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

We Must Enforce Immigration Laws and Deny Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants

For 10 compelling reasons, we must deport illegal immigrants from the United States. The phrase "The American Dream" was coined by James Truslow Adams, a white man, in his 1931 book, The Epic of America. Adams discussed the unalienable rights of American citizens in relation to The Declaration of Independence. However, this has nothing to do with illegal immigrants residing in the United States. They are "illegal" for a reason, and as long as they remain noncompliant with U.S. law, they will be deported instead of receiving amnesty or white picket fences.

A sonnet about the Statue of Liberty is merely a piece of literature and not U.S. immigration law. The fact that it is a "famous" poem is irrelevant. If you are an illegal alien, the Statue of Liberty is not "yours." France gifted the statue to the People of the United States, and Congress handed it over to the Parks Service, which operates Liberty Island.

The poem "The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus, written in 1883 to raise funds for the Statue of Liberty pedestal, was engraved on a bronze plaque and mounted inside the pedestal's lower level in 1903. However, this sonnet was merely a subjective work of literary art and had no direct correlation or significance to any legislation, policy, or practice of the U.S. government.

The fact that millions of people from countries like Mexico flood into the U.S. without permission speaks volumes about their lack of respect for this country and their character deficits. They are in no position to beg the United States for favors, as their belligerent behavior will result in the forfeiture of their eligibility to "ever" obtain a Green Card, and this is their own fault, not ours.

People can come to the United States from places like Cuba, Honduras, and Mexico, but they must do so legally and respect the laws and the people of this land. Comparing illegal immigrants who sneak across the U.S. borders to those fleeing the Communist Fidel Castro regime is like comparing apples to oranges. These are different groups of people who are viewed and treated differently by the United States government.

Laws, barbed wire, and fences are in place for a reason. The assimilation that I am referring to does not involve abandoning one's native language or religion. However, to become a Naturalized American Citizen, one must

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.

Illegal immigration's benefits. First, from the state point of view, illegal immigration to their country is beneficial because employer recruit aliens for little salary and hardworks where no one wants to work. The benefit is that for the hard work employer pay less than it should be and extra money stay in that country and increase country's budget. The second benefit of any immigration is that immigrants increase demographical status. For example if country has little population immigrants fill it. The third benefit is that illegal immigrants pay any taxes if they must pay, again strengthening the country's economy.

Having immigrants in the United States of America has many benefits such as increasing the community"s tax base because they buy products produced by the local community. In Thokozile Gurganious"s text, "How Immigration Benefits America", he claims, ""By increasing consumer demand, immigrants generate economic growth which benefits the middle-class. Immigration is also a major contributor to the expansion of Hispanic and Asian-American Consumer markets, which in 2003 was estimated to make up 12 percent of the national purchasing power"" (Gurganious). Immigrants are not only introducing new products to America, but they are also contributing to the national purchasing power. The more immigrants the government allows into the country, the higher the national purchasing power percentage will increase due to expansion of the cultural markets. Because of immigrants, America is known for its astounding diversity. Further on in his text, Gurganious acknowledges, "Before the 1960s, the immigration policy of the U.S. favored immigration from Western Europe and Canada, and as a result immigration prior 1960 were mainly from European countries. However, in the 1960s immigration laws were changed as a result of the civil rights movement. Since then, there has been a decline of immigrants from Europe and a rise of immigrant from Asia and Latin America. "These relatively recent changes in the national origin of immigrants have begun to convert the United States into a largely bi-racial society"" (Gurganious). The United States of America has evolved into a country in which racial discrepancy is nothing but a faded topic. We, as Americans, have moved past our racial differences and have become one as a country accepting those of all cultures. The individuals who come from different countries or different cultures help formulate what America is today. Gurganious, Thokozile. "Benefits of Immigration." Life Paths. Helium Inc., 06 December 2009. Web. 18 October 2013.

You are right, but these statements have both sides. The first your statement is that illegal immigrants work on hard works and take little salary. Illeal immigrants take good and high salaryly work places where own citizens want to work, and send all taken money to their homeland. The second benefit of any immigration is that immigrants increase demographical status. Due to illegal immigration, the overall population of the country spurts and results in major difficulties. There is overcrowding and increased burden in public places and public transports. The third benefit is that illegal immigrants pay any taxes Not all illegal immigrants pay taxes, even more than half illegal immigrants don't pay taxes.

illegal aliens should not be allowed in this country. we need to fence the border . they come in, have welfare but dont pay taxes. they just take money. 90% of arrest warrants are for illegal aliens. people use the excuse "if we send them back,we will have no one to do the crops" all the time. that is BS. only 2% of illegal aliens work on crops. they need to fence the border

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

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.

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...

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


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

Should undocumented immigrants have the opportunity to live in the United States? They deserve to reside in the United States because they come here to work hard, raise families, and strive for a better life. I strongly believe that they are diligent individuals with valuable skills. If all the undocumented immigrants, who make up approximately 5% of the American population, were to suddenly disappear, roughly 5% of the jobs would be left vacant. These positions would remain unfilled, highlighting the importance of not dismissing them outright. Even you acknowledge this issue by stating that there is a problem because they take jobs away from Americans. Regarding your point: you support your argument by claiming, "Undocumented immigrants are taking jobs from our impoverished population who desperately need them." Whenever someone takes a job, they eliminate the hypothetical opportunity for someone else to have that job. These immigrants come here for a reason. They come to earn a living because they were previously living in poverty in their home countries. They deserve those jobs just as much as the next impoverished person. The majority of undocumented immigrants are indeed living in poverty.

In you argument you are saying that if we abolish birthright citizenship it would cause more work for the government. But in fact would you say that by having this law it is causing the government to do a ton of work by giving these children citizenship and documentation. In both worlds the government has to do a lot of work so therefore your argument is non-unique. In fact by abolishing the birthright citizenship law or changing the 14th Amendment it would in fact lesson the amount of documentation. If the parents have documentation then the baby receives documentation and it simplifies the problem. Now in the essence of what you said about the parents taking the test, even if they take the test is it fair that they pass the whole waiting list and bypass all the rules and regulations that were set up for other families? America is based on a belief that we all have the same opportunities and have a fair share. The government has actually done everything in their power to create a fair society. While their is an economic inequality that does not mean we are treated unfairly. Now for your last thing stating whether or not it is a big issue or if it is a small one has no relevance to the situation. No matter what kind of inconvenience or problem it should still try and be fixed. This debate does not say when or how the bill will be abolished but the debate of whether or not it should be abolished.

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.

Believe it or not, a the majority of illegal immigrants do pay taxes according to Nick Gillespie and company"s text "Immigration Now, Immigration Tomorrow, Immigration Forever". Many argue that illegal immigrants do not pay taxes, but in reality, they pay the majority of taxes that the Americans pay. In his text, Gillespie acknowledges "About two-thirds of illegals pay Medicare, Social security, and income taxes. All pay sales taxes and property taxes (directly if they own property, or, more likely, indirectly via rents that reflect property taxes). And since 1996, the only public funds illegals can really access are for emergency medical care and primary and secondary education (and only ten percent of illegals send kids to public schools)" (Gillespie). Like Americans, illegal immigrants pay taxes to the government for living in the United States of America. Even though they do not pay all of the same exact taxes as American citizens, they pay the majority of taxes. Immigrants occupy a high percentage of skilled jobs because of the knowledge and skills that they possess. Gillespie recognizes that in the United States, fifty-four percent of tailors are foreign-born and forty-four percent of immigrants are plaster-stucco masons. Immigrants help the United States of America because they are contributing to the economy by putting their skills and knowledge to use. Immigrants strive to live their lives as individuals in America by contributing or offering their skills. Gillespie, Nick., Howley, Kerry., Lochhead, Carolyn., Cavanaugh, Tim., al, Et. "Immigration Now, Immigration Tomorrow, Immigration Forever. Reason. 01 August 2006: 30. eLibrary. Web 15 October 2013. Print.

i agree with you on citizenship. but until citizenship is abolished, everyone has to follow the rules. that includes immigrants.

There are 2 types of Latin American on US immigration; legal immigration and illegal immigration. Legal immigration would remain more or less constant since many Latinos would either come legally through the wall because it would be a wall with a door, allowing good immigrants in and keeping bad ones out of the country, or by plane as you mentioned. Most Muslims come legally and get heavily filtered when coming to the US., and they should get heavily filtered. They fly on planes here. However, when talking about illegal immigration from Latin America, a wall would definitely reduce illegal immigration.

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

I think that, largely, we are going to travel in circles with this debate if neither of us offer up substantial new points. Thus, this is what I am going to try to do. One thing I wish to reiterate is that, opposite to the beliefs of the pro, Marriage should not be abolished as a legal institution. [i] Rather [/i], Civil Unions and homosexual marriage should be given the same status as marriage possesses. To lead off with my arguments, let me just appoint the readers to a recent decision by the Church of Sweden to conduct homosexual marriages. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Amendment 14: 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." ~ http://www.usconstitution.net... It's all very fine for you to quote a single phrase or section of the entire section of the Amendment, but the interpretation you are looking for is, indeed, incorrect. It continues to state, '...without due process of the law.' I seem to note that extensive legal processes have been performed by the law in regards to homosexuality and civil unions. In fact, the majority of the States completely reject homosexual marriage. They are supported by the courts, to a large extent. As the Jurisdiction lies within the state, each state can thus rule upon its own decision as regarding the Constitution. And, thus, as such, they are not impeding the the legal rights of civil unions according to the 14th. And, no substantial legislation has recently been passed in which to prevent the union of homosexuals or like parties. To the contrary, most important recent laws have to do with the legalization of Civil Unions and the repealing of certain laws that prevented homosexual marriage to occur. Steps have been made in such states that support homosexual marriages and civil unions to match their rights with those of heterosexual couples. Now, homosexual couples are allowed to file income jointly in certain states (such as California). Thus, advances are being made, but more importantly, the 14th amendment is NOT being defied or broken in any way. Also very important is the fact that a Civil Union or homosexual couple realizes exactly what they are getting into when they perform the deed. The limit of rights that result do not suddenly appear as a surprise. Each person fully realizes what s/he is doing and that there are certain consequences (such as the lack of rights as compared to those granted to heterosexuals). Yet, even though a full realization is made (also a realization of breaking a very moral decision), and the Civil Union/Homosexual marriage conducted, anyway. With Full recognition by Both parties. I think it is you who are being stubborn. Marriage itself is a 'holy union' between couples. How does such an intimate relationship discriminate? In the United States, it is true that not everyone can be married, but that is only because they choose to defy natural law, order and societal standards. Any man can marry any woman if the consent of both is given. I think this is another place you err. The married couples themselves don't 'lord' anything. Of course, the public opinion against homosexuals is often highly discriminatory, of which case they aren't 'lording' their 'elite' status but rather expressing disgust over the immoral actions of another. Prostitution is distinctly similar to the 'engagement period', except more short term and for a certain degree of money. A couple living together often results in problems - heartbreak, seperation before marriage and perhaps even a legitimate child and then single mother. Any parents who wish to see their children grow up with family values do not encourage their children to live with another until they are married. Thus, even if it is not distinctly considered 'immoral' among society, living with an opposite sex before marriage does oppose traditional family values. And your following statement is quite discriminatory in itself. Just because parents wish to teach their children family values, they live in the stone age? Quite biased, that.

I would like to point out that marriage is not going anywhere anytime soon, and in order to be fair to every individual it should include everyone's will. Meaning two consensual adults should be able to marry each other regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, place of organ, or any other such factor. He seems to be worried that there will be an increase in immigration, which I do not oppose, however we could alter the rights so that in order to be married in this country both parties must have lived in the country for X amount of time, or the one immigrating must go through legal procedures. Of course I do not see why if immigration is the purpose they would want to marry same gender. I am aware that you can have wills and powers of attorneys, but it is not the same. If marriage exists it should be fair to all parties. Even if you are against marriage I am sure you can agree to equality. Also I'm sorry I was using that to define marriage and should have specified as such.

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.

Pro In a time when our country is flailing due to money issues, what more incentive do you need for action? The birthright citizenship allows for illegal immigrants to come into the country, give birth to children, and then live off of the welfare that their now legal children receive. This welfare incentive is why illegals would be giving birth to their children in the United States. With birthright citizenship abolished, this welfare dilemma would cease to exist and another source of our deficit budget shall be solved. The con has stated that if birthright citizenship were to be abolished, then the amount of illegal, undocumented citizens that are currently occupying the United States would rise to 40% by 2050, but this is assuming the current trend of illegal immigration and the birth of illegal immigrant's children continues. With the birthright citizenship abolished, the trend of illegal immigrants would drastically decrease because there is no incentive to give birth here. The NY Times, in article, states: "Children of illegal immigrants make up 7 percent of all people in the country younger than 18 years old, according to the study, which is based on March 2009 census figures, the most recent data on immigrant families. Nearly four out of five of those children, 79 percent, are American citizens because they were born here." This means that roughly 5.2% of all children under the age of 18 or roughly 3,864,000 people in the United States in 2008 are citizens because their parents had them born here and their parents were illegal immigrants, according to the United States Census Bureau. Most of these children are then considered anchor babies because they are goven welfare, which their illegal parents live off of. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was created in a time when slaves were being denied citizenship and illegal immigrants were not a problem recognized within the country. Now, many years later, the 14th Amendment applies to all people born here, but this was not how it was meant to be used. The birthright citizenship of those born here, where neither parent is a legal citizen, is exploited for their gain and should be amended to more reliably apply to the time period. Finally, the United States is one of a handful of developed countries that still have birthright citizenship for those born to non-legal citizens/immigrants. According to numbersusa.com, the Unit States and Canada are the only developed nations that still have birthright citizenship with nations such as the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Germany, etc. having gotten rid of it. The United States needs to mend itself and its laws o fit the times and, relative to this debate, eliminate birthright citizenship. Sources shall be posted in my closing argument.


Question: Should the state grant citizenship to undocumented immigrants?

As a native American citizen, I hold the view that granting automatic citizenship to illegal immigrants is fundamentally unfair, particularly to those who are diligently following the legal process to become U.S. citizens. I do not wish to demonize illegal immigrants, as humans naturally seek better opportunities, and the U.S. remains an attractive destination for many. However, if illegal immigrants are to be permitted entry, it should strictly be for employment purposes. Contrary to the common belief that they steal jobs from Americans, illegal immigrants often take on jobs that many U.S. citizens are unwilling to do, such as agricultural labor, sanitation work, and other menial tasks that are generally shunned by the American populace. Therefore, my stance is that illegal immigrants should not be granted sanctuary or automatic citizenship in a country to which they do not legally belong. They should only be allowed if they possess a valid work visa and are subject to close monitoring to prevent them from blending into the general population and going undetected. Stringent regulations must be in place to limit their activities. As for the illegal immigrants already residing in the country, they should be identified and deported to their home countries, with the option to return through legal channels to pursue citizenship. Automatic forgiveness and citizenship should not be an option; only those who abide by the rules should be granted access, and even then, they must meet stringent criteria.

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

As I stated before, the Constitution never grants the Federal Goveronment the power to establish a FEDERAL minimum wage, since this power is not prohibied to the states, it should be given to the states respectively, or to the people. This is why the term state to the rest of the world, as well as in America during the 1700's, "state" meant a sovereign state, with the power to establish their own laws, their own ystem, etc. This has a number of benefits, first of all, the economic and social situations of each state is different, allowing for laws to change according to circumstances. For example, if someone was carryin a riffle around in the open in Washington DC it might be considered threatening, but if someone lives in Detroit- this is acceptable. And yes, under the First Ammendment the people have a right to petition the goveronment for a redress of their greivances, but either way it would be best to give this powe to the states or to the people. Also, it would not be appropriateterminology to say "raising the minimum wage to 10.10$ a hour," because in 1968 it was 11$ a hour, thus this would be "restoring the minimum wage to 11$ a hour. In response to the latter, first of all, in Switzerland there is no minimum wage, yet workers earn 2,500$ a month, for the 41.5 hour shift that the swiss earn, this is 15.06$, that's 6 cents higher than the 15$ that those crazy american workers want. This is a classic example of the power being reserved "to the people," because this is all because of labour unions. And my opponents wages in Europe are irrelevant, because in the US the minimum wage is left to the states, so saying that the minimum wage in the US is 7.25$ isn't really fair, the minimum wage in California is 10$ a hour, in the District of Columbia it's 11.50$, and if you want to forma labour union you can raise the minimum wage (for you) yourself. {1} {1}. http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com...

We'd make ourselves prone to war. Although we are in NATO, it would be a strain on other countries to have to assist us if someone undocumented from another country attacked us. We also have plenty of illegal activities going on with the borders up. The number would spike up so much higher if drug dealers, human traffickers, etc were allowed to just enter and go as they please! An open border would just make the US a criminal hangout for many.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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 citizenship to undocumented immigrants?

The majority of Americans are against amnesty for illegal immigrants. In a 2010 poll conducted by CNN/Opinion Research, respondents were asked, "Should the United States facilitate the path to citizenship for illegal immigrants?" Sixty-six percent of those surveyed responded that the U.S. should not make it easier, while only 33 percent believed it should.

~~Defense~~ I am arguing that the state has no compelling reason for the state to legalize it. The state offers benefits to marriage because it has the purpose of procreating. Marriage is a way for the state to get more citizens. The acts in themselves most likely will create life. However, gay marriage undermines this and has no chance of creating life therefore, the state should not legalize it. My opponent then lists a series of deninitions of the term marriage. He says that since gay marriage is a listed definition then it is acknowledgeable, but he fails to realize that we are debating on whether it should be legalized or not. I have given points that have proven that the state has no compelling reason to legalize it, therefore, it should not be legalized. My oppoent then states:'According to the definition my opponent presented, marriage is a dispensable means by which new life can be brought into this world, which means that it is inessential. I agree with this statement, as one can have children out of wedlock. However, that definition also belies the syllogism that depends on it. ' My opponent is wrong. The acts i themselves are sanctioned by the government. When people are not married they tend to use more controception as a means to decrease the chance of pregnancy. Most married couple however, are going to have a few if not a lot of offspring. The problem with homosexual marriage is that it doesn't have any chance at all of producing offspring, and in fact underminds heterosexual marriage which generally makes more organized families with children in stable enviroments. Therefore, heterosexual marriage should be legal by the state, and homosexual 'marriages' shouldn't. My last argument was not fallacious, it is fact. For example: When we gave women the right to vote (which I have no problem with) they kept on pushing for other freedoms which pushed the line of morality intill they legalized abortion which is basically the extermination of the next generation. The same thing can easily be applied to gay rights. Once we legalize gay marriage, then we will have poligamists pushing for legalization of poligamy, and pedaphiles pushing for the legalization of pediphilia. This is the second resason why homosexual marriages shouldnn't be legalized. ~~Rebuttels~~ R1: My opponent has stated that homosexual unions existed in medievel times. According to his evidence he is correct, but my opponent has left one thing unnoticed: Marriage back in midievel times was not sanction by the state, and finantial benefits were not given to married couples. However, here in the United States gives support to marriages because of the fact that these unions creat more people for the continued cycle of society. Homosexuals do not create life nor does it do anything to benefit society, therefore it should not be legalized. R2: My opponent doesn't really do anything here but state that homosexuality is natural. Even though I disagree with my opponent on that, it is a subject for another debate at another time. ~~Conclusion~~ Do to the fact that my opponent was unsuccessful in refutting my arguments, and that his own arguments are not sound ones. And do to the fact that gay marriage does not do anything for the betterment of society. The government should not legalize it.

Rebuttal 1: "He talks about the amount of illegal immigrants that are currently in American prisons as a result of crimes, but the problem with his case is that he does not compare this to the amount of illegal immigrants that are in the country." The point I was making on American prisons has nothing to do with the number of illegals living in the country, it has to due with the fact that are illegals in American prisons that WE the registered citizens of this country are paying for when they should not be here in the first place. That fact that WE pay for them to be in our prisons is bad and that they should be deported. So my opponent's first rebuttal falls right there. Then my opponent turns to Newt Gingrich and his plan to get rid of illegal immigrants living in the country that provide a threat to our nation. Despite his plan, Newt is not the president, Obama is. Rebuttal 2: First off, I would like to say that my opponent has placed no links in the rebuttal he/she made. Thus, there is no evidence for her to backup on that what she is saying is actually true. "This human capital can come in the form of not only illegal immigrants working in the jobs that no one wants to work in,...." I am sure the 9% unemployed really want to work in jobs right now to get money to live. "....acquire diplomas and other required pieces of education, and they can become functional inputs in the private sector, increasing the revenue of firms and allowing them to expand to more labor." This would take the opportunities citizens in the country who wants to go school and get education. One problem with my opponent's statement is that he/she first states that the illegal immigrants could work for jobs no one wants. I would assume that these are low income jobs. Then my opponent states that illegal immigrants have the opportunity to go to acquire diplomas and so on. So if an illegal immigrant is on a low income job how do they afford college? Not many illegal immigrants have enough money and are educated enough for these jobs, unless they are doing good in the country they live in which makes no sense for them to leave it. From my opponent's argument you can conclude one way that illegals can afford college and that is welfare. As I have already stated before *with evidence* 70% of Texas' illegal immigrant are on the welfare system. Now my opponent has provided no evidence (as I have stated before) so we do not even know the demographics of illegals going to colleges and getting educations that provide them go to into the business, law, and medical sectors. Also, in an economic depression you cut back and can only hire so few and if illegal immigrants are taking job that are needed by actual citizens as well as downsizing wages for those lower class jobs then that means they are not providing a benefit to the nation. My arguments still stand that Americans also lose money for paying a whopping $52 billion on illegals in the education system. Rebuttal 3: While the PATRIOT Act is in place, the lack of a fence on our southern border still allows them to infiltrate the country as well as the cartels. We need to stop them from getting in our country by cutting off this route and making locations where people can cross from border to border if they have the certain things needed to.

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

I see that my opponent has forfeited his round even though he has been online within the last 22 hours. I will now briefly summarise this debate. My contention is that disallowing non-American born citizens of the USA from being President is not fair, just or reasonable. I have presented my arguments for it above. My opponent's argument relied on two contentions. Firstly, he argued that without the said restriction, the Oval Office would be open to foreign influence. Secondly, he claimed that US-born Americans are better qualified to represent the interests of mainstream Americans than those born elsewhere. I have demonstrated in my rebuttal that the candidate's place of birth has little to none bearing on his or her likelihood of being influenced by foreign interests. It may be a factor to be taken into account when determining such an issue. However, it cannot be of itself decisive. There are many examples (some shown above in my arguments) of non-American born citizens who would arguably perform better in terms of the said criteria. Please note that I have not contended that President of the USA should not be carefully screened so as to ensure that (s)he is not committed to foreign interests. That was never my contention. My contention was simply that place of birth is not a criterion that can be reasonably used to decide that question. Other methods should be employed. As for a candidate's ability to deal with mainstream issues, I can only add that this quality in a candidate is quite well screened out in the campaigning process. In the end, it is the people of America who (albeit indirectly) decide who will be their President. Ladies and gentlemen. Please bear in mind that you are to judge this debate based on the merits of what is said within it and not on any external reasoning or evidence. I submit that I have rebutted my opponent's argument and that he then did not even address that rebuttal. Rather, he forfeited his round. I conclude this by saying that I have disproven the resolution and that you should vote Con. Thank you

It is true that married couples get rights, but with rights comes responsibilty. Most of the rights they have aren't even that big of a deal. Most of the information can be found here, . http://en.wikipedia.org... I'm pretty sure that if you marry an American you still have to go through the legal process. My uncle (from England) married my aunt and he had to get a green card and do all that still. My stance is it should be legal for everybody, or nobody. You can't grant some individuals one right but not others because they don't like someone of the opposite gender. Since marriage wont be taken out any time soon, gay marriage should be legalized. I agree that everyone should have the same opportunity for happiness and if strait marriage is legal, gay marriage also should be too. Some other links that may be interesting: . http://www.catholiceducation.org... . http://nofo.blogspot.com...

Basically I am opposed to illegal immigration, I am totally for giving people better lives but i don't feel that it should be at the cost of others. If all of America's benefits and opportunities is a life boat and the people already on it are citizens, we can't just keep putting people on the life boat(illegal immigrants) because than it endangers the people already on the life boat. And I know feel that illegal immigrants probably haven't done anything illegal in their lives and they had good intentions when they got in the US but just the sheer act of them bypassing the usual protocols of becoming a citizen is what is illegal, and that is something we cannot look past, I feel America is not stepping up to the task and securing boarders, that they are almost aiding and abetting them in committing the crime of coming to the US illegally.

1. The United States Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 states, "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Not offering equal protection to gays under marriage laws is unconstitutional. 2. The Declaration of Independence said "all men are created equal." And on the front of the Supreme Court building the words are etched in "Equal Justice Under Law." Equality is a basic American principle that should be respected. 3. Most hospitals allow only family members to visit after visiting hours. When somebody is on their death bed, they should be able to see the love of their life for each of those last, precious seconds. 4. When a gay American wants to marry a foreign gay person their spouse will not become an American citizen like heterosexual couples. 5. There are 1,138 federal rights not offered to gay couples. And many other state rights. 6. Many nations including Canada and the Netherlands allow same sex marriage.

There is no preamble rational enough to explain the notion that a comprehensive immigration is not beneficial for the United States. We know that the immigration system is broken, and I am acknowledging that alot of people broke the law. My argument for the Dream Act is the following. Once you come to this country as a child, learned the english language, get educated in the country, you should have the human right to legaly preserve your life by having the opportunity to employment and education. Furthermore, children's brain is not rational to understand that they infact were breaking the law. Is only just for them have an apportunity to contribute to this diverse nation made of immigrats.

Illegal immigrants are people who enter into a country ILLEGALLY. Open Borders means that people can go through borders without any restrictions from stopping them. Also, about disease, that has not been proved because international airports is an hot spot for disease since millions of flights are made across the world. Also, it is very unlikely that there be war because of open borders. The United States spends more money than any other nation on earth and has more troops than any other country except People's Republic of China. Also, it is part of NATO, which in the treaty says that an attack on one country in NATO, is an attack on countries in NATO, which includes the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Turkey, and Canada. Therefore, open borders have nothing bad about them.

What would happen to the young immigrants that came here as babies? Would anyone have the heart to kick babies out of America? Yes for today immigrants are taking our jobs but they need money and places to live and take care of their young ones. Illegal immigrants should have the same rights as us Americans, unless someone like the government see's individuals as a treat the society, I believe that some immigrants move into the U.S.A. because they don't like where they are living and need a better place to raise their children and help the elders who are sick and dying. Shutting them out is like saying no to a hungry homeless child begging for someone to help them. We should start thinking and put ourselves in their shoes and ask ourselves how would you feel if you were deported and shut out from a better living area. This is not just my opinion but facts and some truth is combined into my debate.


Question: Should the state grant citizenship to undocumented immigrants?

Granting citizenship to illegal immigrants incentivizes unlawful entry.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), in a January 2007 www.fairus.org section titled "The Impact of Illegal Immigration on New Jerseyites": "Granting amnesty to illegal alien residents by converting them to legal residents breaches a crucial tenet of immigration reform. This is because it promotes, rather than deters, future illegal immigration. A policy that signals to the world that the nation, or any state or local government, will accept and reward foreigners who disregard our immigration laws, promotes illegal immigration as a viable pathway to a better life in our country, thereby intensifying the issue."[9]

If we open our borders, then terrorists can go in and terrorize our citizens. Illegal Immigrants will come in here with no intent of becoming citizens and live off welfare and food stamps. You say that we should be able to go wherever we want. You are proposing that we allow drug dealers to come into this country and trade drugs. National Security will be threanted because Terrorists and spies will come in here and kill innocent children and take military secrets. In our Bill of rights, no where does it say that we can go wherever we want. I will wait for your response. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...

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

I find many of your arguments to be things that are inevitable in today's world or in general. 1. "Terrorists can go in and terrorize our citizens." Terrorists already come in. And is it okay that the U.S. government intervenes with other countries' business? Such as Middle East War, Syria, Vietnam, ect. ect. No, it's not. We are not the only country being terrorized. In fact we terrorize other countries' citizens. 2. Illegals. Not all illegals come here for that, they come here for a better life. What makes a person who comes here legally okay to use American welfare versus someone who is not legal. They can still get on welfare, how does it make a difference? It doesn't. What makes people who live here getting welfare any different? It doesn't. Most of the time illegals don't even get help, because they can't. They work slave labour and barely get paid, with no taxes, but help to stimulate YOUR economy. We shouldn't be able to regulate such things. Man belongs to the land. The land does not belong to the man. 3. Drugs. Okay, there are drugs here. They have been here forever. They will be here forever. Trying to regulate drugs is a waste of time. Just because we have open borders, will not heighten the drug trade. "It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom." 4. National Security threatened and terrorists kill innocent children. Not once can I think of a outside terrorist attack on U.S. soil that innocent children were killed. Versus Whereas, look at what the U.S. has done to the Middle East, thousands upon thousands innocent people and children have been killed at the hands of the American government. 5. The Bill of Rights is just a paper. It has no dictatorship over the free will of humans.

Very well. Voters just vote for the better argument. For the record I am not personally against gay marriage, no need to get mad at me for my “position” in this debate. I am con in this debate and will play my role. 1: Marriage, Religion and Government Marriage has deep roots as a religious rite. As such in the United States anyone can marry anyone or anything else within their religion. The debate over legalizing same sex marriage rests on Marriage in relation to the Government. As such, the debate is over whether the government recognizes a marriage or not for legal purposes. I bring this up as an example that a same sex couple is perfectly able to marry each other. However, that does not mean that such a marriage is recognized by the State. Ergo, this debate rests on if the Government should recognize same sex marriage. 2: Marriage as a right Pro says of Homosexual marriage bans “It is still denying a group of people a fundamental right.” Marriage is not an unalienable right, rather it is a Inalienable right. “Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred."(1) “Inalienable rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.”(1) “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”( Declaration of Independence) Our society is founded on the idea that governments are instituted to “secure” not to “grant” unalienable rights. In the U.S. every State requires a marriage license. This must be purchased and each State has requirements that must be met to acquire such a license. For example, A state may require… “A marriage license issued by the county clerk or clerk of the court (along with payment of a fee). Both man and woman are 18 or older, or have the consent of a parent or a judge if younger. Proof of immunity or vaccination for certain diseases Proof of the termination of any prior marriages by death, judgment of dissolution (divorce) or annulment.”(2) From this it is reasonable to conclude that Marriage is not viewed as an unalienable right in the U.S. Rather it is an Inalienable right. This is the case as being licensed requires being granted the right to do the licensed activity provided you meet the standards set by the State. I.E. Driving, or in this case, Marriage. “You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government.”(1) While Marriage may be a “fundamental right” that does not mean that it is unalienable. 3: Principles of our democracy Pro says “It is also in violation of the principles of democracy, as 55% of Americans agree with allowing gay marriage.” “What's important to remember is this: It's up to the states to decide who can and can't get married.”(3) In the State of Utah “57 percent of residents oppose same-sex marriage, while 36 percent support it and 6 percent are undecided, according to the survey conducted by longtime pollster Dan Jones & Associates/Cicero Group on Jan. 14-16. It has a plus or minus 3.6 percent margin of error.”(4) As marriage is left to the states it matters not if 55% of Americans are for same sex marriage if in individual States the majority are against it. My opponent seems to support the majority opinion as a reason to make something legal or illegal as he has sited it as a democratic principle. As such, democratically it is reasonable to conclude that if a majority of residents in any given State oppose same sex marriage, it would be reasonable to not recognize such a marriage. As is the case in Utah. 4: Examples given by Pro Pro says “If I made an argument that senior citizens should not have the right to free speech, women the right to privacy, people wearing blue shorts could not cross state lines, or brown haired people don’t have the right to bear arms you would laugh at the ridiculousness of my argument.” It should be noted that the “right” to free speech and privacy are unalienable rights, unlike marriage. I do not need a license for either. As far as the other examples, pro is right, I would laugh at the ridiculousness of his argument. 5: Conclusion This debate is about what “should” be done. What should be done is respect for democratic principles. State by State majorities can decide what should or should not be legal. As marriage is not recognized as an unalienable right, this is reasonable. Also, as each State has different requirements as to what qualifies one for a marriage license it is reasonable to allow each State the ability to determine the criteria to be met. Including defining marriage as between a man and a women if that is the case. Therefore if a majority in any given state, like Utah, deems same-sex marriage illegal. That should be respected. (1) http://unalienable.com... (2) http://usmarriagelaws.com... (3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (4) http://www.deseretnews.com...

The drean act would benefit The United States.

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

There are some rather important benefits that are granted to married couples by government, these include but are not limited to: Hospital visiting rights Tax breaks Inheritance rights where no will exists Allowance of procession of joint property Allowing the immigration of spouses While I do think government should step back from marriage particularly in regards to divorce the fact is that it is necessary for a government to recognize marriage legally which will inevitability lead to some restrictions which will make it effectively government issued. Furthermore my opponent makes the case that should government not control marriage gay marriage would not have started. Of course it would, infact the opposite would have happened homosexuals were not allowed to marry as the government was not granting marriage licenses to homosexual couples. Should a marriage certificate not be necessary for a marriage homosexuals would have married much earlier.

Black people, both men and women, should be in full support of Hispanic immigration. I believe that any person who is against immigration, we can only justifiably assume, is also pro-America in its current condition. With that being said, I believe it is completely absurd for any person of color to be in favor of a system that subjugates, tortures, and exploits not only their physical well-being, but also their mental and spiritual. So if Blacks are confined to a system of White supremacy and racism it would be in there best interest to form an alliance with any willing or possible participants which may result in their mental, physical, or spiritual liberation. It is insane for Black people to continuously hope in the same American system and the same American leaders for answers to their problems that will only come through self-determination, self-reliance and a coalition with people in the same social status.

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

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