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

The United States should implement comprehensive amnesty for undocumented immigrants. Undocumented workers are currently denied full Social Security benefits because they are not citizens, and this should not change until they pursue citizenship through legal channels. Illegal immigrants are legally bound to pay taxes, and they owe the government for permitting them to live and work in the country. It's important to remember that immigrants who enter the country without proper documentation have violated the law. Just as criminals forfeit their rights upon breaking the law, illegal immigrants should face the consequences of their actions. Granting illegal immigrants the same rights as citizens would incentivize them to continue breaking the law instead of pursuing the proper path to citizenship (source).

President Obama's proposal to provide amnesty to illegal immigrants involves granting visas to those who have patiently waited in their home countries and those who unlawfully entered the United States (source). If we bestow legal rights upon illegal immigrants, we are essentially endorsing criminal behavior. Moreover, the assumption that illegal immigrants are not already benefiting from living in the country is flawed - even without full Social Security benefits. For instance, remittances sent home by illegal immigrants are a significant source of revenue for countries like Mexico, second only to oil sales and exports (source). This money is diverted away from millions of unemployed and impoverished Americans who require assistance, further demonstrating that illegal immigrants should not automatically receive legal rights and the same benefits as citizens.

Works Cited:
- "Is it a Bad Idea to Legalize the Illegal Immigrants?" Illegal Immigration Statistics, 2013, Web. 21 Oct. 2013, <http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org...>
- "Top Ten Pros and Cons." Procon.org, 2009, Web. 21 Oct. 2013, <http://immigration.procon.org...>

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

I do understand that my opponent is busy. I do expect her though to rebut my "Unemployment" argument in the final round. 1) I said it's no secret. But the government spends a great amount of money on other things. Sure the Border Fence is one of them, but as I have stated before, it is for our protection. This is something that WE NEED. I have showed you on multiple occasions that it actually dose prevent immigrants trying to cross the border. Con goes on to say that " They will tunnel under the fence, go around it, though it, or above it, ‘“in some cases in less than a minute”’ Didn't I just state in my previous rounds that the number of immigrants trying to cross has gone down tremendously? Even if they did try to get here through another way, we have border patrol's that secure the whole entire area in which the Border is located. As many have failed trying to get here in their own way, many do fail. 2) Con states " Migrants have been proven able to overcome much more than a 6-mile pedestrian fence, so it is highly unlikely that this deterred them in any significant way." Where's the evidence for your claim? She then goes on to state that I have NEVER gave any evidence to prove that the Border has lowered the rate of immigrants trying to cross....maybe you skipped reading my argument is R3 where it states "Government Accountability Office (GAO) earlier this month, found that the average rate for both violent and property crimes had dropped in the US Southwest border states. Arizona saw the most significant decline, of 33 percent over the seven-year time period. Other decreases were seen in Texas (30 percent), California (26 percent), and New Mexico (eight percent from 2005 onward).Significantly, violent crime was found to be lower in border counties than in non-border counties for all the years examined in three out of the four states -- California, New Mexico and Texas -- with Arizona the only exception." As shown above, cmuch more crimes appear in states with "lower in border counties" than in non-border counties. So how is this not effective? [3] "n Columbus, N.M., a 6-mile pedestrian fence has resulted in decreased apprehensions by 60 percent and a 100 percent decrease in narcotics. “It is clear that the implementation of infrastructure in targeted areas of New Mexico has had a tremendous impact on reducing the volume of apprehensions in those areas,” El Paso Sector Chief " Again, just another example to show the effectiveness. So...how does this not support my claim that it is effective? 3)Con states " Trying to shift the blame does nothing to erase the fact that people do in fact die by the thousands while crossing the border. Pro proposes extending the fence, which will only contribute to the amount of deaths by increasing the risks of crossing. On the other hand, more legal immigration along the lines of the HR-15 plan explained in R2 can counter this harm by providing safe routes for immigrants." It seems as if Con encourages immigrants crossing. I mean, immigrants will cross over the border to brings drugs to America. Our own citizens can die as well from these drugs, also violence. We need to worry about the poverty here in America, before we begin to worry about other's in other countries. According to the Census Beru [1] "The current Population Survey data show that 15 percent of Americans, roughly 46.5 million people, live at or below the government-defined poverty line—which, as most who work with the hungry, the homeless, the uninsured, and the underpaid or unemployed know, is itself an inadequate measure of poverty. By more reasonable measures, poverty in this country is even more pervasive." is it not true to say that we need to worry more about America right now? We don't need to worry about other countries. 4) Now, I couldn't really rebut her argument because she never gave me PROOF that there was any *damage* caused. She then goes on to give me 1 point, after the fact that I tried to make a *rebuttal* It's kind of hard to rebut something when you don't give any proof or evidence to back up your own claim. You kind of just tried to rebut my point after the point was made. Sources: http://www.thenation.com...

What is a human right is not relevant because its defenition and notion is too broad, however it is false that the students who would benefit from the Dream Act are not an asset to this diverse country. In fact the founders fathers of this country and the decendents of today's successful americans were immigrants. Your claim about them joining gangs and comiting crimes shows your lock of knowledge on the oppression that monority communities faced and still face today. To suuport my claim, I stand were most educators stand, that this children deserve the opportunity because they are getting educated without any financial assistence, I would also like to make a deductive argument. If you in the United States elegal, there fore anything you do is ilegal. They are here elegal so whatever they do to preserve their life is also erelevent, and the fact that in order to qualify you most have some education, shows their merit.

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.

Illegal immigrants should not be granted amnesty because it would skyrocket the financial strain on social services. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 57% of both legal and illegal immigrant homes are receiving the benefits of at least one welfare program ("Is it"Illegal Immigrants?"). If granted amnesty, illegal immigrants would become eligible for full benefits and the burden on legal, taxpaying citizens would increase drastically. In addition, businesses, especially if banned from outsourcing, will turn to the equally as detrimental technique of "in-sourcing," or hiring illegal aliens in the U.S. Although the Senate is demanding that employers prove that American workers are "unwilling or unavailable" to take these jobs before they hire illegal immigrants, they will find ways around the law in order to make the most profit at the least expense by hiring cheap labor ("Is It"Illegal Immigrants?"). For these reasons, only legal immigration should be supported in the United States. Works Cited "Is it a Bad Idea to Legalize the Illegal Immigrants?" Illegal Immigration Statistics. 2013. Web. 14 October 2013. http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org.......

Other than the dwindling population of Native Americans that still live in reserves all Americans are and were immigrants at one time. Even though those with strong family ties to this country may claim to have a stake here this land was never truly ours. We moved in like a hostile force with no regard for anyone or thing else. Our nation's history is one of immigration and change. Monuments and what are now tourist destinations such as the Statue of Liberty(Ellis Island) and Angel Island are remnants if what once was. Immigrants came by the boatload to have a new and better life in the land of opportunity, But now even more so they are looked down on and made to feel as though they are less than us, The only thing that separates us from them is the amount of time we've been here. So why now do we have such a large problem with it, Why should we close ourselves off from the rest of the world?

Thank you for the response. This is the last round so I shall be making my refutations and restating my arguments and telling why I believe that the Opposition has won this debate. Refutations "He claims that their children do not belong here, but gives no basis for why the 14th Amendment should be repealed." This is because my opponent's counter-argument had no relation to the children of illegal immigrants. The argument he presented was simply about illegal immigrants in general, but not the children. I have presented arguments for why the 14th amendment should be repealed and I'm sure my opponent knows that. "I ask CON how he proposes infants, babies, toddlers, and children apply for citizenship...?" They don't need citizenship at that age. Illegal immigrants like to have children in the United States because they automatically become legal citizens that can help their parents become citizens quickly. That's a benefit that attracts illegal here to have children. If the law is repealed, then illegal immigrants will not have children here. And if those children want to become American citizens, then they can when the become young adults or even older. "CON alleges that based on the disproportionate number of births places "exacerbate the concerns of immigrants that feel they are being put at a disadvantage." Here CON does not give any description of the "concerns" immigrants would have, and then completely neglects a criticial point in this debate." I have constantly stated a point that my opponent seems to ignore and not bother with. Wouldn't an immigrant, who worked hard to wait in the lines and learn about American history, who feels honored to even have the opportunity to become a legal citizen, wouldn't he feel angered that a child of an illegal immigrant, a bad person, could automatically be born as a citizen? These illegal immigrants should not be rewarded with citizenship for their child. That makes little to no sense in any circumstance. As I mentioned in the 2nd round, a Rasmussen poll found that more of the United States is against birthright citizenship for the children of illegals than those who support. Clearly, the true, legal citizens of the US have their own concerns. "How exactly can newborn infants apply for citizenship? If you don't want to deport them, but also not give them a legal status which they are entitled to under the Constitution of the United States, and they are too young to comprehend what citizneship (citizenship) evens means, what else would you have them do?" By repealing the birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens amendment, it deters illegal immigrants from having children here in the first place. That's one of the main reasons why illegals have children here. For the free citizenship. Now, about the child become a legal citizen. A child could not live by himself/herself, meaning there must be an illegal parent in the picture. The parent should then, as an illegal, get citizenship for herself and the child, or pack up and leave or suffer consequences, seeing as they are on our United States soil illegally. "CON states that had the Framers dealt with our current situation, they would not want citizenship for the offsrping of illegal immigrants. Historically, he is wrong. The Alien and Seditions Act of 1798 [1] made similar arguments until Thomas Jefferson strenusously fought against the unconstitutionality of it, citing the abridging of the 10th Amendment." The Alien and Seditions Act had nothing to do with the children of illegal immigrants. The act was about the power and right of the President to be able to deport any resident alien that could be potentially dangerous to the US, the duration of residence required for aliens to become citizens, and that it is a crime to publish false writing against the government and its officials [1]. What similar argument is there? Jefferson argued stating that it violated the 10th Amendment, where power is reserved to the people [2], legal citizens, not illegals. How does this have any relevance in any way? My opponent refutes my argument that birthright citizenship is outdated because back then there was a time of less immigration. He continues to support his refutation with two percentages. One stating that in 1990, the foreign-born population of the US was 8.5%. From 1860 to 1940, it was above 13 percent. Now, percentages can always be deceiving. Just because in 1990 the foreign population was 8.5% doesn't mean that there was fewer immigrants. Population of the United States has risen in the past years. This percent could be and most likely is a larger number of people than the 13% my opponent claimed. I also find it peculiar why my opponent mentioned a 90 year and 70 year spread and compared it to 1 year, 20 years ago. In 2005, just the Hispanic race made up 14.4% of the US population or about 43 million people [3]. Back then, I'm not even sure there WERE that many people in the US. "Here, CON posits that birthright citizenship is unfair to immigrants who come here legally. I say it is decidely more unfair, not to mention impractical, for infants who did not choose to born in the United States or anywhere else." How is it unfair to child, who gets free citizenship? His parents were the ones who illegally and secretly smuggled into the US and had a child! Again, it's unfair to the people who actually worked for their citizenship because they waited, learned, and passed a test. "I seek clarification for where these children would go, especially since they have a Constitutional right to be citizens who are treated with the same dignity and respect as he enjoys." They would return to their family and get true citizenship at an older age when they can care for themselves. "CON states that a poll indicates that the majority of Americans oppose birthright citizenship. This is an immaterial non-sequitur, and an Argumentum ad Populum [4]. " I've never known those words and thank you for adding that to my vocabulary. Anyway, isn't this a democratic republic? The people have spoken and they want these birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants ended. What happened to the 10th amendment that Jefferson defended? Don't the people have power? "But this is simply not true, because everyone who is in the United States, either legally or illegally, is subject to the laws and ordinances of the United States." If everyone is subject to the laws of the United States, as you say, then why do we have illegal immigrants, drug smugglers, robbers, troublemakers, and scams? "Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled, both in 1898 and in 1982, that the 14th amendment should be read inclusively to confer birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants." Well, that's what we're currently arguing and the topic has been brought up again, so I don't see the argument here. Arguments My opponent has constantly repeated that I have no actual reason to repeal the 14th amendment. I will try to make these points as clear as possible. 1. Birthright citizenship is unfair to the current legal citizens who worked hard for their citizenship. 2. We should not be rewarding the illegals with citizenship for their child. 3. Citizenship is something that should be earned. 4. It encourages illegal parents to have a child in the US. 5. Birthright citizenship is outdated and came from a time of less illegal immigration. For these arguments, CON should win this debate. I congratulate my opponent on good arguments and excellent vocabulary and near perfect spelling. Thank you for a wonderful debate. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.infoplease.com...

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 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) Illegal babies are harmful to the economyThis argument was that illegal immigrants harm the economy by having babies in the US and then using birthright citizenship for the illegals to keep their kids in the US thus having them consume US services. I provided abundant proof showing that illegal immigrants do offset their own burden they put on the economy. Since illegal immigrants do not have a negative impact on the economy, birthright citizenship should not be abolished since it does not harm the economy. 2) HypocriticalMy entire arguments have been that all men are born with rights and that rights are not earned from generation to generation. Making people have to earn birthright citizenship and earn other rights is completely contrary to how we as a nation have gotten our rights in the first place. People shouldnt have to earn their rights and I never said that people should have to earn their rights, which is a reason why birthright citizenship shouldnt be abolished sicne rights are not something one has to earn.3) Other countries dont have birth right citizenshipThe point of this argument is that there is no valid reason why just because other nations dont honor certain rights the US shouldnt honor them either. There is also the argument that countries that do abolish birthright citizenship suffer economic backlash immediately afterwards, giving another reason why birthright citizenship should not be abolished. The Pro hasnt even addressed this point. 4) Birthright citizenship and racism"Because these people are coming here to have children, their neighbors for example, may engage in racist activities and stereotypical activities, which promotes racism and does nothing good."You're arguing that birthright citizenship causes racism, I have pointed out that racists cause racism. Then you completely misinterpret what I said by saying "when you abolish birthright citizenship, you are harming the welfare of average people, which is a Pro point."So not only does my argument that birthright citizenship doesnt cause racism stand, but the Pro has single handedly admitted that abolishing birthright citizenship hurts people, which is a reason why it should NOT be abolished..."I would like to ask my opponent, Do you understand the resolution?"To answer your question, yes I do. I am CON abolishing birthright citizenship, you are PRO abolish birthright citizenship. However all you have done is claim that my arguments help your case and that I do not understand the resolution even though my arguments go against abolishing birthright citizenship


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

Should illegal immigrants be granted citizenship? I believe that illegal immigrants should not be given citizenship because they entered the country unlawfully. They should have obtained a green card or a passport to come here legally.

Rephrased: The question at hand is whether the government should permit illegal immigrants to become citizens. In my opinion, individuals who have entered the country illegally should not be granted citizenship. They should have acquired a green card or a passport to ensure their legal entry into the country.

I disagree. Mexicans are making hardworking white Americans lose jobs and they don't pay taxes like normal white people. They should be deported back to Mexico or even worse Africa. Even though Jesus thinks Mexicans are good, they are really bad. It is in Christian faith a test of our faith to see if we can stand up for ourselves. Perhaps even when the last Mexican is deported, Jesus will come back and perform the rapture and ascend all faithful Christians to heaven. Just because the Mexicans had the land first doesn't mean they need it. They are lucky we didn't deport them all when we took it the first time. I say we better just take the rest of Mexico and then maybe those Mexicans can finally pay taxes and live a good job and life under a real government.

Well knowing that abolishing Birthright Citizenship will cause every baby to not have citizenship, we will also amend the United States Constitution. Doing this will lead to a opposition on the federal level which will not be good for the country. Illegal immigrants come here for opportunity. Isn't that what this country is for? A start for an education, to get a job and make money. If we abolish Birthright citizenship, we will have many immigrants deported everyday. Not only that but many of the babies will also be deported with them. If the parents child goes to school, gets and education and job, aren't they earning the citizenship of being an American? But if the child has to leave the country once they are born, they won't have that opportunity to do that. The children that are born here are born on United States soil and Jurisdiction, shouldn't that make them a Citizen at birth? Abolishing birthright citizenship will not contribute to the many people that can start a life in the United states. Especially the ones that are being born. The 14th amendment does not say that people that are born here or illegal immigrants need to swear an allegiance to the United States. They just need to be on the jurisdiction of the United States. Many things have changed since the 14th amendment was written but our founding fathers wrote this them for a reason so that it can be pasted down generation to generation. If the people of the United States want to change something that was written in the US constitution, then the whole constitution will be unjust because the it can then be changed more so. We should not change this even if our founding fathers could not foresee this but they wanted the people of the United States to follow something that was put down to make the country what it is today. And changing one thing in the US constitution will not benefit from this country.

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.

1) Illegal babies are harmful to the economyThis argument was that illegal immigrants harm the economy by having babies in the US and then using birthright citizenship for the illegals to keep their kids in the US thus having them consume US services. I provided abundant proof showing that illegal immigrants do offset their own burden they put on the economy. Since illegal immigrants do not have a negative impact on the economy, birthright citizenship should not be abolished since it does not harm the economy. 2) HypocriticalMy entire arguments have been that all men are born with rights and that rights are not earned from generation to generation. Making people have to earn birthright citizenship and earn other rights is completely contrary to how we as a nation have gotten our rights in the first place. People shouldnt have to earn their rights and I never said that people should have to earn their rights, which is a reason why birthright citizenship shouldnt be abolished sicne rights are not something one has to earn.3) Other countries dont have birth right citizenshipThe point of this argument is that there is no valid reason why just because other nations dont honor certain rights the US shouldnt honor them either. There is also the argument that countries that do abolish birthright citizenship suffer economic backlash immediately afterwards, giving another reason why birthright citizenship should not be abolished. The Pro hasnt even addressed this point. 4) Birthright citizenship and racism"Because these people are coming here to have children, their neighbors for example, may engage in racist activities and stereotypical activities, which promotes racism and does nothing good."You're arguing that birthright citizenship causes racism, I have pointed out that racists cause racism. Then you completely misinterpret what I said by saying "when you abolish birthright citizenship, you are harming the welfare of average people, which is a Pro point."So not only does my argument that birthright citizenship doesnt cause racism stand, but the Pro has single handedly admitted that abolishing birthright citizenship hurts people, which is a reason why it should NOT be abolished..."I would like to ask my opponent, Do you understand the resolution?"To answer your question, yes I do. I am CON abolishing birthright citizenship, you are PRO abolish birthright citizenship. However all you have done is claim that my arguments help your case and that I do not understand the resolution even though my arguments go against abolishing birthright citizenship

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...

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.

I am only going to say one point, to be the most fair to my opponent. P1: Accepting immigrants helps the economy. This would mainly happen in two ways, which I will organize into two sub points. Subpoint A - Creating more jobs. This would happen for both our (referring to the United States) citizens, as well as the new immigrants entering the country. Let me explain. One of the most common concerns from local people is that immigrants will take over jobs, especially unskilled jobs. Immigrants often lack the skills necessary to do higher paid jobs due to different languages and other problems, so a large amount of people coming into the job market can cause lower wages to fall. Although, this is not true. However, in the longer run, immigrants appear to create an outsized role in creating new jobs, and even raising the wages of the locals. One of these reasons is that immigrants appear more likely than others to create small businesses, according to The Washington Post. Michael Clemens is the leader of the Migration and Development Initiative at the Center for Global Development. Clemens says that immigrants are more likely to create small businesses because compared with other immigrants, immigrants are less likely to have a job waiting for them in their host country. Subpoint B - The National Bureau of Economic Research found that immigration benefitted 19 out of 20 of the industrialized countries they studied. Another study by the Social Science Research Network found that a large amount of refugees going into Denmark led the native workers to switch to more skilled jobs and away from jobs that were mostly manual labor. As a result, many U. S. citizens earned higher wages and received better jobs, even with the immigrants also getting jobs.

Hello I would like to take this chance and thank you again for this debate. I have had a great time, and hope you have as well I wouldn't consider my pointing out that your source, the CIS is a bias source as a ad hominem attack nor was I breaching the rules that we established in the beginning of this debate. I was simply pointing out that according to the Sothern Poverty Law Center, they have been accused of falsifying data. (the definition of bias) And was pointing out that much of your argument hinged on a source that is known for trying to make up data to match their opinion, and not their opinion to match the data. If I didn't say why I believed that your source was biased, I wouldn't sound very intelligent It would sound like "I believe that an organization with a name like Center for Immigration Studies, is a source that's math should be questioned." See, I had to say why I believed their information to be suspect Because of their philosophy, they, as the SPLC accuses them, are known to give faulty data. It goes against the quote that you have on your own page for this site, a quote that I believe you want to follow "Facts don't care about your feelings"-Ben Shapiro. Listening to such blaintently bias sources is beneath the intelligence that you so clearly have shown me that you posses.(you've had me on the edge of my seat though out this entire debate. I've lost sleep researching all my known credible sources to use) It is as my old science teacher would always say, "Those who add their opinion to science are bias and should be discredited immediately" To farther argue the CIS source I will point out that they tried (as you did) to use the census bureau, for their argument. I don't see this as a logical way of doing things. Why would someone who is trying to hide, give information to the people who are trying to catch them... in a non mandatory survey Seriously, despite what the CIS said on their site (I did check it out) about their education, I know many of them still know about how they where brutally kicked out after they where promised Green cards in exchange for keeping the US manufacturing, and economy up while all the US men where fighting in WW2. (people died when being transported by the Gov during the deportations of operation Wetback" So they know not to revile themselves in such a stupid way For your next argument, You claimed that we would not be given Trump the power, But you are forgetting that all undocumented immigrates that are trying to get in, (whether they are refugees, wanting to make a better life, or came here legally but that statues is in question) (or they are one of the US citizens sent there because they didn't feel the need to have proof of their citizenship on hand when ICE got a hold of them. (it's happened) have to go through the executive branch, not the Judicial (even Immigration courts) and the executive branch is headed by Trump. This in turn, gives him power over how things go. The biggest thing standing in his way right now, is the fact that the judicial branch has been checking his power, by saying that his proposed actions involving foreign born people as unconstitutional. (The biggest and most well known example of this is the Muslim Ban) And I believe this would be the main thing, stopping him from just having the people under him from putting a C on the pages of those he wouldn't want(Not relevant to this debate, but you should look it up) For your next argument, yes I did admit I couldn't disprove your AP source, But what I was trying to do was point out that Trump has power over all (both) of their sources, and that his literal catchphrase is your fired. And him leaking that the special forces where not able to get over the wall, could easily be what is known as security theater. (the trying to make a system look more secure than it is) And I had to point out that the special forces would be able to get higher up the wall than what they where given credit for, simply by climbing a ladder, without even combing into direct contact with the wall I also just wanted to point out that I don't care if a source is left or right, I care about factual content (note my pointing out earlier in the debate that I don't see CNN as a credible source As for my statement about the border patrol The last time the US increased the agency's ranks in a massive way, the patrol had no choice but to try to go into a huge recruitment campaign that ended up bringing in many people who just shouldn't be in law enforcement. This is mainly because they where hiring people who didn't understand, or care about the humanitarian aspect of the job According to Politico, corruption and excessive force skyrocketed. and misconduct became such a problem that the BP issued a memo about the fact that their agents were averaging 2 alcoholic arrest per week, and that's only a few of their run-ins with the law. since 2005, 77 of their agents were arrested or indicted for corruption. According to the former head of Internal Affairs for US Customs and Border Protection, when talking about one of these agents, "He is part of a raid of corruption that exceeded that of any other federal law enforcement agency" The reason why I'm saying all this is because if you let people in to man the wall in another mass hiring, we would be making the same mistake all over again, and that could have lethal consequences. According to the CBP, Use of force review, "Too many cases do not appear to meet the test of objective reasonableness with regard to the use of deadly force." and one source had that rate at around 25% of cases that resulted in the shooting of someone.(which is a pattern) We can't man the border with another hiring surge, the border is already one of the most secure and militarized borders between 2 nation at peace Moving on, I was saying that the average person trying to cross the border would take their time, to get past the wall, and not fall for an obvious trap like those weak spots I believe I already pointed out the problem with the pipes. But here we go again. The pipes would be destroyed and would need to be entirely replaced. This means that the towns would have no running water, and no access to the river for the public I would like to point out again that most of the border districts were against Trump, and that shows that not everyone is ready to embrace that they need to give up their lands for their country. After all, have you listened to country music before? Half of them are about taking pride in where your from. And now the government is going to force them to surrender those places where they come from, were their family has lived for generations. Many of them won't give up without a fight. Despite the compensation that the Guv might offer You claim that you don't care, or have to defend Trump's ideas about anything but the border, but might I remind you, that it is important to my side of the argument, because earlier on you said that this is how we would save money spent on the wall. I needed to disprove that claim so then I could continue to point out that the wall is an huge cost to the tax payer As for your argument about the Natives, you are suggesting that we just ignore the reservation's will, and move their borders, because they are weaker than us. These are sovereign nations, who will have the backing of many other tribes, and citizens from the US, Mexico, as well as having a strong argument for the courts. We would be breaking so many treaties and violating their rights, not to mention that this could be used as an excuse to put sanctions on us. Plus this is a civil rights case, this is were the dems shine brightest, and they may not have much power right now, but they do have money, people, and resources Unlike with DAPL the infrastructure project would be going through their lands, not just threatening their water supply. So they have a huge advantage in the courts, and so in turn, the judicial branch would have to cheek the powers of either other branch that might try this method You have clamed again that I am lumping documented immigrants with undocumented immigrants, But have failed note, that I gave numbers for both, 1.6% for immigrants, 1.7% for undocumented, and 3.3% of native born civilians. You also failed to give a reliable source that said that they have a high crime rate, where as mine was a university professor of criminology According to the Institute on taxation and economic policy, Illegal immigrants pay 11 billion a year in taxes, (property, income, employer deductions... and so on and so forth I am not talking about Syrian refugees, I am referring to refugees from south, central America, as well as those fleeing the cartels in Mexico. They get have been getting turned down a lot since Trump got power You still haven't made a point against cartels getting drugs passed the wall by way of slingshot or tunnel You have failed to prove that the wall is worth the price we'd pay. You failed show how we could come up ahead with the lose of 100 Billon dollars a year and all the land we'd loose. You failed to give a reliable source to show how the undocumented immigrants increase our crime rate in a way that would justify the price of the wall, you failed to give a reasonable answer about how to deal with those who don't wish to loose THEIR land, And you failed to prove that the wall would make us safer. You also failed in proving any of my sources wrong The arguments that you have given have the US, reinvading the Native's lands, having the federal guv forcing it's own civilians to leave their homes, loosing multiple businesses, and setting the US into what could become another recession, while militarizing the border(even more) all for a wall, that's security is in question. (and the recession part would happen mainly if the wall is effective) I understand your views, but I don't believe that that is what we want the US to become-DIT

I would like to note that you are correct, my current argument has been racially inclined. Though my numbers are figurative, you continue to bring them up, and so I will use only well noted statistics. I would however like to change the way we argue this point. Aside from the government unfairly giving out aid, let us also look into the burden which falls upon the taxpayers. There is a story about a war hero from the Alamo. This man is none other than the world famous Davy Crockett. This is how this recounted true story goes: Hero of the Alamo Davy Crockett was a colonel in the Tennessee Regulars and was elected to the House of Representatives from his native state. That was before his part in the valiant defense of the famed Alamo. He served three terms as congressman. While Crockett was in Congress a distinguished naval officer died, leaving a widow. Members of the House proposed to appropriate $20,000 of public money to give to the widow to assure her welfare and to honor the memory of the late officer. Crockett opposed that appropriation in such persuasive terms that it received only a few votes and was defeated. Before you consider him heartless, hear the facts which will show he was just the opposite. Others before him had said that the country owed the departed officer a debt. Crockett reminded the House of the countless men who had served their country with distinction, but to whom Congress never admitted owing a cash debt. In Crockett's speech before the House, he said the following: "Mr. Speaker " I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. "I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. "Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the grounds that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. "There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; and if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. "Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. "Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks." When Crockett was later asked why he invoked the Constitution in that manner, and what led him to speak so clearly and forcefully against appropriating such a seemingly small amount, he told of an earlier, somewhat similar event. There had been a fire in suburban Georgetown during Crockett's first term in Congress. He was among several congressmen who rushed to the scene, helped to fight the fire, and sought shelter for the victims who were shivering on a cold night. The very next morning Congress appropriated $20,000 for the relief of the fire victims. Crockett spoke in favor. Because there was opposition, the vote on the issue was recorded in the journals of that day's proceedings and a listing was made of those who voted for and those who voted against the appropriation. Crockett said that when he went back to his home district to run for re-election he stopped to solicit the vote of a farmer plowing in his field. The man remembered Colonel Crockett, said he had voted for him the first time, but that he would not vote for him again. The farmer had read a newspaper account of that $20,000 gift to victims of the fire. He saw Crockett's name listed as supporting the measure. The farmer then proceeded to explain to congressman Crockett: "The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be trusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. "While you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20 million as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and in any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. "No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in the country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. "The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you." Every American citizen has a moral and spiritual obligation to see that no neighbor, no person, child or adult, suffers for the lack of necessities while he has the slightest surplus in his own name. But neither does man have the right to use government and the law, in the name of charity, to force the unwilling to do that which he would not do if the choice were his. Davy Crockett believed welfare was wrong because it used tax dollars to fund it. Charity should in fact be a given thing from a person, were as the current welfare system uses tax dollars, there for forcing American citizens to pay charity. If nothing else, this story should provide enough obligation to prove welfare is wrong. However, I have a few polls to demonstrate that may further back up my claim. Since 1965, our war against poverty has cost the US government 5 Trillion dollars (all of which was tax money). An interesting fact, the national debt is predicted to reach 21.5 Trillion dollars. Logic would juristic that we use tax money to at least attempt to pay off our enormous debt (although that is a topic for another debate). Currently, it is shown that Americans give approximately 125 billion dollars annually (this of course is just an approximation, although not a figurative but a literal number). Now I ask you this. You came into this debate as the Con, yet you agree the welfare system is unfair. Being the topic is the United States Government distributes welfare in an unfair matter, you would be arguing that welfare is distributed fairly. Instead of picking apart my arguments, perhaps you should state one of your own.

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


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

The U.S. Border Fence: A Necessity for Public Safety, Job Protection, and Economic Stability

The U.S. Federal Government has a primary duty to protect its citizens, whether the threats are internal or external. This responsibility is being neglected, as a significant number of immigrants illegally enter the country through what the government allows to remain an open "back door." This situation has led to more illegal immigrants entering the United States than those who follow the legal immigration process.

One crucial reason for the construction of a border fence is public safety. The government must ensure the protection of its citizens, which includes safeguarding them from criminal activities. Statistics reveal that a substantial percentage of young illegal immigrants join gangs, with over a million gang members operating within the United States. These gangs, many of which are comprised of illegal immigrants, are responsible for up to 80% of violent crimes committed annually. For instance, the notorious MS-13 gang is estimated to be 90% illegal immigrants. The absence of a border fence facilitates the influx of these dangerous individuals, posing a significant threat to public safety. The construction of a border fence would deter or prevent illegal crossings, thereby reducing the risk of violent crimes committed by illegal immigrant gangs.

Another critical aspect of the government's duty is to ensure job opportunities for its citizens. Illegal immigrants often take jobs that could be filled by American citizens. According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau, between 2008 and 2010, while American citizens were losing jobs, legal and illegal immigrants gained over a million additional jobs. It is estimated that around 7.7 million illegal aliens were employed by U.S. employers in 2008. The government must prioritize the employment needs of its citizens, and building a border fence would help reduce illegal immigration, leading to more job opportunities for American citizens.

Economic stability is also a significant concern for the government. Illegal immigrants contribute little to the economy in terms of taxes, while they receive substantial benefits. The majority of illegal aliens do not pay income taxes, yet they take advantage of billions of dollars worth of free education, healthcare, housing assistance, and food stamps. This burden falls on U.S. taxpayers. For example, it is estimated that U.S. taxpayers spend $12 billion annually on primary and secondary education for illegal immigrant children. Additionally, the healthcare system in California, which has a large illegal immigrant population, is on the brink of collapse due to the financial strain caused by providing

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

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

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

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

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

Assertion: The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement in the constitution is absolutely necessary. It is reasonable and just. Lets look at the purpose behind this clause. The purpose is to safegaurd American politics from foreign influence. In the United States, we have laws in place to insure that foreign influence on the US political system is kept to minimum. Laws such as the the one that prohibits election donations from foreign origins, or the natural born citizen clause. Now lets dispell any idea that I am being intolerant and unfair to those who are not natural born citizens. I am not intolerant of them at all and i certainly agree that there are some who would serve faithfully and serve the purposes of America and not a foreign nation, however, there are some who will not. So lets lock in contention one. 1. Opening up the highest office in this nation to those who are not natural born citizens, opens the floodgate to possible foreign influence on the oval office. Next, a minor point but a point none the less. A natural born citizen will be inherently more qualified to president 8 out of 10 times simply based on their experiences as an American. I dont want a president who understands how life can be difficult in Somolia. I want a president who knows how life can be hard here in America. I want a president who knows what being an American citizen is all about. I want a president who recited the pledge of allegence every morning at school. This president would be a man I could relate to. This president would be a man that the majority of Americans could relate to. So lets toss out contention number two: 2. An unnatural born citizen would likely not be as qualified to represent mainstream America. Lastly, foreign sympathy... Lets say that Daoud Nour is running for president. Nour is a natural born African, but a naturalized citizen. Nour wins the election and is the next president of the United States. Imagine for a moment the unfair and possibly harmful sympathy Nour would have for African affairs. He would undoubtedly be unable to hold a clear American viewpoint in conflicts and diplomacy with many African nations. When Nour would sit down with African leaders, he would speak as an African...not an American. He is, after all, African! This sympathy would be harmful in two ways. a. he would make unnecessary decisions regarding Africa. Perhaps he would spend too much on African aid. He may increase tension with African nations that have traditionally been an enemy to his own people. He would focus more on conflicts in Africa then he might focus on conflicts in the Middle East. b. He could quite possibly make decisions that are in the interest of other nations and not our own. Perhaps his native Nigeria would like American troop support for peacekeeping operations. The American government doesnt have the money, the troops, or the peoples support to deploy these troops, but Nour does anyway out of foreign sympathy. Perhaps he does it even out of his own heartfelt obligation. Either way, this is harmful to America because foreign influence has penetrated the white house. Nour loves America. He is very happy here, he has lived here for 35 years and he has served America well as governor of his home state. He is not purposefully biased and he doesnt intend to undermind American foreign policy, but he will. Unintentionally, he will by holding his unavoidable and understandable sympathy and foreign bias. So, Contention 3: Any unnatural citizen would have too much harmful sympathy to their foreign place of origins own causes. I look forward to a great debate!

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.

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

I personally do not believe that illegal immigrants should receive college tuition assistance. They are here illegally and it is very unfair for the people that are going through the admitting process to be apart of the country and for the American people in general. They should have to wait in line like everyone else. Our own citizens cant afford college, but yet we have money to give to illegal immigrants. Our troops have suspended tuition assistance, but we can give them money? I don't have a problem with people coming to this country to try and live a better life. I don't care what race you are. I don't care what the color of your skin is. If you do things the right and fair way, I do not have a problem with them receiving financial aid for college, but if you are going to come here illegally, then I do not agree that you should receive the aid.

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