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

Public Forum topic for September '09
The concept of attrition in the context of illegal immigration refers to making life so difficult for undocumented immigrants that they choose to leave the country. This policy aims to reduce opportunities for illegal immigrants, making their lives significantly more miserable than in their home countries like rural Guatemala or the slums of Mexico City. The objective is to rally American citizens against immigration, making it nearly impossible for immigrants seeking a better life to live here. I oppose this ideology for several reasons.

1) Our ancestors came to the U.S. seeking a better life, often through violent force against the original inhabitants. Today's immigrants are doing the same, but without the use of violence. It's unfair to make their lives miserable for seeking the same opportunities.

2) Amnesty is not forgiveness for free. The Senate's compromise includes a 13-year process, $5,000 in fines, English benchmarks, and a "touchback" provision requiring a return to the home country for an indeterminate time.

3) Many eligible individuals have been waiting for citizenship for as long as 28 years. Our current system needs reform, which would be addressed under the proposed amnesty bill. Without reform, there's no incentive for immigrants to enter legally.

4) Employers already have laws requiring them to verify employees' citizenship and maintain legal payrolls, but compliance is not universal. It's nearly impossible to enforce complete compliance, and creating federal agencies to do so would be expensive and ineffective.

5) Much of the anti-amnesty rhetoric is based on racism and xenophobia. Arguments that amnesty would alter the country's racial composition or that bilingualism is detrimental are bigoted and unfounded.

6) Immigrants contribute to a dynamic economy by providing a young, growing workforce. Amnesty ensures this competitive advantage.

7) Immigrants already utilize tax payer dollars for medical care, police protection, and infrastructure. It's economically and morally fair to impose the same tax burdens on them as on citizens.

8) Law enforcement should focus on real, dangerous crime rather than immigration. Punishing the whole group for the actions of a few is unfair and unenforceable.

CONCLUSION: Deporting millions of illegal immigrants is unfeasible and expensive. The cost of deportation far outweighs the economic benefits of immigration. Instead of attrition, we should focus on giving immigrants opportunities to succeed and benefit our country.

http://imgur.com... This is where my opponent messes up. First of all, education is a province of the state, not the government. The state dictates what we learn; so having the US government require all schools in the US to teach a foreign language would be a violation of the constitution. Proof, if you happen to want any: According to amendment 10 of the bill of rights: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Nowhere on the constitution does it state education is within the federal government's power boundaries. This is therefore a right of the state.

--1. The 10th AmendmentMy opponent heavily emphasizes the 10th Amendment's supposed power to mysteriously grant unconditional powers of unilateral secession indefinitely to the states or the people. Despite the fact that I clearly pointed to the Constitution in Article VI, Paragraph 2 and Article IV, Section 4 in the previous round, my opponent declares that "the Constitution doesn't prohibit it. "Not so. The mere fact that secession is not explicitly mentioned does not indicate its validity. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution reads, "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation. .. " [1a], clearly prohibiting, for example, Kentucky or Missouri joining the CSA. My opponent mistakenly claims that I "failed to mention even one" example of a dissenter of secession (e. g. Madison, Lincoln)—an irrelevant point, anyway, regarding the legality of secession. On the other hand, my opponent has completely dropped my earlier arguments concerning (a) the Union preceding the states, (b) Article VI, Paragraph 2 and Article IV, Section 4 as it relates to maintaining the Union, and (c) the power of the spirit of the law superseding that of the letter of the law, in that the Constitution, for the purpose of "form[ing] a more perfect Union," [1a] cannot logically endorse its own arbitrary, unconditional destruction. These arguments must be addressed, and thus far overwhelmingly favor Pro.2. State Nullification and Reduction of Federal PowerMy opponent poses nullification, beginning with an uncited and unspecified claim that it "has been proclaimed legal by many of the Founders. " This cannot hold water without further support. And indeed, states do have the "right to dissent" (edited from "descent") from the federal government, but that certainly does not imply a right to secession. Again, he mentions an irrelevant point about slavery, and merely mentions the "Kentucky Resolution" and "the States' response to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1898" without explaining how it pertains to the legality of secession. Thus far, there is no reason his arguments have any traction. In his third paragraph, my opponent now also concedes that the right of secession defeats the purpose of federal government before qualifying that the express purpose of the Bill of Rights was to indeed reduce the same government in question. By admitting such, my opponent has not only allowed that secession is a certifiably detrimental policy, but contrived the Bill of Rights not as a guarantee of American freedom and civil rights, but a 'get out of the Union free' pass without substantial evidence. My opponent (without citation) brings up the state ratification conventions, during which Virginia attempted to reserve a later right to secede from the Union. I point to Texas v. White, in which Chief Justice Chase writes, "The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. .. When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States" [2a]. That which holds for Texas does so for Virginia, New York, Rhode Island, or any other state. Unilateral secession is null and void. Period. Finally, it should be noted that my opponent fails to acknowledge another of my arguments, i. e. that the unconditional, unilateral secession that Con defends ultimately leads to anarchy, as expressed by Lincoln.3. Declaration of IndependenceFortunately, my opponent himself concedes that the Declaration is "not a binding document. " Merely pointing out Thomas Jefferson's rhetoric also does not prove a potent argument for the legality of secession. On the other hand, if semantics are to offer any hints to the legality of secession, the opening Preamble to the Constitution goes, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union. .. " [3a] Certainly, at least in terms of how legally "binding" a document is, the Constitution's rhetoric supersedes the Declaration, and indicates that the union precedes that of the states legally and chronologically. Furthermore, the Declaration states that "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it [government], and to institute new Government. " (a) My opponent fails to show how the 1861 Union was "destructive" by any means, and (b) is incorrect in declaring that the Declaration implies an "intended right to secession. " Jefferson refers to Locke's political philosophy from the Second Treatise on Government [3b] in terms of the moral right to revolution, and not necessarily to unilateral secession, certainly not explicitly, implicitly, or otherwise. Pro clearly wins this argument.4. Supreme Court is BiasedNo, it's not. My opponent disregards the Supreme Court, making an unsubstantiated claim that it stepped beyond its bounds (how? ) and that it "injected bias" in its ruling (again, how? ). He goes on to promptly dismiss the Court as merely "useful," and again simply asserts that "we cannot rely solely on Supreme Court rulings. "The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. The Constitution of the United States clearly establishes the Supreme Court, as its name would suggest, with ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all courts concerning federal issues [5a]. With the power of judicial review and origins clearly tied to the very core of the Constitution, the Court has the final say in matters of legality and Constitutionality. My opponent not only incorrectly dismisses that my argument "rel[ies] solely on Supreme Court rulings," self-evident to the contrary from Round 2, but he has completely fumbled in addressing my court case examples of Texas v. White and McCulloch v. Maryland and entirely fails to provide evidence of the unreliability of the Supreme Court. My original argument still stands and alone refutes the entire Con contention.5. The Constitution is SilentRefer to above arguments. My opponent also tosses an irrelevant, unconnected, and uncited statement concerning Lincoln's views on state secession, and goes on to claim without explanation that the Constitution must explicitly prohibit secession in order to support Pro, in effect attempting to push the burden of proof to the Pro. Without additional evidence, Con cannot win this argument, and thus Pro should.6. Revolutionary MentalityI do show why the right of secession is not a direct descendant of the "Revolution mentality" that founded the United States; by the same token, my opponent accuses I haven't shown the difference but himself never has. To reiterate and expand: The colonies of Great Britain in North America were not equal partners within the British empire or contracting agents agreeing to a contract. Their legal existence came from the crown; they did not form it as a founding party or join it as an independent state [6a]. The revolutionaries grounded their argument on a natural right to revolution (Locke), not a legal right to secession. --As I have repeatedly demonstrated, the South did not have the legal right to secede from the Union, and thus I urge a PRO vote. --References: 1a. . http://www.archives.gov... 1b. . http://www.constitution.org... 2a. . https://supreme.justia.com... 3a. . http://www.archives.gov... 3b. Becker, Carl. The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas. 1922. Page 27. 4a. . http://www.supremecourt.gov... 6a. Osgood, Herbert Levi. The American colonies in the seventeenth century, (3 vol 1904-07).

I suppose Wylted's right about the trouble with undefined words. I didn't bother giving any definition because of my faith in Wylted's good character (and I was proven right). But I'll take more care next time. The debate's about laws passed in places like Texas, Wisconsin, or Indiana; what's required is a government-issued photo ID (e.g. a drivers license).--“There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.” McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S. Ct. 1434 (2014). Photo ID laws abridge that right without justification.(1) Photo ID laws place a severe burden on a significant number of voters. Studies indicate that 11 percent of American citizens, more than 21 million people, don’t have a state-issued photo ID. These studies also show that millions of American citizens don’t have “readily available documentary proof of citizenship,” and many more – “primarily women” – don’t “have proof of citizenship with their current name.” The “Citizens Without Proof” report also found that “certain groups – primarily the poor, elderly, and minority citizens – are less likely to possess these forms of documentation than the general population.” [1] [2]Photo ID requirements place a severe burden on these voters. Study after study has confirmed that “the more barriers placed in front of potential voters ... the less likely they are to vote.” [3] A study published by the CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project found that photo ID laws placed “significant negative burdens on voters” and thus “depress[ed] turnout … [especially] for less educated and lower income populations.” [4] Other studies echo that conclusion. [5] [6] [7] Perhaps more telling, when I googled the issue, I couldn't find a single legitimate study supporting the notion that photo ID laws don't depress voter turnout. Maybe Wylted will find some.The problem is the difficulty some people (especially low-income individuals) have with getting a state-issued photo ID. The first obstacle is figuring out how to get an ID. That might seem easy to some, but for others, especially the less educated, it’ll be much harder. If another document (e.g. a birth certificate) is needed, they’ll also have to figure out the requirements of the issuing agency, which adds yet another layer of complexity to the process. The next step is going to the DMV. For nondrivers, which many of these people are, that can be an insuperable burden, especially if they also lack a certified copy of their birth certificate (as that means multiple trips). The difficulty isn't just the time involved but also the financial burden: transportation costs, plus some of these folks might have to take off work (since DMVs aren't always open on weekends), which means they'll have to forgo hourly wages or use vacation time. Some states charge a fee for photo IDs. And even if a state provides free photo identification, that doesn't lessen the cost of documents needed to get the ID, most notably birth certificates. A report from Harvard Law School estimates “the expenses [of obtaining a photo ID], for documentation, travel, and waiting time are significant—especially for minority groups and low-income voters—typically ranging from about $75 to $175.... Even when adjusted for inflation, these figures represent substantially greater costs than the $1.50 poll tax outlawed by the 24th amendment in 1964.” [8]A photo ID law could also burden those who come to polls and can't vote because they simply forgot their IDs, or because their ID isn't valid anymore. The latter category, for instance, would include people who don’t drive anymore but still thought their expired license was valid identification. For instance, a Congresswoman in Indianapolis went to her polling place to vote and was told that her photo ID issued by the federal government wasn't acceptable because, even though it was issued for the 109th Congress, it had no expiration date. [9]Finally, keep in mind that voting is a low-reward activity for any given individual, because he or she knows that elections aren't decided by one vote. Because rewards are so low for voting, even a small cost or burden can depress voter turnout. But note that photo ID laws impose much more than a small cost; low-income individuals simply cannot afford to pay $75 to $175 just so that they can vote. That cost virtually guarantees that they won't vote, given the perception that their "one vote" won't matter.(2) Voter-impersonation fraud is exceedingly rare and doesn't justify photo ID requirements.The argument given for these laws is to prevent voter-impersonation fraud. But it turns out there's virtually no in-person voter fraud nationally. In fact, a conservative U.S. circuit judge, Richard Posner, who initially upheld photo ID laws as constitutional on the basis of fraud concerns, recently changed his mind after reevaluating the evidence. He called the expressed concern about fraud “a mere fig leaf,” and said photo ID laws instead “appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks.” [10]Posner's view is backed up by multiple studies and reports on the issue. "A study of 2,068 alleged cases conducted by the News21 journalism consortium found that since 2000 there have been only ten cases of in-person voter fraud that could have been prevented by photo ID laws. Out of 146 million registered voters, this is a ratio of one case of voter fraud for every 14.6 million eligible voters--more than a dozen times less likely than being struck by lightning.” [8] Indeed, the most comprehensive study of voter fraud to date reveals absolutely no confirmed incidents of voter-impersonation fraud. [11] Similarly, a recent DOJ report comprehensively surveying election-related misconduct since 2002 confirmed that voter-impersonation fraud is not a threat to the integrity of elections. [12] Not a single one of the convictions detailed in the DOJ report involved in-person voter-impersonation fraud. Other studies confirm these results. [13] [14] Even Fox News, whose passion for conservative causes has never been questioned, acknowledges that voter fraud is extremely rare. [15]The reason in-person voter fraud is so rare is because it's such an irrational way to go about altering the outcome of an election. Just think about the risks to politicians of orchestrating a massive campaign of voter-impersonation fraud, since only a massive campaign will increase a candidate's vote total by enough to swing all but the very closest elections. And think of the heavy punishments for massive election fraud. And besides the risks to the politicians, think of how much it would cost to orchestrate an effective voter-impersonation fraud, given the number of voters who must be bribed, and in amounts generous enough to overcome their fear of being detected, and if detected prosecuted. There would have to be too many co-conspirators with too great a chance of being detected. It turns out there's a recent study for that too, commissioned by the Election Assistance Commission, which said that "impersonation of voters is probably the least frequent type of [election] fraud because it is the most likely type of fraud to be discovered, there are stiff penalties associated with this type of fraud, and it is an inefficient method of influencing an election.” [16] The overwhelming direction of the evidence (and logic) is that in-person voter-impersonation fraud isn't a concern.ConclusionThe evidence shows both that photo ID requirements discourage voting and that voter-impersonation fraud is extremely rare. This implies that the net effect of such requirements is to impede voting by people easily discouraged from voting, most of whom are low-income individuals.These individuals tend to lean Democratic, and it turns out there's also tons of evidence that photo ID laws are motivated by a Republican political agenda. Keith G. Bentele and Erin E. O'Brien, in their article “Jim Crow 2.0? Why States Consider and Adopt Restrictive Voter Access Policies," present evidence that restrictive voter access policies such as photo ID requirements are highly correlated with a state's having a Republican governor and Republican control of the legislature. [17] Judge Posner, a conservative judge, says the same thing: “There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud,” Posner writes, “… and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens.” [10]Sources:[1] www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/download_file_39242.pdf[2] http://webstorage3.mcpa.virginia.edu...[3] David Schultz, Less than Fundamental: The Myth of Voter Fraud and the Coming of the Second Great Disenfranchisement, pg 485.[4] www.votingtechnologyproject.org/sites/default/files/vtp_wp57.pdf[5] www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/download_file_50903.pdf[6] http://journalistsresource.org...[7] www.gao.gov/assets/670/665966.pdf[8] http://today.law.harvard.edu...[9] www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110201897.html[10] https://s3.amazonaws.com...[11] http://www.demos.org...[12] http://www.justice.gov...[13] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...[14] https://www.brennancenter.org...[15] www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/24/voter-id-laws-target-rarely-occurring-voter-fraud/[16] http://www.eac.gov...[17] http://cdn.umb.edu...

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

OK to open this debate, I would like to start with a quote: "We've been inundated with criminal activity. It's just - it's been outrageous." - Arizona Governor Jan Brewer The said let's start with illegal immigration and criminal activity. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 2011 report, American prisons hold 351,000 illegal immigrants because of crimes that have occurred and criminal aliens actually have an average of seven arrests. This costs the US taxpayers $1.1 billion (http://www.gao.gov...). The United States of America should not take lawbreakers in as citizens and that is exactly what they are doing by being illegal immigrants. Currently, an average of three border patrol guards are attacked everyday along America's southern border with Mexico. The Justice Department has reported that assaults on US border patrol guards has increased 46% (http://cnsnews.com...). Not to mention that Al Qaeda has maybe infiltrating our southern borders already (http://www.washingtontimes.com...). Now not all immigrants are criminals, still we must enforce our laws. We cannot hold all the immigrants of the world. One immigrant, Carlos Montano, an illegal immigrant, was driving drunk in Virginia and killed a 66-year-old nun, Sister Denise Moiser, and wounded two others (http://www.cbsnews.com...). Now let's turn to illegal immigrants in school. First off, illegal immigrant obviously take up space in school for students who should really be there and thus make classrooms bigger. Also, US taxpayers pay $52 billion annually to educate illegals and that was reported by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) (http://www.fairus.org...). Illegal immigrants cause huge financial strains on the government. 70% of Texas' illegal immigrant families are on welfare? That is already to high compared to the too high 39% of native-born American who receive welfare (http://blog.chron.com...). The total cost of for Los Angeles to handle illegal immigrants is $1.6 billion which is not including the $600 million they pay for illegals' education (http://www.foxnews.com...). Also, due to illegal immigration, the nation's average wages have lowered 7.4% for America's 10 million native-born people who do not have a high school diploma (http://www.fairus.org...). So my opponent, if he/she pays taxes as well as the people will be voting should remember that they pay some of that $5.2 billion in education + $1.1 billion crime + the taxes you pay for 70% of illegal immigrants on welfare if you live in Texas + 1.6 billion it pays to handle illegal immigrants if you live in LA County if you live there.

CONS Imagine a place where people don"t have a sense of belonging. Minors would have tremendous trouble becoming a citizen before 18; meaning throughout minor"s lives, until they became an adult they wouldn"t know where their nationality belongs. Citizenship is part of someone's identity and it"s not our right to steal that from others.Birthright citizenship is one of the most controversial issues in the USA. Although there are good reasons for abolishing birthright citizenship, the reasons for keeping this law around outweigh any reasons for abolishing it. If we abolished it we would be deliberately disobeying the 14th amendment and there would become a permanent underclass. Not only that, there would be lots of money to propose though it is not likely to succeed because it is a right guaranteed and protected by the 14th amendment. For one we would be deliberately disobeying the fourteenth amendment. Indeed the 14th amendment can legally be revised by our congress. which would be a challenge itself though when our congress didn"t amend the constitution to simply be amended its self. Yes it has been around for a long time but that is no reason for blindly abolishing one of the laws that 1) made our country unique and proud. 2) it made our country extremely successful and taking that away seems like we"re asking to fall behind as a country. The 14th amendment says clearly "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." therefore we shouldn"t even begin the think about denying our fathers. Additionally, it would be lots of money to propose and unlikely to succeed. Even if it was passed by congress the likelihood of the supreme declaring it unconstitutional is quite high. Sadly by that time we would have already spent 1000"s of dollars if not millions on advertising and carrying out this law. For this reason we would be wise to simply never start going "down" that path in vien. Instead we could use that money and pay of some of our billions in that we are in debt. No, "anchor babies" is not the problem. The phrase "anchor babies," which is at the heart of the arguments in favor of these bills, is completely misleading. U.S. citizen children cannot protect their parents from deportation, and they must wait until turning 21 to sponsor them for legal status. Having a child here is not a practical way for any immigrant to gain citizenship. The amount of people being left with no nationality would not be "accounted for". for one many of children born in the U.S. but denied birthright citizenship might also be ineligible for citizenship in their parents" home country, leaving them without a nationality and forcing them to live at the margins of the international community. Besides these children would be undocumented, drastically increasing the total number of undocumented people living in our country causing Americas taxable population effecting roads, schools, government, safety, recreation areas, etc. Almost everyone would be negatively affected allowing loopholes in our government allowing more illegals. It"s an endless predicament that we best not start into. All in all we would be woefully foolish of our congress to go down this path that clearly will hurt society way more than we could ever think it would help. Besides birthright citizenship hardly attracts the illegals; what attracts them is our government and economy style, safety and equality. Also abolishing birthright citizenship would effect our taxation system that our government so direly relies on. On top of that the likelihood of the law be declared unconstitutional is rather high while we all know how much capital would be required to advertise and debate this national law would cost. The thought of losing that money when we are billions of dollars into debt is stomach churning as falling farther into debt would be scary, maybe even fatal.

Many believe that immigrants occupy jobs that Americans need, but in reality, immigrants are taking jobs that Americans do not want. In the article "Benefits of Immigration," the writer states, "Critics have claimed that immigrants take on jobs, lower down wages, and drain too much tax money because of social services. However, what they do not realize that the jobs immigrants take are the job most citizens in the host country do not take. Immigrants filling up these jobs lighten the load of producers and consumers and results in gains in economic welfare. It is a fact that immigrants are a source of low cost labor, but these cost reductions are eventually passed on to the consumer, so host country citizens benefit from this as well. The goods produced through the efforts of immigrant workers can also generate additional profits as the goods can be sold at lower price" (Benefits of Immigration). The jobs that do not pay well and are not appealing to Americans are the jobs that immigrants are more than willing to occupy. Plus, it is cheaper for the employer to pay for labor because immigrants are more lenient when it comes to wages. In addition, immigrants provide a younger workforce for American citizens. The author states "The ratio of retired people to workers is expected to dramatically increase in the coming decades that would result to significant changes in the Security System (i.e. benefits). Immigrants, with their children and younger relatives, will bring in more young workforce that can slow down the increase of this very important ratio" (Benefits of Immigration). The young minds of immigrants taking over senior citizens occupations would be good for the economy because they have the updated knowledge that senior citizens do not. There are a plethora of senior citizens retiring making jobs that Americans do not want available to immigrants. Because this ratio is essential, it is important for young immigrants to occupy the jobs that retired Americans leave. "Benefits of Immigration." BenefitOf.net. Benefits Of, 6 September 2011. Web. 21 October 2013. Print.

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.

Full resoluton:And so be it Resolved: In order to preserve the racial integrity of the United States, immigration should be limited to European countries alone. For this debate, Europe will be defined as the land East of the Atlantic, North of Africa, and West of Russia. Russia will not count as a European country for this debate. In accepting, my Opponent is agreeing to this definition.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The White American is dying out, that much is quite obvious to all. Indeed, it is predicted that the White race will become a minority by 2050[1]. It was estimated that the amount of babies born to minorities has since last year exceded that children born to whites.[2] Fully 5.6% of our children are now inter-racial,[3] and only one in six American babies are born with blue eyes. America now faces a more massive challenge than it did nearly 70 years ago, when it was dragged into war with Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, or even its darkest hour, the illegal northern invasion of the south. The challange America faces today lies in it's extremely dangerous demographic change. The America of the past was populated by fine men, most of whom were white. The minorities of the time tried to be like their white peers, and did so well, serving our nation with great honor and furious strength. Quite unlike the racial cesspool our country is now, the American people, including the minorites, were proud of our country and were unified in their support of it. The minorities of the time TRIED to integrate, they learned our language, saluted our flag, fought for our country, and were, above all, Americans. Congress made the absolute right choice when it passed the Civil Rghts act, giving these wonderful people the full rights they deserved. However, they also, caught up in a fervor of White guilt, foolishly passed immigration reform, lowering the racial quotas for those wishing to immigrate to our country.Let's examine the average immigrant of today's world. Many of them (20% in California) do not even know English![4] They demand change, they demand equality, but they do not TRY to integrate! There have been demonstrations (called "civil rights protests" by our non-represtenting represtentatives) of immigrants marching under a foreign flag, and they commit massive amounts of crime."The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates that immigrants (legal and illegal) comprise 20 percent of inmates in prisons and jails. The foreign-born are 15.4 percent of the nation’s adult population"DHS states that it has identified 221,000 non-citizens in the nation’s jails. This equals 11 to 15 percent of the jail population. Non-citizens comprise only 8.6 percent of the nation’s total adult population. A Pew Hispanic Center study found that, of those sentenced for federal crimes in 2007, non-citizen Hispanics were 74 percent of immigration offenders, 25 percent of drug offenders, 8 percent of white collar offenders, and 6 percent of firearms offenders. Non-citizen Hispanics are 5.1 percent of the nation’s adult population.[5]I think I've made my point for now.Immigrants continue to flood in, diluting our culture, our resources, and the purity of our blood. Indeed the racial barriers that divided our fathers, and their fathers before them are quickly falling apart. If we are to have any chance to take back our culture, and reunify our country, we must stop this disgusting mix of color our country is becoming. The racial differences MUST be preserved. I agree with Kevin Alfred Strom in his statement: "The birthrate of mixed-race children is rising steadily, while the birthrate for white children continues to drop. If the prevalence of interracial marriage and mating continues, the white race will eventually become extinct. Men and women of European lineage who enter into unions with members of other races are polluting the European gene pool. By marrying outside of the white race, they are contributing to the genocide of their people and the extinction of their culture."[6]Allowing non-European people into our borders, sending them to school with our children, and allowing them to do blanant harm to our country all encourages miscegenation. Do not think that only current citizens are harmed through the immigration problem, the immigrants themselves suffer harm too! Indeed, they are the victims of hate crimes and poverty. It is in the best interest for both of our two groups of people if we cut off this flood off persons coming from our south. That's all I have for now, I wish my Opponent a good debate and I understand this is a sensitive issue so I really do not want anyone to take offense.Sources:1. http://www.reuters.com...2. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...3. 2010 U.S. Census4. http://www.ppic.org...5. http://www.cis.org...6. Strom, Kevin Alfred. "Interracial Marriage Is Genocide."

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


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

This House Supports the Path to Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants

Many thanks to Con for clarifying your stance. I must admit that this is going to be a challenging debate for me. I will have to gather my facts and evidence accordingly. Here goes. In defense of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants:

Immigration is one of the most contentious issues for freedom-loving individuals. Many believe in government restrictions on immigration, either for their own sake or as a temporary measure until the United States reforms its welfare programs that are presumed to attract immigrants who then become net recipients of government revenue at the expense of taxpayers. However, most arguments against immigration, coming from partisans of freedom, boil down to the notion that free immigration fosters socialism and moves American society away from the libertarian ideal.

It is argued that immigrants use welfare programs and encourage their expansion; or that immigrants modify American culture generally for the worse, bringing from their native countries alien and socialistic ideas; or that free immigration itself constitutes a de facto trespass against the private-property rights of Americans; or some combination of the above arguments is advanced.

C1. It harms the country they move from: There is no evidence to support this. If Con's argument on overpopulation in America is anything to go by, then it would be hypocritical for him to state that the migrant's home country would be benefited if said country's population would be larger.

C2. Immigration harms the country they move to: Some pro-immigration libertarians have attempted to show that illegal immigrants actually receive less in welfare than they pay in taxes or even less than what native-born Americans receive, on average. This argument, as useful as it may be, circumvents the fundamental issues of immigration policy.

In exploring immigration as a social service welfare issue, let us consider that it is not only opponents of social welfare who oppose open borders because of a perceived relationship between immigration and the welfare issue. European countries with socialist economies often have extremely strict immigration policies, and citizens of those countries often see that open immigration threatens their welfare state, which they strive to maintain.

American advocates of social welfare policies also see the incompatibility between their pet programs and a free flow of immigrants. In a recent interview with Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader implied such an incompatibility, as well as a conception that the government should centrally plan the economy, when he said, "I don't believe in giving visas to software people from the Third World when we have got all kinds of unemployed software people here." He went on to say, "

I don't see any problems with compromise outlined in the state of the union address. I'm against the government shutdown. I don't believe U. S workers should be penalized because of Immigration politics. I'd also like to point out that you've challenged me to a debate on which you have made no points. I only know that you support the wall in some fashion. It's hard to have nuance in a situation where there's no source material or points being made. So what exactly about the wall are you in favor of and how do you think it will affect legal immigration and paths to citizenship for dreamers?

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

For too long has the United States of America been dealing with Mexicans coming over the boarder. President Trump is right to deport all Mexicans that are coming across the border and not paying taxes and stealing money from America citizens! My opponent will argue that the Mexicans should stay. I will argue that all Mexicans should be deported.

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

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

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.

Thanks for this debate. I'm going to be busy in the following few days, so it might be possible that I have to forfeit the last round due to time constraints. If that does happen, I apologize in advance. ------"I feel that Puerto Rico could be lifted out of poverty if we all pitch in"We don't have the moral obligation to bring Puerto Rico to prosperity when we have our own states (Mississippi!) failing in terms of educational ability, corruption, and (get this!) financial stability. We can't really say that we should help foreign, proposed states when we cannot help our own states. This point of yours is negated."In the case of DC, they are a city, yes that is true. But they hold most of the government offices, and they are very wealthy"Okay, two things:1) A city state in the union will not work. Arguing in favor of DC statehood when they have less people than NYC is illogical. If we allow DC to get statehood, then we should grant all other big cities to do this as well.2) One of the main reasons why DC statehood would blow is because of the fact that they hold most of our government offices. If we grant DC statehood, they would have an unfair advantage over the other states. We are not going to be offering some states the ability to have more influence over the senate than the others, that is immoral. Point negated."Statehood to DCwould also in the long term benifit the country, so Maryland and Virgania aren't always fighting over who owns it"They don't fight over it. DC is its own "sovereign" district." In the case of North Colorado, no I am not in favor of gerrymandering at all"Then you are not in favor of North Colorado, since this state would follow the exact definition of gerrymandering. Not a very good idea."North Colorado voted for Bob Beauprez for the most part in the most recent governor election, but he lost due to the liberals in the southern half of the state, which I conceed, is fair and square poltics"Good for them. But we're not debating whether they voted their own way, we're debating whether they ought to be their own state. I guess you are in favor of a single-party country, since that would resolve political conflict, as well! "They have no representation in some of their counties in the California State Senate" Good for them, but since they have such sparse populations, I don't see this as a bad thing. The San Antonio area should have representation, but a county with 5 people should not have equal representation in the senate. "state of jefferson website"Very very biased source, don't use these in debates since they are so one sided."They need to become their own state so they can have a true democracy."We're not a democracy. We're a republic. True democracy doesn't work on a scale such as this. Don't be crazy.-----Rest my case for round 4. I have sufficiently proved all of the proposed states should not be granted statehood, so I win this debate. I apologize again if I forfeit the next round due to time constraints. Thanks for instigating this debate, as well as understanding.

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...

This is a debate between illegal immigration. I am against it, my opponent will be for it. Round 1 is just an opener.

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.


Question: Should the State Grant Illegal Immigrants the Opportunity for Citizenship?

Resolved: The government should not permit illegal immigrants to become citizens.

Introduction

American inventor and engineer Charles Franklin Kettering once stated, "We must all be concerned about the future, because we will have to spend the rest of our lives there." It is our responsibility to ensure that the future remains prosperous and maintains beneficial attributes. Given the potential negative impact of increased immigration on these principles, we must oppose the resolution.

Before diving into the arguments, we must address three crucial questions: a) what are the current immigration laws, b) what is their purpose, and c) why do people immigrate?

A. What Are the Current Immigration Laws?

According to the Immigration Policy Center in 2015, "U.S. immigration law is very complex... The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), the body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members. Congress and the President determine a separate number for refugee admissions. Immigration to the US is based upon the following principles: the reunification of families, admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the U.S. economy, protecting refugees, and promoting diversity." Our U.S. immigration laws vary due to different circumstances, but the central law is an annual limit of roughly 675,000 immigrants each year. Note that these immigrants are all considered legal.

B. What is the Purpose of U.S. Immigration Laws?

Immigration laws serve multiple purposes, primarily to prevent an excessive population without sufficient necessities (including housing, work, medical services, etc.). The Legal Information Institute of Cornell University Law School explains, "Federal immigration law determines whether a person is an alien, the rights, duties, and obligations associated with being an alien in the US, and how aliens gain residence or citizenship within the US. It also provides the means by which certain aliens can become legally naturalized citizens with full rights of citizenship. Immigration law serves as a gatekeeper for the nation's border, determining who may enter, how long they may stay, and when they must leave."

C. Why Do People Immigrate?

There are various reasons for immigration, as explained by the Watson Institute for International Studies of Brown University: "The idealism surrounding immigration explains in large part the deep feelings it evokes in the public policy arena. These sentiments have jostled with concerns about the economy, ethnic relations, social services, the environment, and other issues." Additionally, reasons for immigration

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

I have no idea from where you are mentioning these but let me help you to know something and clarify. 1. Immigrants dont have luxary to stay lazy and do nothing. Their visa status won't allow it. 2. Immigrants do pay Tax, and it is a large proportion of IRS's earning. That money US government uses for everybody in USA , even for many of its citizens who even don't pay taxes. 3. Immigrants don't take any money from any of the citizens, they rather work amd earn. 4. On economy catagory I didn't want to mention it but as you picked it up, "The Horrible" things happenning in USA , in schools, in bars, in night clubs or in Las Vegas concert are all done by some local psychos only , not by immigrants. And by the way if you want an example consider the social security tax immigrants pay to government even though they know they won't get benifited from it.

In some states gay and lesbian people are not allowed to get married. That is very wrong. My opponent, shall be persuading why these rights should be provoked. This is my first debate and is all for fun. I am just trying to learn how to use this website. Thank you for your support and I hope to see you on the field of law.

First, I shall rebut Pro’s response to my fifth point about a better alternative together with her second argument about unemployment and legal immigration since they kind of go hand in hand. I will then respond to her R4 and support arguments for my case.5) Better Alternative/Argument #2Pro seems to be saying that more immigration makes it harder for Americans to find jobs. However, her statistics seem to contradict the point she is trying to make. Pro states that employment actually increased, while unemployment remained nearly the same. She also claims that America “suffers” a low unemployment rate, when low unemployment rates are clearly a good thing. That aside, Pro also claims that immigrants take scarce job opportunities. This is incorrect. First, very few low-skilled jobs are filled by Americans. Those are mostly filled by immigrants, who are vital in helping to improve our economy. Certain industries, like agriculture, are almost entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants. For example, “retail milk prices would increase by 61 percent if its immigrant labor force were to be eliminated.” [1] The truth is that “most unskilled immigrants don't displace American workers. They fill niches — not just farmhand, but also chambermaid, busboy and others — that would otherwise go empty.” [2] “Of the 2.5 million farm workers in the U.S., over half (53 percent) are illegal immigrants,” which goes up to 70% if labor unions are added. Over two decades of research has proved that all types of revenue generated from illegal immigrants exceed the cost of the services they use. [1] “Every farm job supports three to four others up and downstream in the local economy,” so the idea that immigrants detract from the job market is untrue. [2] The standard of living for most Americans actually increased as a result of their contributions—and this is according to the consensus of over 500 economists who have researched this topic. [1]1) Cost and 2) EffectivenessPro once again admits that the cost of maintaining and expanding the border fence would be very substantial. She continues to reference her statistics about the number or attempted crossings going down as evidence that the border fence is effective and should be extended. Perhaps I was not completely clear in my previous round, but the problem is this: Pro has not shown that the border fence and the border fence alone is responsible for these decreases. I cited different factors—increased border patrols and better technology, for example—that would explain those statistics equally well, if not better. Merely restating statistics will not change anything. Pro has provided evidence, but the evidence does not speak for itself. She has failed to link this evidence specifically to the border fence. Therefore, her argument is unwarranted. Even if we accept for a moment that the fence actually does reduce the number of illegal crossings, it is far from certain that expanding the fence would outweigh the potential harms that I have explained—the extremely high cost, the environmental impact, and most importantly the price in thousands of human lives. Pro even partially acknowledges this when she says that many do fail in crossing the border—and yet her proposal to expand the fence would only claim more lives. In the light of these other factors, what we would gain from expanding the fence is almost negligible. It remains Pro’s burden to prove that expanding the border fence can have substantial positive impacts using reasoning that goes beyond simply arguing that because something is slightly good, much more of it is definitely better. Not everything that is good in small amounts is beneficial in larger portions.3) Immigration and povertyPro says that I support immigrants crossing. I would like to reiterate that my argument is for legal immigration. Reforming the existing system along the lines of what HR-15 proposes will take away the incentive for illegal crossings and encourage people to migrate legally instead. One thing must be made clear: immigration will exist, regardless of whether the fence is expanded, and regardless of whether reform is implemented, because the incentives exist for them to migrate. The difference is that, under Pro’s proposal, these immigrants will remain illegal, more people will die crossing, and people smugglers make much more money. My plan for immigration reform will take away the incentive for migrants to cross illegally, greatly reducing the money smugglers and traffickers can make. And when their motivation for dealing in this kind of business, namely money, is gone, they will no longer remain in that kind of work. This would partially solve for the harms regarding drug trafficking and human trafficking that Pro brought up earlier. Pro seems to assume that more immigration leads to poverty in America, a point that I have proven false in the paragraph above. Legal immigration also does not prevent us from dealing with poverty. Pro’s claim here is once again unwarranted.4) Environmental impactI fail to see how Pro concludes that I have not provided evidence for the immense environmental destruction that the border fence has already caused and will continue to cause if it is expanded. I cited specific examples, but those are hardly the only ones of their kind. I also referenced readers to the appropriate source listed in my R1 for more instances of the detrimental impact on our ecosystems.Sources:[1] http://thehill.com...[2] http://www.nytimes.com...Back over to Pro for the final round :)

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.

no man,thats not right........we have so many bright minds that have the potential to do amzing things,who knows all the great things the united states is passing up....these people make it this far becuase america is the land of oppertunity,hope and freedom.but we are not defining that with these laws

I thank Double_R for agreeing to accept this challenge. Resolution: Immigrants to the United States should be eligible to run for office of the President of the United States as long as they have continuously lived in the United States for more than 20 years. DefinitionsImmigrants: Naturalized U. S. citizens born outside the US to non US citizen parents. Natural-born citizens: Anyone born on US soil. Burden of Proof: To win Pro must show why it is justified for Naturalized US citizens henceforth referred to as "immigrants" to be eligible to run for president. To win, Con must show why it is justified for immigrants to not be eligible to run for president. RoundsRound 1 is for acceptance only.

1) I believe the idea behind voting is to have a say over what the decisions of the government are which affect us. Non-citizens who are living in the United States are affected by the decisions of our government, and yet are often not represented in that decision making process. I consider this an injustice: they get ruled over by the united states, but don't get the privilege of voting. They also get taxed without representation, considering they have to abide by the US tax law before they're even allowed to vote. Why are we putting up with what the founders despised: taxation without representation? Either they should be exempt from taxes, or we need to allow them to vote. Considering some taxes are automatic, like the sales tax, it seems the only option is to allow them to vote, since it would be impossible to exempt non-citizens from the excise taxes like sales tax. Additionally, they are held liable for our laws yet don't get a say in the laws even though they are bound to follow them. They have all of the responsibilities of a citizen essentially(paying taxes, following the law etc), but we don't give them the benefits of citizens. We should. 2) There is precedent in the United States history to allowing non-citizens to vote. The supreme court once stated, in the supreme court case Minor vs Happersett in 1874, that "citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote", despite this, federal law currently prevents non-citizens from voting[1]I'll leave it at this for nowSources:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

To be clear, before I start, I want to say I personally sympathize with Pro's situation. I'll be arguing as a devil's advocate so my opponent can warm up and actually argue appropriately. That said, no punches will be pulled. I expect this to become a very ugly debate by the end. Please be warned. Do not feel humiliated. I'm arguing this so you can stand up for yourself. -----End of Warning----- While it is important to remember that our soldiers defend our country, it is likewise important to remember that our country is built upon immigration. Those who protect and serve need to remember what they protect and serve. They should also feel good about being helpful instead of expecting compensation for everything they do. Who they are helping comes first. This means enabling immigrants who become productive members of civilian life unlike the soldiers who needed to enlist in military life in order to become productive. If anyone deserves to be prioritized, it's those immigrants, illegal or not, who have directly contributed to our economy instead of sapping salaries away from the civilian economy. Whether Pro wants to admit to it or not, he is effectively racist because he's taking resources away from those who deserve a better life and are aspiring for the American Dream, many of whom who just "coincidentally" come from the same Hispanic origin. Military personnel gave up their opportunity to assimilate into civilian life. Now it's someone else's turn. That doesn't give military personnel the right to take it back. Furthermore, illegal immigrants have contributed handily to our economy's well being in turns of agriculture and construction not to mention how many of them have extensive social networks of honest contributors to society. It's a shame that military personnel, many of whom come from traditional families themselves, seek to split the traditions of fellow hardworking Americans. Pro has also failed to provide an alternative mechanism for dealing with illegal immigrant naturalization. On the other hand, natives should be ashamed that they don't live in circumstances as bad as illegal immigrants. It could be worse for them. They should be grateful for what they have.

The drean act would benefit The United States.