 2nd and 3rd generation (see above source). Is increased poverty and violent crime a benefit to the United States? Not to mention that a majority of illegal immigrants are from Mexico where over a majority of them actually have treason like positions about the US Southwest (see above source). Again what benefit is this to the United States instead of scaring them out with laws and deporting those who stayed like was done in the 1950s and is being done now (and has succeeded) in AZ and AL where most self deported (8,9). They were and would educated at the taxpayers expense. What is a human right and how do you define/justify them? How and why should it be a right to stay in a country which didn't invite you to stay and live. That makes borders meaningless. No other country in the world is as liberal as the United States on immigration as the US (in fact way too liberal I would argue since the 1960s) yet Mexico for instance throws, robs, beats, and sometimes kills its illegal immigrants from people that speak the same language and are of a similar racial group! What does a child's brain and its lack of certain abilities have to do with if the Dream Act is beneficial to the United States or not verse other alternatives? Lastly, this is not exactly a "nation of immigrants". The nation was founded by pioneers with some conquest, not immigrants. The vast majority of people in the US are natives and did not immigrants from somewhere else. And the amount of immigration was severely restricted, especially before the 60s. The first Immigration Act passed in 1790 restricted citizenship to "free white persons" (10). Up until the 1960s the immigration policy put severe limits on the amount of immigrants from non European/white countries (11). 8. http://www.tshaonline.org... 9. http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.reuters.com... 10. http://www.enotes.com... 11. http://www.thenagain.info...


Question: Should the State Grant Pathways to Citizenship for Undocumented Immigrants?

Should the United States provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently residing in the country? The answer is no, considering that when unauthorized individuals enter the country, they often take on low-wage jobs at the risk of being discovered by the U.S. government. By occupying these positions, they are depriving American citizens, who are already facing high unemployment rates (as per the Bureau of Labor Statistics), of potential jobs that could provide for their families. Moreover, the notion of offering jobs, welfare, housing assistance, food aid, and student loans to these individuals is legally unjustifiable. Why should we reward them for entering the country unlawfully and taking away jobs and resources from lawful citizens? Common sense suggests that if someone under your jurisdiction violates the law, you do not reward their actions. This year, half a million fewer students enrolled in colleges across the country, but the number of Latino students increased by 447,000, with 17% of these students being undocumented immigrants from the southern border of the U.S. In 2012, the number of Latino students enrolled reached an all-time high of 3.4 million (NPR.org). By permitting undocumented immigrants to remain in the country, they are not only siphoning off government support or low-paying jobs, but they are also taking educational opportunities from students and competing for higher-paying jobs with legal American citizens. Our nation is funded by taxes, and for every transaction undocumented immigrants make, the country as a whole loses money, whether it be income tax or healthcare expenses. Although it might appear beneficial for businesses to hire undocumented workers to save on costs, this practice is ultimately detrimental to our nation, as 11% of all lower and middle-class workers are undocumented immigrants (NPR.org). Granting them citizenship would only exacerbate the situation. Ultimately, rewarding undocumented immigrants for breaking our laws is counterproductive, as jobs are being lost, colleges are being overcrowded, and taxes are being evaded. Providing these individuals with citizenship would only harm the U.S. more in the long run. When undocumented immigrants residing in the U.S. are granted citizenship, it encourages more people from other countries to enter illegally in hopes of obtaining free citizenship. While granting amnesty might provide a temporary economic boost to the U.S., it will ultimately lead to our downfall.

My opponent bases his position on four contentions outlined above. I will begin by explaining why each of these arguments are deeply flawed and then present a counter argument that justifies the constitutions stance that all presidential candidates should be naturally born US citizens. C1) USA: The land of opportunity Pro presents an argument that sounds very good. It would be wonderful for all hard working immigrants to have all of the same opportunities as the rest of us, however the major issue with this argument is that it comes from the opposite angle from where this decision should be made. 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. While it is nice to do so, it is not the responsibility of the US to cater to the rest of the world. Our laws should not be based with those intentions. My counter argument will address what is best for the US. C2) People should have a right to run for office Pro states that all citizens should have equal rights. The “right” we are discussing is the eligibility to run for President. Since all natural citizens have this right the only question is about immigrants. Immigrants are people who come from other countries. It is again not the responsibility of the US to provide rights to anyone but Americans. If we choose to offer citizenship as a nation that is our choice. There is no reason why any particular right should be considered a requirement that must go along with this offer. If we as a nation determine that there is a justified reason to deny certain rights to people coming over from other countries then it is certainly justified that we do so. C3) Archaic law Pros explanation of the original intent of the law on this issue is correct. While the circumstances have changed, much of the basic reasoning behind it still remains, as my counter argument will address. Pro refers to this as a 300 year old law. Yes it is. So is innocent until proven guilty, freedom of the press, the right to remain silent, etc… The age of the law is irrelevant to the discussion. C4) People should have a right to vote for who they want This is perhaps the strongest of Pros contentions. The idea that people should have a right to vote for whomever they choose to lead them. This is a very important right. However, just as freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and other rights, there are always limitations that need to be made. Policies and laws are made for a reason, and that reason must always be made from a general standpoint first. It is easy to say that a certain limitation doesn’t make sense in one particular situation but these limitations exist to ensure overall good, even if it seems to do the opposite at times. For example, when you go to an airport you are sure to have to pass through a metal detector, but suppose grandma is old and frail and has trouble passing through them. It might seem like a waste of time for someone to stop, grab a hand scanner, take her to the side and scan her. Does anyone think grandma is a terrorist? But the fact that they stop everyone regardless of what the situation ensures there is no loophole for someone to sneak bombs and knives onto a plane. This example demonstrates the need to have certain laws and policies that should be in place and followed at all times. Laws like this exist to protect against the worst of situations. It is true that people will be able to see for themselves whether the person they vote for is best for the country. But there are many things people don’t see. If there is an objective reason to conclude that having an immigrant as President could potentially be more harmful then a natural US citizen, then there is justified reasoning to limit the candidate pool to only natural US citizens. Counter Argument Being that I have already debated this resolution which is in fact what prompted this challenge, I will simply repeat my opening argument and leave it for my opponent to decide how to refute it: To outline my case I will provide the following syllogism: 1. Changes to Presidential requirements should be made to increase the likelihood of US success 2. Success requires Presidential decisions to be made based solely on US interests. 3. People have a natural loyalty to the land in which they originate. 4. People who have a natural loyalty to a foreign land will be more likely to include foreign interests in their decision making. 5. The proposed changes will not increase the likelihood ofUS success. I would define US success as providing the best life possible for US citizens. Part 1 is self explanatory and part 5 is the conclusion so this argument boils down to points 2, 3, and 4. A person who is born on a foreign land will be more likely to have a sense of loyalty to that land, particularly if they are raised there. This can be a very problematic scenario when a President is forced to make a tough decision that may involve that nation. Imagine if George W. Bush was born in Afghanistan, or if Obama was born in Haiti. Whether war or foreign aid, a President must make his decisions considering only the viewpoint of the American people. Regardless of what allegiances we pledge to we are all human beings, we can not pledge away our nature. The President of the United States is the person we look to for leadership. It is their responsibility to make the decisions that will guide this nation. There is no true way to know what direction that President will take us in until they are already elected. Politicians are notorious for making empty promises or changing their positions once they are in office, and are even more notorious for rationalizing irrational decisions. Their motives are impossible to accurately determine so the constitution rightfully takes precautions to guard against one of the most dangerous scenarios this country could possibly face; a leader with compromised motives. Pro is arguing to remove this precaution.Conclusion Pro made a strong case as to why it would be wonderful for immigrants to be eligible to run for President. However, the US must base its laws on what is best for the country not what is best for the immigrants that come here, or for the people who want to go out and vote for somebody like Arnold Schwarzenegger. My argument shows what the US must base its decisions on and how denying immigrants the right to run for President is what is best.

Ok, evidently I don't believe that I explained myself well enough in the last round because you still seem to spin my words to fit your agenda. So for one more time I will say it again in order to appease you and the several people who commented on our debate. All white people are not against Black people and all white people are not wealthy and have control over the lives of Blacks! With that being said I continue to feel that you are missing my point. Although there are some whites who are ok I am speaking in terms of a nation. For example, when the issue of abortion was a sensitive and very fragile current issue there was a loud, dramatic, emotional outcry on the behalf of many whites who felt that it should be outlawed! My question to you is, "Where is that outcry from whites when it comes to issues of racism, poverty, freedom, equality and justice?" It simply doesn't exist. There are no protests, picketers, marches, and frequent dialogue about those issues and that simply means that it isn't that important of an issue which makes the rest of white americans just as guilty as the blatant white supremacists. Let me ask you another question. If you see a crime taking place such as an old lady being mugged for her purse are you not just as guilty if you sit back and grab a bucket of popcorn instead of calling the police or doing something about it? Yes, you are just as guilty as the thief and I believe that is the issue that influences my ideas. We as a people are tired of being mistreated and people just stand by and watch from the comfortability of their homes. So as an answer to the problem of being sick and tired of being sick and tired I feel that we need population numbers great enough in size to either make an impact by taking it to the streets or by an overwhelming number of votes, and that takes me back to the real issue at hand. Blacks should be in favor of immigration both legal and allegedly illegal due to the fact that it provides a possible solution to issues of extreme importance through the power of numbers. Last but not least notice that towards the end of my last paragraph I used the term allegedly illegal when referring to Hispanic immigration which brings me to my next point. Say for instance you own a supermarket and business isn't superb but its good. A mob then comes into your supermarket, picks a fight with you and throws you out of your own store. Due to the fact that you are outnumbered and outpowered you say nothing about it for a period of time. But come to find out a few years down the road those mobsters turned your supermarket into a billion dollar industry. Do you not feel the need to be compensated? Do you not feel the need to go to trial and file a lawsuit? Of course you do and any honest person would say the same. This is the very same predicament that Hispanics find themselves in right now in 21st century America. So Hispanics can just as much benefit from our help as we can from theirs, and to form a coalition is not only a great idea but it is a necessary idea that needs to be brought into fruition. If Blacks and Browns can unify and achieve that goal we can then work toward a better America hand in hand with our fellow whites because then we will all be on a level playing field! Thanks for taking the time to listen and respond to this discussion.

Kalieth, did you have an error message appear we you tried to view this debate, as I did? I believe that a border fence is necessary if we want to better our nation before extending help to other countries. We, as citizens of The United States, need to prevent immigrants coming ILLEGALY. I am all for expanding the culture of our young people by introducing them to new groups of people from across the globe, as long as these people did break the law by coming over. We have immigration laws for good reason. Good people creating and enforcing good laws for the American public. All nations have these laws with the same expectations. Our laws and enforcement don't harm these people. Choosing to break our laws may be the lesser evil. However they have still chosen to break our laws. A border fence, while it may seem expensive, will create jobs, not just building it but maintaing it as well. Look at Asia's great walls. They were meant to keep the northern tribesman from invading. Now I am not implying that Mexico is trying to "invade us" but criminals are flooding over every day, drugs, sex trafficking, gangs.

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'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...

While you make some fair points on pro immigration, I believe they also cause an extreme amount of problems in any country. And the U.S ESPECIALLY needs way less immigration because it hurts the middle class worker. Common sense, economic theory, and a fair reading of the research on this question show that allowing in so many immigrants (legal and illegal) with relatively little education reduces the wages and job prospects for Americans with little education. (witch is about 41% btw) Not to mention all the crimes committed by immigrants, with 193 homicide convictions last year alone.

I have made my point and tma1265 didn't rebuttal. I believe illegal immigrants are good because they help our economy. Illegal immigrants work for low payment then regular workers. Illegal immigrants make up a huge chunk in our work force. I already proved my point in round 1 and I have summarized it again.

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.

While my appoint does not see a marriage license a vital record the government disagrees with my opponent. While I used to common term vital record they are legally known as vital documents. They are housed in each state in the Office of Vital Records under the health department and used by National Vital Statistics System. This includes births, deaths, marriages, divorces, adoption records, and fetal deaths. http://www.azdhs.gov... http://www.cdc.gov... Pro says “There is another fundamental right in the US that you should be able to travel freely with in the states.” I am unfamiliar with this being a right. I invite pro to validate this statement with a source. I already sited my source for the legal term of fundamental rights and what it included. Here is a direct quote: “Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel.” http://www.law.cornell.edu... The full faith and credit clause does not mean that all certified documents and professions are recognized in all states automatically. A lawyer or doctor may have to apply to get a license to operate if he/she moves to another state. Teaching certificates also have to be approved by each state. Conceal carry permits may not be recognized etc.. Some states cooperate on recognizing such certificates, but they are not required too. Pro claim of the application of the Full faith and credit clause is empirically false. I agree only vital documents, federally issued certified documents, and driver’s licenses. None of my opponent’s examples on this point are one of them; however, my examples are. My opponent is using a straw man argument by not using examples that are required by law to be shared between states. The fact the when crossing a state line a marriage license in now longer valid throws off the figures that state is required to submit to the National Vital Statistics System. They have deleted a marriage statistic without an accompanying document stating it was due to divorce or a death. I agree that there need to be checks on the power of the majority. The we agree that what counts is liberty and freedom Are there laws that prevent marriage? No! Yes there are and it is the current debate topic. It is not recognized by the state then technically it is not a marriage. Your examples are for common law marriages that are not recognized under the bans. People are free to pursue happiness in this nation. Including homosexual couples. They are free to marry, they are free to move, they are free to live with whomever they desire. They are not free to marry in several states. They are not free to move anywhere in this country without losing rights of next of kin and parents’ rights over their children. I am a happily married man of 3 years to a wonderful wife… truth is, I couldn’t not care less if the Government recognizes my marriage. Weather they do or not, my wife and I recognize our marriage. My faith recognizes my marriage. I do not need the government’s recognition to be happy.You might really care. If the state does not recognize the marriage you lose the following things: The right to make health care decisions for your wife in an emergency. The right to leave you property to you wife if die and you don’t have a will. The right to have parents rights over your children automatically at birth and would have to take her to court to gain them. The right to be informed if your wife was in an accident. The right to make funeral arrangements for you wife if she passed. If the state does not recognize your marriage you are just her boyfriend and her family gets all these rights. They don’t have to ask for your input, even though you know her wishes. The law says you don’t know any of her wishes and her family does. It does not matter how long you were together. How would you like the cops to tell someone else she was in an accident and that persona have no legal obligations to ever inform you? All the “benefits” that come from a state recognized marriage should be available to all law abiding adults. However, it should have nothing to do with being “married.” The benefit I was talking about was stated above this comment. It is a benefit of marriage that you are your spouse’s next of kin. It is a benefit that you get to make the decisions that your spouse would make in case they are unable to. They are not available to all law abiding adults. This does make since because you would not want someone that just started dating a week before some tragic event to have the authority to make decisions for you. Under the law it does not matter if you have acted like you were married for 25 years if you are not officially deemed married by the state you only have the same authority as someone that just stated dating you a week ago. If pro were to argue that unwed couples should be able to adopt, I would agree with him. Con has missed my point on this matter. If you adopt a child legally in one state that should be your child in every state. You should not cross a state line and it been deemed that is not your child. Adoption records are another vital statistic. I used both due the parallels between to two issues. Marriage is not viewed as an unalienable right in the U.S. Rather it is an Inalienable right. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. While Marriage may be a “fundamental right” that does not mean that it is unalienable. Unless pro can show that marriage recognized by the State is an Unalienable right, the resolution will remain negated The flaw in my opponent argument is that unalienable rights are not protected under the law. Unalienable rights are only mentioned in the declaration of independence. All rights under the law are fundamental rights. All rights under the constitution are labeled is fundament rights. Another quote from my source: “Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. “ http://www.law.cornell.edu... Until my opponent can show any laws for unalienable rights most of their arguments are negated.

The moving from one country to another become easier than it used to be. However, it began to cause a lot of problems for everybody. The issue is whether illegal immigration has more benefits or disadvantages. It is very important because we met this problems in our usual life. Illegal immigration is beneficial for the country. However, for the legal immigrants and citizens of particular countries illegal immigration influence badly. Illegal immigration has benefits and disadvantages but we should understand all situation and later make decisions.


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

The United States should not construct and maintain a border fence, but instead, offer an easier path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. A counterproposal, "Easy Citizenship, No Wall," aims to be more beneficial and less risky than the construction of an expensive 700-mile wall. HR-15 demonstrates Congress's willingness to consider new pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and this counterproposal would involve Congress passing a bill with the following provisions:

1. Grant citizenship and immunity from deportation to all non-criminal undocumented residents of the US.
2. Simplify the major requirements of citizenship to include a criminal background check and documentation of citizenship from another nation (if necessary).

Arguments supporting this counterproposal include:

1. Documented and undocumented immigrants contribute significantly to the US economy. Critics of the cost to immigrants, based on a Fox News report and a study from the organization FAIR, point out that these sources are famously anti-immigrant. In fact, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a well-respected organization, has labeled FAIR as an anti-immigrant hate group. Adjusting for errors in the study, a 2008 report found that undocumented immigrants were responsible for a net of 8.1 million jobs and contributed $1.8 trillion to the government's annual revenue. Fighting immigration would negatively impact the US economy, particularly in border states. Studies show that undocumented immigration increases the overall household incomes of US natives. In contrast, the wages of native-born citizens decreased as undocumented immigration slowed. Undocumented immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in government services. Providing an easier pathway to citizenship could generate an additional $500 billion in revenue over time.

2. The Mexican government may impose trade sanctions against the US. The redirection of water resulting from the fence would violate a US-Mexico treaty. Mexico may take serious action against the US, including trade restrictions. Trade sanctions could be disastrous, considering the US exported over $220 billion of products to Mexico and imported over $280 billion of products last year.

3. The cost of the fence is estimated at $16 billion for construction and $1.1 billion per year for maintenance. However, the question remains as to how the DHS will divert funding to this program. Billion(s) of dollars would be better spent improving the living conditions of American Indian Nations and veterans.

4. The border fence runs through the territory of three Indian Nations (O'odham, Cocopah, and Kickapoo). This fence would degrade their territories

i do not think that my opponent understands that his arguments are FOR the abolition of birthright citizenship, that is why i have not answered them, if you do not agree, i will explain. 1. Illegal babies are harmful to the economy- this is a Pro point because this is saying that yes birthright citizenship hurts the economy so we should abolish it. 2. its hypocritical, basically that it should be earned- also a Pro point, it proves that we should not have birthright citizenship and that it should be earned. 3. other countries don't have this right- exactly, other countries dont have this right, so why should we have it? 4. it promotes racism- this contention is not well enough explained, so i believe i know what my opponent is saying, and yes, you guessed it, its a Pro argument. This shows that when you abolish birthright citizenship, you are harming the welfare of average people, which is a Pro point. I would like to ask my opponent, Do you understand the resolution? you are saying that it shouldn't be abolished not that it should. Now, read your case, obviously, you are arguing for the Pro, so my opponent agrees with me so i have to win because he even agrees with me. Thank you.

My opponent recently votebombed me on a debate that I clearly won[1], so I've decided to let him prove himself.When I PMed him about it, he responded: "birthright citizenship is unfair, plain and simple", with no analysis of any actual argument made in the debate, and that annoyed me. So if birthright citizenship is unfair, let him prove it. He can make his case in round one. 1. http://www.debate.org...

United States Of America was created and funded by: Illegal Immigrants. There is no reason why a country would just explode by being changed in the same way it was originated. United States citizenship is not something one should be able just to pay or all the statements about the so called freedom that they have would mean nothing,

I'm gonna just debate this impromptu style...wish me luck. I affirm "Resolved: Free Health Care is realistic in the United States in 2009" Observation 1: The resolution asks if free health care is realistic for the US, not that it necessarily is in the best interest of the US government, citizens, or macro-economic structure. Because the resolution is lenient on this issue, it is not the affirmative's burden to provide an economically sound or good-looking point of view on the issue of free health care. Contention 1: "Obama has already given out sh*t-loads of money" President Barak Obama has, before even completing his first 100 days in office, given away several trillions of dollars to economic stimulus and other similar issues that were aimed at aiding the average American citizen. Although it is easily debatable on weather or not this is a good idea, we are here to debate about health care. According to "The Liberty Papers" in January, 2nd 2009, "...free health care would cost less than the latest economic bailout did, and unlike the bailout, it would give back by allowing Americans to spend more freely, get out of their debts, ... maintain domestic security in their jobs, no matter how low paying or dangerous they may be." When taking this into consideration, we can see that Free Health Care for American citizens would not only be realistic in cost, but would be overall beneficial to the US also. Even if you don't agree or buy that free Health Care (HC) would be beneficial, the Affirmative has still fufilled its burden by proving, at this point in time, free HC is realistic because America has the economic stability to fund said program. Contention 2: "Health care would only be given to legal citizens" According to the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Immigration Statistics, there are over 11.6 million illegal immigrants in the US out of the 300 million total in 2006 alone! This is a ratio of 1 illegal for every 30 legal citizens. When you subtract all the illegals from this population equation, the idea of free HC becomes far more realistic, since we are only paying for LEGAL citizens. And furthermore, any American who can afford their own health care is not forced to, meaning any good Samaritans or financially stable persons in the country will be paying on their own. Although we cannot realistically measure how many citizens this would be, even if it is ONE, we get one baby-step closer to having a financially stable HC system. After removing all these variables from our economic situation, it becomes not only realistic to have free HC, but beneficial. Because our nation can take the financial burden of providing free health care, providing health care is beneficial to the economy, and because we don't have to pay as much as you would think, I urge all of you to cast your ballot for the Affirmative. Thank you.

I concur the general welfare of all mankind should be taken into serious consideration. Mexicans and Mexican Americans are a vital part of the social tread that creates our societies. Latinos have become the largest minority in America. Unfortunately America is not very liked through out the world and many people want to destroy what we take for granted everyday. Many people want to take away from us the very reason Mexicans are crossing our borders...our freedom. (I use the term freedom loosely, but that is another debate.)It is important for all America no matter what your heritage, race, or country of origin, to be aware of ways that terrorist can get into our country undetected.The border is one huge red flag when it comes to security.

This was the topic for the LD nationals in 2007. I thought it would be fun to debate. Rounds will go as follows: Round 1: con states rules Round 1: Pro presents his arguments Round 2: Con presents his arguments and rebuts to pro's case Round 2: Pro rebuts to con's case Round 3: Con rebuts Round 3: Pro rebuts 10,000 character limit. 3 days to post argument (per round)

okay i agree with that but every thing is targeted at hispanic immigrants... last time i checked there is also asian, african, canadien, and even european immigrants. if the government should be concentrating on the general welfare not on foreign policy

Undocumented democrats are illegal immigrents in the USA. Shot means to be killed.

I should mention that your definition for 'right' was the adjective, not the noun, which we are using. In noun form, which is the resolution. I feel sorry for you, but this means that your definition is invalid. Not only that, but it proves you are trying to play word games and trying to uses unjust tactics to secure the debate. I thought I would probably lose conduct because of my second round immigration joke statistic, but this is pure and simple backhandedness. A better definition that actually fits the prompt would be as follows: Right: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. Just to be clear, this definition almost works in your favor, and you could have easily used it on your side. It is a shame you did not. Since a right is an entitlement, however, this clearly means that a country cannot have or be denied any rights, except, possibly, by other countries, which is not the case in this immigration issue, which is domestic. After all, who or what gives and takes away a countries right to do anything? Sanctions, possibly, but that, again, does not affect the actions a country may take, and is a foreign, not a domestic, issue. P1 and P2 conclusion Frankly, I am disappointed that, after all this good debating, you trip up on such a small error -- either that or it was a truly malicious attempt to take a victory when you were backed into a corner, instead of surrendering some points and trying to build on others. But, be that as it may, I have won on my points one and two (because your entire argument consisted on that which I have just disproven, and you provided no other evidence, of which there was plenty, and I thought for sure I was going to lose on). P3 Conclusion So, because it makes you feel good to be part of one, and only one, culture, we should therefor be anti-immigration because otherwise, people, and yourself, will feel sad about having to share your culture? Again, such an abstract idea can only be defended with emotions. Emotions, which, in practicality, are completely worthless. And the idea of having your OWN people sounds eerily similar to the idea of the Aryan race... I won't go any further on that, because I am sure that was not your intention. You probably just view your chosen country as only inhabited by people that look, act, talk, and think like you. Nothing nefarious about that... Also, it is super weird that you insist the ghettos and civil wars only occur because of immigration in America, yet claim that European countries have a right to complain about them while America does not. That is like a cutting somebodies arm off, and then saying that the person next to them has the right to complain about it, but not the person who's arm was chopped off. Furthermore, you say that Italians are oppresed in Louisiana, and act like that is not a genuine reason to not support immigration. Sounds to me like a perfect reason to be anti-immigration (because oppression is bad). P4 conclusion I would like to point out that I am talking about immigrants, not immigrant descendants. The actual amount of (legal) immigrants in America that are first-generation immigrants is 12.5%. To be anti-immigration means to oppose more people coming in, not usually to oppose third or more generation immigrants. If we look at it that way, 100% of every country's population outside of Africa are immigrants, because their heritage, if traced far enough, would not be from that place. Also, I would hate to have such a lack of diversity as to only be able to experience one culture, but that is a personal opinion. However, if we both moved to Italy, you could choose to only embrace Italian culture, whereas I could choose to embrace any culture that had set up in Italy. That's the beauty of most multiculturalism, is that it allows you to opt out of being part of it. Unless you absolutely hate the site of other cultures (making you a clear and easily defined racist), than there is no reason that those other cultures have to effect you in the slightest. P5 conclusion You didn't understand the point I was trying to make. Your suggestion that once a country makes a mistake (such as America in regards to immigration), it should be unable to change that mistake. I was siting anecdotal evidence. Proving a point, if you will. Instead, because you are too stubborn to try to figure out the meaning of those examples, I will try again. What was meant by them was that a country should be able to change its stance and policies to fix their mistakes, instead of having to commit to them. Because, if they MUST commit to them, than certainly places like North Korea should never change their policies on concentration camps, and countries like Australia should have never changed from being a place for exiles and criminals. P6 conclusion Because you did not, in fact, destroy my previous claim, and made no other arguments to destroy this one, I take it. Also, considering you never actually proved any real benefit came from having a 'national identity', you didn't even address this point earlier at all. You just said 'it's something special that we should keep' and left it at that, without explaining why it is valuable or why we should keep it. And no, saying 'it feels good' is not an adequate reason. Especially not when you, as an American who lives outside Detroit, have no experience to even know what it feels like. This is not Ad Hominem because the experience of having a 'national identity' (which you don't believe Americans have) is one that is critical to suggesting whether or not it is worth having. Without sources, as well, you cannot site anybody who HAS claimed that having national identity is a positive enough thing to be worth being anti-immigration on. And, as stated before, if any of my arguments make it through, than Pro failed to defend the resolution and, therefore, I have won the debate. I would like to clarify that the arguments this applies to are points 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, but not point 1, as that was largely semantic. I do wish we had another round for which you to respond, because I do believe there is still much argumentation to be had but, as it stands, I am fairly certain I won the debate. Thank you.

When American citizens are beginning a new business or own a business, they need employees to work for them at a low rate. Thokozile Gurganious, the author of "How Immigration Benefits America" states that "Because immigrants accept lower wages, employers make more profits when they hire immigrants than when they hire native born people. U.S. consumers also benefit in the long run because the goods which cost less to produce when immigrants are used are then sold for less to them" (Thokozile). Immigrants are more lenient than Americans when it comes to being paid to work because to immigrants, any wage is good to them. Americans expect more money than immigrants because American citizens have families that they have to provide for. Even though immigrants have families to provide for too, they will take any wage that is offered to them. Not only do immigrants provide employers with workers, but they also introduce foods and traditions from their culture to America. Thokozile explains "Americans benefit from immigration in that all aspects of American life are enriched by immigrants. Because of immigration, new restaurants mushroom serving new types of foods that Americans previously did not know. Americans are also introduced to new cultures, new types of dress and new languages" (Thokozile). America is a place in which diversity is very important. Immigrants providing Americans with different types of foods could possibly increase sales rates if the foods are liked by the citizens. The language that the immigrants speak could also be useful in America for educational or traveling purposes such as Spanish, Italian and French. Many everyday things in America would not be available to us if it weren"t for immigrants.


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

Regarding illegal immigration, I fundamentally oppose it. While I support enhancing people's lives, I don't believe it should come at the expense of others. If we view America's benefits and opportunities as a lifeboat, and the people already aboard are citizens, we cannot continually add more people (illegal immigrants) to the lifeboat, as it jeopardizes those already on board. I understand that illegal immigrants likely haven't engaged in other unlawful activities and had noble intentions when entering the US. However, bypassing the standard procedures for citizenship is illegal, and we cannot overlook this fact. I believe the US government is not adequately securing its borders, almost assisting and encouraging them in the crime of entering the country illegally.

This is where your whole argument is wrong. If we abolish birthright citizenship we can put a law in place that allows only babies of citizens to become citizens at birth. Also while illegal immigrants come her for opportunity, they can do that but they need to do it in the proper and legal manner. That are protocols and regulations that they need to follow in order for them to become citizens and with this it would cause our country to be more american, rather than many other countries illegal immigrants coming here and immediately becoming citizens because they have a baby. The 14th Amendment needs to be changed because it is outdated. Also when you say that changing the constitution is unjust, you are mistakenly wrong because changes are made all the times. These changes are called Amendments, these Amendments are there to fix mistakes and problems within the constitution. A new Amendment can be made in order to amend the 14th and help to fix the common misinterpretation that we have today. Thus i would like to finish my argument by giving an analogy. Say you are waiting in line at islands of adventure for the hulk, the line is the time average people have to wait and the ride itself is the gaining of citizenship. Now think if someone were to cut you right when you get to the front of the line and they did not have to wait at all. So now in regard to the debate does it seem fair for an illegal person to just be given immediate citizenship over a person who has waited up to 2 years? Do you think that is fair? How would you feel?

Opening statementsOver the past year America has been experiencing tens of thousands illegal immigrants being granted amnesty due to Obamas executive order. This executive order is not only unconstitutional but can impose a burden to the US economy. It has been articulated that Obama is spreading poverty, by these immigrants being sent to disclosed locations in the US. These immigrants don’t have jobs, most can’t speak any English, they will only be able to apply for citizenship if they see a judge at a given time and date, most have avoided that. 90% of illegal immigrants given court dates fail to appear. With our current immigration system and our current economical situation is granting amnesty to thousands of illegal immigrants the proper solution? Before I begin my contentions I want my opponent and the audience to understand that I do not wish harm upon these immigrants nor will I argue them being deported. The resolution will stand as follows. http://www.politifact.com... C1: The US is currently unable to financially support these illegal immigrants There has practically been a steady stream of illegal immigrants journeying across the border in the past decade. The enactment of this executive order started a massive influx of illegal immigrants from many countries in central America. Since the increase of immigrants more than 50% of immigrant households share welfare programs and other entitlement programs. In 2010 the US spent nearly 100 billion dollars on entitlement programs for illegal immigrants. Im sure you are aware, the US has a 17 trillion dollar debt. Obama immigration policies are adding to his deficit. We aren’t far from defaulting soon we need to control our debt. C2: Immigrants don’t pay their fair share in taxes. If you’re undocumented then you don’t exist in the eyes of the IRS. Being undocumented can provide a tax haven for yourself by easily avoiding taxes, this might not be the case if you do however work. In 2011, there are reportedly 11.1 million illegal immigrants in the US. Only about 6 million of those pay income taxes. Now, why does this matter? Illegal immigrants pay 7 billion in taxes every fiscal year. Subtract that to 100 billion and you have a net loss. Now, with the increasing numbers of illegal immigrants granted amnesty, this gap will start to close. Most of the illegal immigrants since Obamas executive order are women and children. They will not be able to work and provide for themselves nor pay taxes. So who will be financially supporting these people? The federal government. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.heritage.org... C3: Cheap labor Immigrants will do anything to get their hands on a job, of course. Employers will do anything for cheap labor. US employers will accept their fake employment documents and hire them because it will be cheaper than hiring US citizens. This is, of course, illegal business but employers take the risk anyway. How can this be fair to those who are here legally? This is how illegals and employers avoid income and payroll taxes. http://www.fairus.org... C4: illegals add to the healthcare premiums Unfortunetly this gets little discussion and attention.illegal immigrants who are injured significantly or dying are known to hospitals as permanent patients. They refer to them as permanent because they have no insurance or relatives in the country. Where does the money come from? Well there is an emergency Medicaid plan which is payed by the state. Most hospitals are not covered under this emergency Medicaid policy.So where do they get the money to pay for the illegal immigrants healthcare. Hospitals will raise their prices on just about everything. Putting more of a financial burden on insurances causing a spike in healthcare premiums. So ultimately is will come out of our pocket. http://www.moneynews.com... This widespread influx of amnesty illigal immigrants are only adding the the current broken immigration system. Gaps will start to close and the american taxpayer will be financially responsible for these women and childeren. Out of 80 thousand illigal immigrants being granted amnest under this law, 50 thousand of them are childeren. Who will pay for these kids? We have over 50 million people on food stamps right now. We can't even take care of ourselves. http://www.bbc.com...

Unfortunately however Pro had to resort to attacking myself and my position in the last round more then he did my actual arguments. While Pro is certainly guilty of doing nearly everything he is claiming I have done, despite the incredible temptation, I will spare the readers of a childish back and fourth bickering match and focus on the resolution and how my opponent failed to uphold it. Pro claims on a number of occasions that I dropped or conceded his arguments. What Pro doesn’t seem to realize is that the counter argument I presented attacks the basic premise of all of his arguments. Because of this, there is little reason for me to spend much of my time refuting each individual argument he made, nor is there enough space for me to do so. If my argument stands then all of his arguments are automatically refuted because they are shown to be based on a false premise. Citizenship Pro begins by showing the following quote (which BTW is not my quote, I have no idea where Pro is quoting this quote from): "when we offer citizenship to immigrants, we don't need to offer them all rights as well" Pro refers to my position as absurd. I think this only demonstrates how little Pro understands my position, or what this debate is even about in the first place. The question we are debating is whether immigrants should be eligible to run for President. Pro has defined this privilege as a right which I have accepted. Therefore the subject we are debating is whether immigrants should be granted citizenship with equal rights. My position is Con. The statement above is simply the very statement that Pro has challenged me to defend in this debate, yet he calls me absurd for defending it. Pros entire citizenship argument is nothing more then the position he has taken in this debate. He must support that position, not state it. My syllogism already shows why immigrants should not have equal rights in this one instance so there was no reason for me to individually address this particular point. Pro must refute my syllogism or this point automatically fails. Colonialism & Criminals “The fact that criminals are allowed to run shows that pre-emptive security is unnecessary in presidential elections. ” Cons criminal argument does not in any way refute my syllogism. The criminals Pro is referring to are generally Americans. Yet my syllogism explains why being born in a foreign land may affect decision making for a President. This argument does not apply to the criminals Pro is referring to, therefore it is a subject for a whole other debate and should have nothing to do with this one. The point Pro makes about pre-emptive security is once again the point of this debate. My syllogism shows why pre-emptive security in this case is appropriate. If Pro does not adequately refute it, this argument automatically fails as well. Cons Syllogism Pro continues to claim that he has refuted my syllogism by pointing out that immigrants must be included in the definition of US success, without realizing that immigrants are already included. His argument is implying that ensuring the best possible leadership for everyone somehow leaves out 1/8th of the population. I do not see one ounce of logic in this conclusion. The only productive point I can see about Pros argument here is that naturalized citizens would live a better life if they had equal rights. This is true except that as I already pointed out, the right we are debating would have no significant affect on the quality of life of any of them as so few would ever seriously aspire to achieve this. In the 200+ year history of our nation we have only had 44 Presidents. How many immigrants can this law possibly affect? My case on the other hand focuses on the security of the country. Which argument weighs more, the desire of immigrants to be President, or the security of the entire country (including immigrants)? Pros main point here is insignificant next to mine. 1. Changes to Presidential requirements should be made to increase the likelihood of US success Pros only rebuttal is my definition of US success. He does not refute what changes to Presidential requirements should be based on. Point extended. 2. US success requires Presidential decisions to be made based solely on US interests Pro here is still stuck on my definition of US success and claims I conceded his rebuttal. His rebuttal is the same point made over and over again which I have already shown to be insignificant. Pro does not refute my point however that success requires decisions made based solely on US interests. Point extended. 3. People have a natural loyalty to the land in which they originate Pro states that I never showed how caring about another nation is dangerous. I did not show it under this point because that is what point 4 was for. The purpose of this point is to establish a very basic fact of human nature which Pro did not refute. Point extended. 4. People who have a natural loyalty to a foreign land will be more likely to include foreign interests in their decision making. My syllogism so far has shown how people who originate from a foreign land are more likely to have a loyalty or personal connection to another nation. In the last round I made an argument which showed why having a personal connection in a responsibility such as President is a conflict of interest. Pro however tries to turn my example to claim that because a natural born citizen can have a conflict of interest, that this somehow proves that the chances are equal. How does Pro conclude this? Pro gives no logical support for a completely illogical conclusion. For Pro to show that the chances are equal he would have to explain how, or why, perhaps in a syllogism similar to what I provided, but instead all he does is simply state this. Pro provided no valid argument to refute my point therefore my point must be accepted. The chances are not equal. Point extended. Pro states that he already showed how people will know if a candidate is an exceptional one and claims that I dropped his argument. In the last round I gave an entire paragraph response to Pros statement which showed that Presidents win more so with good campaigns then actual abilities. Pro should read it. Pro asks “Should we stop people whose fathers had been President because it is more likely that they would hold a grudge? ” Pros question is about restricting people from running based a particular scenario. Restricting immigrants in the writing of the constitution does not set the same precedent as limiting possible scenarios over 200 years later. My position, which was clarified in a pm chat with Pro prior to the debate, and made in my syllogism since round 2 is based on making changes to the constitution, which Pro has clearly accepted. Pros statement would be a change that would set a very dangerous precedent in America and thus, would not increase the likelihood of US success. So to Pro: the answer is No. 5. The proposed changes will not increase the likelihood of US success. Since Pro has provided no adequate rebuttal to any of my main points, this conclusion still stands. Syllogism Concluded According to the arguments made in this debate: Changes to the constitution should be based on increasing the likelihood of US success, Pro is arguing for a change to the constitution, yet his change will not increase the likelihood of US success. Therefore this change should not be made. None of Pros arguments were able to negate this. Conclusion While there were some contentions I did not individually refute I have already made it clear why it was not necessary. My argument begins with the very basic concept of what changes to the constitution should be based on and Pro never refuted it. From there it is quite impossible for Pro to win this debate without negating my argument and I have clearly shown why he has not. The resolution is negated.

I believe the borders of all countries should be open and free for all humans. If one lives in the U.S. and wants to live in Cuba or travel to Germany, they should need no passport or visa. We as humans should be able to go where we please on this Earth. This debate can be strongly affiliated with the U.S./Mexico border dispute.

To start out I'm going to provide a definition to clarify for people who may not know the more technical and obscure term in the title. Adalessons: an alien species that landed on earth a few years ago and since have gained human rights under a UN policy called Rights for Peaceful Extraterrestrials. [1] So if the UN has given them rights, so should the US. Source: [1] Jonbonbon's Encyclopedia of Foregin Policy

Immagrtion has been a big help in the ecconomy so far look at some people in canada that have became a big help to the country it may be illegal but is it truely bad

There here illegally! why dont they just go back where they came form. we have enough problems to worry about ithout a bunch of illegals stealing jobs and education!

This was the topic for the LD nationals in 2007. I thought it would be fun to debate. Rounds will go as follows: Round 1: con states rules Round 1: Pro presents his arguments Round 2: Con presents his arguments and rebuts to pro's case Round 2: Pro rebuts to con's case Round 3: Con rebuts Round 3: Pro rebuts 10,000 character limit. 3 days to post argument (per round)

Hello passwordstipulationssuck, I apologies if this round seems rushed, or unedited. I was hit by a truck on my way to work, (luckly it only hit the rear of my bike) but being as my bike is my main source of transportation, I had to deal with that as a top priority. So I only have a few hours left as I'm beginning this. I would like to say though I am quite disappointed by your argument. Which is not to say that it was not well written. But unless if you are Mallory Shelbourne who wrote this same article word for word on the date 12/21/17 04:34 PM EST for the Hill. (with the exception of the first and last paragraph) I was hoping to argue you in this debate, not read something I could get with a google search. Please copy and paste this into your search engine (I don't think that this computer will let me do a hyperlink) (or I'm to stupid to figure it out) thehill.com/latino/366077-dhs-doj-make-case-for-border-wall-with.. How ever I shall argue this topic with the information that I have. First off I would like to wonder where exactly is your district, because what you are describing when you say "If you saw the dead bodies out in my district as a result of people coming across the border freely, you'd see the consequences of this." because if it is the war zone on American soil that you are describing, you could defiantly sell your story to Fox news and join New York Congress man Peter King who said... "I wish the Democrats would put aside political correctness, [and] realize there is nothing racist or bigoted about having a border wall " you have these good intentions, we"re an Open Society, people come across the border, well, listen, if you saw the dead bodies in my district as a result of people coming across the border freely, you"d see the consequences of this." Kind of the same as your first paragraph, But I fond that peace shoe horned into a article about ISIS. from the media source known as Town Hall, so I'm sure it had nothing to do with your choice of words for your first paragraph. If you are in fact living is in a warzone with bodies strewn about do to illegal immigration, (unlike King who was being very over the top with his claims) might I recommend that you use the money from selling your story to Fox, and leave that district, and move to a more peaceful location. We are after all, living in a country that many people want to come to as refugees, so I'm sure that we could find a place for you. Maybe Utah, that place is nice this time of year. Now I'm not going to say that every thing about the wall is bad, It provides shade, for example, (unless if Trump gets his way and it is see through) It is not my philosophe that anything is truly completely bad, or completely good. But It is my belief that there is many more negatives than their is positives when it comes to this wall. The first problem with the wall is getting it funded, Trump has clamed that Mexico will pay for it, but getting a country like Mexico, that according to nations online, is deemed a third world country, to pay between (according to Former Republican Speaker of the house Mitch McConnell) about 15 billion Dollars, and according to investopedia. $21.6 Billion Dollars, or according to CNBC 25 Billion Dollars. And according to Politico, it would cost over 2 billion Dollars to maintain it each year... on the Tax payers bill... forever. This would be one of the most expensive infrastructure projects in history, Not just American, but History. The 2nd problem is building the thing. If we where to build it, we would be building it near rivers, through towns, and even having the federal government needing to basically force American citizens out of their privet property, and even force them out of their homes. Which I would consider a federal overreach. and very hypocritical for those who stand for the republican small government philosophy. The 3rd problem is that it won't be effective, because most illegal immigrants come in legally and overstay their visas, or come in on "vacation" and don't go back. This doesn't even completely include the 40% of them who come in on planes, according to politifact. The 4th problem is circular flow. For decades immigrants would come into the US, work for a while, and then go home. this was called circular flow. If we make it to where those who came in couldn't leave without guarantied legal trouble, then why would they leave? If I where them I would just stay in the US, where the money is, maybe work till I've earned enough to hire coyotes to smuggle my family to me. And frankly, for those who do that, I think that they have earned enough of the title of hard worker, and have earned the right to stay here, as long as they don't commit, any more crimes. (other than illegally entering the country with the "give me your huddled masses" statue) I do have a problem with one of the arguments that the Hill provided. It talked a lot about crime being more rampant with the border being open. However the statistics that I have been shown tells about how immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native born citizens. I will give a few more arguments, go more into my existing arguments, and read the argument that you provided a little closer in the next round. As I said, I am running out of time, and wasn't even able to proof read this round, (sorry) I look foreword to reading what you have to say on the subject next round, and would like to remind you that we are competing on how well we can debate, and present our arguments. Sources are a tool for debate, of not the debate, it's self.

The Dream Act would not be beneficial to the United States because most of the "illegals" in the US are of Mestizo origin (1). Mestizos are more likely to use a form of welfare proportional to their population size than whites or even blacks (2). Mestizos are the most likely demographic to drop out of high school and the children of Mestizo immigrants are more likely to commit violent crime, be in a gang, live in poverty, and be single parents than European Americans (and blacks in terms of gangs) (3,4). The majority of Latinos in the US, legal and illegal, are of Mexican origin. 58% of Mexicans believe the US SouthWest belongs to Mexico (5). This means that the US would be legalizing individuals that very likely support ceding portions of the US to a foreign power. It is hard to think of a worse group to give US citizenship to. People of Mestizo origin on average bring a diverse language with them. This type of a diversity is a weakness and causes disunity within a country. Belgium and Canada are two examples of where two competing languages, even within the same racial group, helps to cause extra tension (6,7). Why should US taxpayers subsidize universities for people with these types of averages and afford them certain temporary and possible permanent benefits of citizenship such as voting? 1. http://pewhispanic.org... 2. http://pubdb3.census.gov... 3. http://www.pewhispanic.org... 4. http://amren.com... 5. http://www.wnd.com... 6. http://onlineessays.com... 7. http://www.independent.co.uk...