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

The United States should implement a comprehensive amnesty program for undocumented immigrants. Undocumented workers currently do not receive full Social Security benefits as they are not officially recognized as U.S. citizens, and this should remain until they pursue legal citizenship. Illegal immigrants are legally bound to pay taxes, and in return, they owe the government for granting them the opportunity to live and work in the country. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that immigrants who enter the country without proper documentation have violated the law. Just as lawbreakers face the consequences of their actions, illegal immigrants should also face the repercussions of their unlawful entry. Providing illegal immigrants with the same rights as citizens would encourage further lawbreaking instead of promoting the lawful path to citizenship. Obama's proposal to offer amnesty to illegal immigrants includes granting visas to those who have patiently awaited in their home countries and those who broke the law to reach the U.S. If illegal immigrants are granted legal rights, it would essentially be endorsing criminal behavior. Moreover, it is incorrect to assume that illegal immigrants are not already benefiting from residing in the U.S. For instance, remittances sent by illegal immigrants back to their home countries, such as Mexico, serve as one of the largest sources of revenue, second only to oil sales and exports. This outflow of funds diverts resources away from the millions of unemployed and impoverished Americans who require assistance, further highlighting the reason illegal immigrants should not be automatically granted legal rights and receive the same benefits as citizens.

Works Cited:

"Is it a Bad Idea to Legalize the Illegal Immigrants?" Illegal Immigration Statistics, 2013, www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org.
"Top Ten Pros and Cons," Procon.org, 2009, www.procon.org.

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...

Hello, republicanview, glad to debate you. You are right; there are certainly about 15 million illegal immigrants now living within the US. Yes, I agree that this is a problem; there is no dispute of that. It appears, then that the solution is the only thing we disagree on. It certainly would be wonderful if it was as simple as shipping them across the border, and then the problem was solved. Unfortunately, there are several problems with this solution, and it is a lot more complex than this. First, in my opening argument I will focus on the practicality of this solution. So, you are suggesting that we deport give or take 15 million people across the border. That is interesting. First of all, the illegal immigrants live in every corner of this nation. They live everywhere in this 3,537,441 square mile expanse that is the United States. Funding a project of this magnificent size (trying to solve this problem via your suggestion) is unthinkable. Though it may help the cause somewhat, it would overall just scratch the surface of all the illegal immigrants within these borders. It would overall be a waste of money. The population of the US is about 300 million. Your claim of 15 million illegal immigrants (which is probably about right) being in the US would indicate that they consist of about 5% of our population. You do the math. How the heck will we reasonably ship 5% of our Population across the border within reasonable cost? Let me remind you that 5% means one in twenty This is the only the FIRST reason I will provide for why this idea does not work. -Harlan

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

P1 Attack: right rīt/ adjective adjective: right; comparative adjective: righter; superlative adjective: rightest 1. morally good, justified, or acceptable. "I hope we're doing the right thing" synonyms:just, fair, proper, good, upright, righteous, virtuous, moral, ethical, honorable, honest; More Just. Short for the word Justification. Was it morally good? Justified, or acceptable? Since I made a no link rule I will just say I got it from website called Google. P2 Attack: Since I proven to the common voter that right means just I successfully capture P2. America or American citizens have no right/justification to be anti-immigration. P3 Attack: The truth is their is difference between them. Different language, food, music, and looks. It is amazing to be part of that, to have your OWN people. You are untied til death with a common companionship. Together as one a whole. Why would anyone want to disrupt that, it is technical invasion. People are entitled to opinions and mine is strong on this. They need to stay together and be one happy untied country. Let the others be happy, they clearly are. That is my point, mixture creates hate, and oppression, and unlawful trials and hate crimes. Ghettos, civil wars, and for the lesser to be worse off than the more. In Europe you don't have that. America turned out great until, a long bad choices of conservative values along with the economy and competition globally. It is not just, moral, and right for America to be anti-immigration illegal and legal. Most of the immigrants of the second wave and all on the first were legal yet received hate by earlier ones. The fact on Detroit and L.A. is true, I actually live about 5 miles from Detroit. The fact is true and it is because of immigration and oppression along with Italians hung in Louisiana, Irish hated in the north-east and Asians banned from here on the west coast. The Indians were invaded by horrible Caucasian settlers. They were conquered on the battlefield and instead of being completely wiped out they were given camps along with oppression. Many tribes have been killed in Europe along with vast empires. America still must maintain pro-immigration because since it failed people stop coming besides close to death, rape victims from Central America. P4 Attack: I trust your numbers and that means out of hundred 19 are not German? America has 97.3% immigrant population, also from Google. That is 97 out of hundred. Who's more? Italy has 8% immigrant not too far from Germany and closer than America. If I was living in Italy I would want to never have another food besides Italian, why? Pride. P5 Attack: There was a winner in the war, Korea still has concentration camps, Russia will try until it is wins or gets destroyed, the middle east conflicts deiced and preclude to the end of the world, and Australians had children. P6 Attack: I have already ripped your point with the previous one ;) I wait now...

Rebuttal 1: I will begin my argument by addressing my opponent's statement about crime in the United States as a result of illegal immigration. 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. According to the recent news, including this article http://www.breitbart.com... among others show that an estimated amount of 12 million illegal immigrants currently live in the United States. Compare this to the amount of illegal immigrants in prisons and you will realize that it is a drop in the bucket. As for the average of seven arrests statistic, I was looking through the source that my opponent has posted and nowhere does it show the methodology of gathering the statistic nor the actual data used in order to come to this conclusion. It only reported the average, as far as I know. We won't know for sure, then, if it was an outlier because averages are not resistant to changes in data. I believe that it was Newt Gingrich, the current frontrunner of the GOP candidacy for 2012, that made a plan where illegal immigrants can go through a screening process in order to take out the illegal immigrants that have been considered to be threats to the security of the nation and place them into the deportation process. The actual condition of having illegal immigrants, according to the PRO, isn't inherently bad if it can be done correctly, and in the long run, it can be beneficial for the country. This will come in the economics question, which I will address later. Rebuttal 2: Firms in the country require resources in order to be functional, and this includes the input by human capital. This human capital can come in the form of not only illegal immigrants working in the jobs that no one wants to work in, but it can also come in the form of intellectual capital if more illegal immigrants can enter into the American education system, 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. What my opponent doesn't seem to understand is that economics is a careful game, and if played correctly, everyone in the American citizenry can be able to prosper, illegal or otherwise. With an expansion in the amount of human capital, coupled along possibly with a reduction of regulation on businesses in order to reduce the amount of costs that firms have, not only will illegal immigrants be able to occupy jobs, but it will leave space for more labor to be able to enter into the private sector. Firms have more labor in the end, the people have more jobs, and the economy will be able to expand. The question is by what margin individual taxes for an American will go up in the end, and regardless the answer, illegal immigrants can be benificial for the economy in the long run because they provide resources that firms are able to use, especially if more of them enter into the education system and become our country's next doctors, lawyers, and engineers. Rebuttal 3: As for the Al Queada suspicision, we already have regulations in place, including the PATRIOT Act in order to deal with terrorist activity as well as more regulations in order to keep terrorism at bay in the country. Even if this activity occurs, the United States has been more prepared for such attacks after 9/11.

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.

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

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

Sure. Immigrants have not always been beneficial to America. The inhabitants of America from 1492-1900 had a rather constant and continuous campaign of genocide and murder waged against them at the hands of immigrants. Your claim that immigrants have always been beneficial is amusing when you look at the fact that immigrants wiped out the American population in a couple hundred years. 1) These immigrants did not work jobs for cheaper. Though they did routinely murder large tribes of American natives and take sections of their scalps in order to be paid. 2) Yes, my family did immigrate here. My father was born in Chicago, his father in Copenhagen. However, this argument doesn't *always* apply as you can tell from my exception. Immigrants have not always been beneficial to America. In fact, history shows, they might just murder you, rape and kill your wife and children, steal your land and treat you like crap. Though occasionally they'll give you some blankets (with smallpox). *Mikegj1077 is a guy, he has a picture of his sister for some silly reason.

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


Question: Should the state grant citizenship to undocumented immigrants?

Illegal immigrants should not be granted citizenship under any circumstances.

To understand the issue, it's crucial to define what an illegal immigrant, or undocumented alien, is: someone who has either entered the U.S. unlawfully or entered legally but overstayed their visa, and is subject to deportation [1]. While there may not be a significant difference between legal and illegal immigrants, the discussion focuses on the implications of granting citizenship to illegal immigrants. This argument will be presented in light of Hillary Clinton's stance on immigration reform, which includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who have not committed crimes, and the selective deportation of those who pose a public safety threat [2]. Additionally, she supports President Obama's executive action that provided temporary legal status and work permits to nearly half of the undocumented immigrants in the country [3]. With an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., it's important to consider the potential impacts of granting them citizenship.

Firstly, granting a pathway to citizenship or legal status for illegal immigrants undermines the rule of immigration law. According to current laws, any alien who was inadmissible at the time of entry or adjustment of status is deportable, and any alien who fails to maintain their non-immigrant status is also subject to deportation [4]. These laws do not provide any alternative punishment such as fines. The presence of illegal immigrants is a civil offense punishable by deportation [5]. Therefore, either immigration laws must be enforced or completely abolished. Failing to enforce the laws would result in chaos and encourage further illegal immigration. Even if the laws are changed, they would not apply retroactively to the current illegal immigrants.

Secondly, granting citizenship or legal status to illegal immigrants would have significant fiscal consequences. They would gain access to all types of government benefits: direct benefits, means-tested welfare benefits, public education, and population-based services. According to a report by The Heritage Foundation [6], college-educated households are net tax contributors, paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits. However, poorly educated households are net tax consumers, receiving more in benefits than they pay in taxes. Given that half of illegal immigrants have not completed high school and a quarter only have a high school diploma, their fiscal impact would be negative. The report estimates that granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would result in a lifetime fiscal deficit of $6.3 trillion over 50 years ($126 billion annually). Additionally, low-income earners are eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and many illegal immigrants fall into this category

i think its wrong to denay education to illegal immagrants

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 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.

Thanks Con. I'll be presenting the same case that he ignored in his vote against me, because I'm extremely curious what his response to my arguments will be. ==My case==Framework:Obs 1: You can only eliminate a policy if you have a viable alternative, so it isn't enough to merely show birthright citizenship to be bad, but my opponent must also show another system to be good. Further, all advantages he offers must be unique to abolishing birthright citizenship, or else I can just solve the problem by other means. Non unique advantages should be ignored because they can, by defintion, be achieved in a simpler or less damaging way. Obs 2: I am not obligated to defend the status quo, I must only defend the basic principle of birthright citizenship, because other harmful or adverse effects can be solved using other means. Nonetheless, if both of us refute eachothers contentions you vote Pro because Pro is the status quo. Contention one: The slippery slopeConsider the concept of legitimacy; all governments can only perform actions if their ability to do so is viewed as legitimate by the majority of their people. For example, if the U.S. governments ability to collect taxes lost it's legitimacy and the entire population refused to pay taxes there would be little if anything the government could do about it. Likewise, governments cannot undertake actions if it doesn't have the legitimate ability to do so. How does this relate the birthright citizenship? To abolish the institution would require an amendment to the constitution, either revoking or changing the 14th. In the past, the government has nly amended the constitution in the face of turmoil and public distress, and most if not all of those amendments were to give more rights to the people. Doing the opposite, taking away rights from a large subset of the population, legitimitizes governmental authority to change the constitution on a whim, and places every constitutional right in danger. My opponent has made no impact substaintial enough to warrant a change in our fundamental law, immigration is nowhere near significant enough to justify this. Reason magezine reports[1]: "Actual instances of “birth tourism,” where moms expressly came here to deliver babies on American soil, accounted for about two-tenths of 1 percent of all births in 2006. And most of these moms were not poor, illegal Hispanics—Smith’s target group. They were rich Chinese moms on tourist visas." 0.2% of all births does not warrant an amendment. Contention two: JusticeLet's consider what happens when we abolish Birthright Citizenship. To assume that it will make the illegals go home is woefully ignorant; what will happen is that we have a group of people who were born and raised in the U.S., followed it's laws, and become a part of its culture who are not citizens. When they become adults and apply for jobs or colleges, their illegal status will be discovered and they will be deported and sent "home" to a country they've never lived in and they know nothing about. The only way for them to avoid this would be to work in jobs that traditionally belong to the illegal population such as low paying construction or janatorial positions, which would create a permenant under class and stamps out any chance of success that these individuals may have had. It is fundamentally unjust to force someone out of their home without good reason, and simply not having the proper papers cannot warrant forcing someone off of their private property. My Opponent must prove:A. Birthright citizenship has multiple unique disadvantages that outwiegh any harms of a new system and the harm of implementing that system. B. Abolishing birthright citizenship will lead to his alternative and C. Birthright citizenship is a problem that warrants a change in the constitution.1. http://reason.com...==Opponents Case==His first Contention relies mostly on anti-immigrant rhetoric. He hasn't really explained why I should have some divine right to live here because my ancestors may have aided in the takeover of the country and the extremination of the Native Americans. There's really no logic to asserting that I should be rewarded for what my ancestors did, unless I should be punished for their actions as well. Besides, he hasn't offered an alternative system anyway, so we have to go with Jus Soli. His second contention merely re-affirms my first. The worldview that we can change the Constiution because we dont want to help people whos ancestor came from Third world countries leads to constiutional rot and national destruction. Thus, I urge a vote for the Aff. I greatly anticipate my opponents response.

Immigration fuels our economy. As an article from Newsweek points out, many Americans wrongly believe that immigration hurts the economy. There is consensus among many leading economists that immigration actually gives economies a net boost. In fact, a report from the Migration Policy Institute indicates that "immigration unambiguously improves employment, productivity, and income," especially when an economy is growing. And, contrary to popular belief, immigrants do not reduce native employment rates overal

State Rights: While each state does have the own rules and requirements to marriage each state most recognize the marriage of another state. A state can’t say it not a marriage because immunity or vaccination for certain diseases was not a requirement by another state. Bans on homosexual marriage have been doing this. One state recognizes the marriage issue a marriage license. The couple moves to another state and then it not a legal marriage anymore. How is this any different than stopping people wearing blue shorts at the state line and making them change into pants? At the state border you have made the couple change from a marriage to a dating couple. http://www.wbir.com... State has different requirements as to what qualifies one for a marriage license it is reasonable to allow each State the ability to determine the criteria to be met. Including defining marriage as between a man and a women if that is the case. Therefore if a majority in any given state, like Utah, deems same-sex marriage illegal. That should be respected. Is it reasonable to allow each state the ability to make requirements that in sure each party is of able mind and body to enter into the contact that marriage is under the law? Yes more than reasonable it is a sound logical principle. Is it reasonable to allow the state to make a requirement that enables a fundamental right to be denied because of the views of a religious group? No it is not. This was already determined when states had banned interracial marriages. If you allow this were does it stop? Can states ban building permits to Jewish people? Can they ban marriage to white women? Ban brown hair people from gun permits? There has to be a line that says that is too far. Mob rule cannot be allowed to do anything it wants. Yes it is great that we as a people get to have a voice in the laws of our states. This has to be kept in check though. Many of my examples sound ridiculous because we all understand this. When it comes to homosexual marriage many people don’t see that the arguments against it are just as ridiculous as my examples. All I have done is change it the arguments to another subject matter. All of my examples are taken from real world arguments against homosexual people.

Also, before we go any further I'd like to formally define marriage because your link didn't work. . http://topics.law.cornell.edu... ~~~~~~~~ Responses ~~~~~~~~ ///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. /// The point that my scenario is unlikely is moot. We also disagree on what is fair. I don't think it's fair that people should be able to benefit financially because they have an emotional connection with another person. ~ ///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. /// I'm not worried about immigration; I'm just opposed to legislation that favors one group over another. An example of this is that it is easier to immigrate if you marry an American. This is unjust. Bringing up arguments about changing the definition of marriage to support your argument is also not really a valid option as your stance is that marriage should be granted, not some other legal binding with the same title. ~ ///Even if you are against marriage I am sure you can agree to equality. /// I do agree to equality, which is why I disagree with marriage. ~ I await my opponent's response and hopes that she waits to respond.

This should be a good one :). Ok, so looking at these proposed US States, here's why I think it's better in the long run to grant them statehood. Puerto Rico has been a territory of the United States of America since 1898 during the Spanish-American War. They have had several referendums on statehood, and in the most recent in 2012, 61% chose statehood (CNN). This proves Puerto Rico's people, at least the majority desire to have their flag as a star on the United State flag. Now in the case of the State of Jefferson, this one has been around for a very long time. Granted, it would be a hassle with state boundraries, but the State of Jefferson would finally have it's own state and this disagreemant over poltics and borders would cease. North Colorado, a proposed state of 11 counties in Colorado is mostly Republican, the rest of Colorado is mainly Democrat. Granting statehood to North Colorado would elimnate at least some of the politcal diffrences and issues there. Now in the case of DC, you have an interesting proposal. DC is a city, but it also has all the government offices and such, and statehood would establish who really owns these buildings and such. I'll elaborate more on these arguments as we go on :). Thanks again for the debate Lexus :)

" I would also like to just ask my opponent why he knows i was on here 16 hours ago, just asking"I was online when the forfeited round alerted me. I went to your profile to see when the last time you were online was. It was listed at 16 hours after you forfeited the round you had 3 days to submit........"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."All my arguments completely debunked yours since mine were actually backed by facts and common sense...."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"#1, take your finger off the shift key#2, my arguments most certainly are against the abolition of birthright citizenshipFirst argument: Illegal immigrants benefit society so abolishing birthright citizenship on the grounds that they harm the economy is irrationalSecond argument: Rights are literally things that all people are entitled to and dont have to earn them to enjoy them. Repealing birthright citizenship because people should have to earn their rights goes against centuries of how US citizens have come to enjoy and appreciate the rights their ancestors fought to give them. Third Argument: Just because other countries dont have it doesnt mean America should automatically try to be more like them, especially since it is shown that countries that did abolish birthright citizenship suffered economic setbacks. Fourth Argument: Birthright Citizenship doesnt promote racism since racism is caused by racists, not birthright citizenship"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."This is why weed shouldnt be legalized...."YOU SHOULD STILL NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ANYTHING HE SAYS IN THE NEXT FEW SPEECHES BECAUSE IF HE BRINGS UP ARGUMENTS THAT ARE FOR HIS SIDE, THAT IS UNFAIR BECAUSE I WILL ONLY HAVE 2 ROUNDS TO ANSWER IS ARGUMENTS AND HE HAS 4 TO ANSWER MINE"Now wait a second, you forfeited a round you had 3 days to complete, and you were online 16 hours before that round expired so that was your own fault. Dont use your own laziness to try to cry for a sympathy vote when you could have just as easily submitted arguments this round like any normal person who actually knows how to debate...." i was having a busy schedule which included debating at Harvard between Friday-Monday, and then having school and debate on Tuesday"If you spend so much time debating how come your record for debating on here is 0 for 3, your grammar is dreadful, and you dont cite any evidence at all?I apologize to voters for the actions of the Pro, I extend all my arguments which went unrefuted....

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.


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

The debate over whether illegal immigrants should be granted citizenship by the government is a contentious issue. Proponents argue that illegal immigrants contribute to society by paying taxes and taking jobs that many Americans are unwilling to do, and that denying them citizenship, healthcare, insurance, and voting rights is a violation of the principles upon which the country was founded. However, opponents argue that illegal immigrants do not pay higher taxes than most Americans, and that the claim that they take jobs that Americans are too lazy to do is based on opinion rather than factual evidence.

Moreover, opponents argue that illegal immigrants are not denied healthcare, as they are admitted and cared for in hospitals under a 1986 statute that cannot turn people away for treatment even if they cannot afford to pay or are not citizens. They also argue that the resolution that the government has a moral obligation to afford the same constitutional rights to all people on American soil is not specific to illegal immigrants but pertains to everyone on American soil, and that people are not all treated the same even if they are legal U.S. citizens.

Opponents argue that Proponents have the burden of proving that all citizens should be treated the same under the law regardless of their age, criminal record, etc. They also argue that many historical documents drafted by the U.S. government were not pillars of morality, and that the U.S. cannot rely on a "history of morality" but rather a history of greed. They argue that since non-citizens are not required to pay taxes, then the government is not obligated to include them in extending U.S. benefits, and that allowing non-citizens to receive the benefits of social programs without paying into them would amount to "stealing" from American citizens.

Furthermore, opponents argue that illegal immigrants should not be allowed to vote in American elections, and that Proponents have the burden of explaining how not allowing illegal immigrants to vote fuels hate crimes. They also argue that using the standard of non-discrimination is faulty, as the country discriminates based on factors like conviction all the time, and that operating under the basis that only citizens are subject to American rights, privileges, and responsibilities is responsible discrimination that does not hinder morality but rather enforces it.

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.

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.

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

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.

I agree that statements which I wrote have two sides, but benefitial sight are dominate. To conclude the United States, European nations, and other developed nations around the world have improved economically, often times at the cost of third world nations, where they encourage keeping their labor costs low to increase their own profit margins. By doing this they have left immigrants with no choice but to head towards where the money and opportunity lies. The United States does not seem to understand this, as it believes building a fence along its southern border will fix the problem. Ultimately a compromise must be reached. Politicians as well as legal citizens ought to reach out a brotherly hand to help those in need such as illegal immigrants, while any human migrating to another country ought to become familiar with the host countries' political system, language, and culture. Most importantly in order to receive the benefits of a host country the migrants must start off on the right foot by not migrating illegally, and second they must contribute to the system by paying all taxes as legal citizens do.

I 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.

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.

I look forward to a good debate. first argument response-The reason for the increase for visa-stayed immigrants is for Democrats defunding ICE. second argument response- ok, Many people can just say, Oh they can build tunnels. Let's look at statistics "Part of our area is covered with some fencing on our east side. That accounts for about 6 percent of our traffic, " Border Patrol chief Raul Ortiz told journalists during President Trump"s January 10 visit to Rio Grande Valley, Texas. "Where we have no fencing, Over 90 percent of our traffic occurs in those areas. " A day earlier, Ortiz added, 450 people were apprehended in the unfenced sector, Including 133 from such non-Latin nations as India, Pakistan, And Romania. " Some 560, 000 illegals were caught astride San Diego and Tijuana in Fiscal Year 1992 when a border wall was installed there. By FY 2017, The Border Patrol says it snared 26, 086 "" down 95. 3 percent. " A barrier between the Tucson, Ariz. , Sector and Nogales, Mexico, Was erected in 2000. That year"s 616, 346 arrests plunged to 38, 657 in FY 2017 "" down 93. 7 percent. A fence installed at the border between Yuma, Arizona, And Los Algodones, Mexico brought apprehensions from 138, 438 in FY 2005 to 12, 847 in FY 2017 "" down 90. 7 percent. "Crime has significantly decreased in the Yuma area, " then""acting homeland security secretary Elaine Duke wrote in USA Today in August 2017, "and smugglers now look for other less difficult areas of the border to cross "" often areas without fencing. " " A 150-mile barrier between Israel and southern Egypt cut the number of illegal-alien entrants from 17, 000 in 2011 to 43 in 2013, After the fence"s completion, Israel"s Ministry of the Interior states "" down 99. 7 percent. " Bulgaria erected a barrier on its Turkish perimeter in 2013. That year"s 11, 000 illegal crossings dropped to 4, 000 in 2014 "" down 63. 6 percent. " Just as British Gibraltar dangles from Spain"s underside, Spanish Ceuta and Melilla surf atop Morocco. Multiple fences and barriers there sliced 2014"s 2, 100 arrests at the Spanish-territorial/Moroccan frontier to 2015"s 100 "" down 95. 2 percent. Former and current senators Joe Biden, Tom Carper, Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, Debbie Stabenow, And Ron Wyden were among the 26 Democrats who voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. It authorized 700 miles of double fence. All 54 Senate Democrats voted unanimously in June 2013 for $46 billion in border security, Including 350 miles of new steel fence. This is a case of Trump-Derangement Syndrome. " https://www. Nationalreview. Com/2019/01/border-walls-democrat-partisan-politics/ The Point and argument is- Walls Work There have been multiple cases of Government taking private land for a greater cause. New Jersey Turnpike just to name one. The people are paid back. The yearly keep up for the wall will be cheaper than original border security. Instead of focusing on agents to pay, To monitor, Etc, Etc. We have drones and a fundamental barrier. Sidenote: Pelosi's shutdown has cost more than the wall itself and she has a wall around her mansion. She takes eight-day trips to other countries during a shutdown. Now the Biggest factor everybody forgets: Drugs Drugs make up 80% of gun crime and are a growing issue. More Americans died from drugs in the past 3 years than all the Americans who died in Vietnam-a 20 year conflict. "Data on drug seizures at the U. S. Border indicate an alarming volume of trafficking taking place in recent years. Since 2009, Heroin seizures at the southwestern border have almost tripled, While meth seizures quintupled through 2014. Worse yet, Cocaine and marijuana remain two of the most commonly seized drugs along our southern borders, Equating to millions of pounds seized by U. S. Border Patrol. Since 2012, The number of traffickers apprehended at U. S. Borders has steadily increased from 364, 768 to nearly 500, 000 in 2014. From 2012 to 2015 the U. S. Border Patrol has seized more than: 8. 2 million lbs. Of marijuana 32, 600 lbs. Of cocaine 34, 000 ounces of heroin 17, 600 lbs. Of methamphetamine Recently, Border Customs released a report saying that they busted the biggest fetanlyol crossing ever. The substance was enough to kill 100 MILLION people. 90% of heroin comes from our Southern Border. In 2010, The FBI released a statement detailing the southwestern border and Mexico"s involvement in the illicit drug trade within the United States. At the time, Mexico was the No. 1 foreign supplier of marijuana. While Mexico produces no cocaine, The cartels do move Colombian cocaine through South and Central America into the U. S. Through Mexico. Mexico is also the largest supplier of methamphetamine. The country has labs established on both sides of the border that are controlled by Mexican drug cartels. Although Asia and the Middle East were the largest producers of heroin, 39% of heroin identified by DEA signature programs originated from Mexico, Making the southwest border the source for many heroin overdoses west of the Mississippi River. Today, The data show the majority of marijuana drug trafficking still takes place along the southwest border. The coastal borders (Miami, New Orleans, Ramey) see a great deal of traffic but the emphasis is largely on marijuana and cocaine, Suggesting the coastal borders are secondary channels largely for Colombian cartels that push these primary drugs from South America. The government works tirelessly to counter the influx of illicit drugs, With drug trafficking falling under federal law and carrying a felony sentence ranging anywhere from five years to life in prison. Any individual can be charged with trafficking if authorities believe there is intent to sell. Charges can also be escalated to distribution depending on the quantity of drugs found. Data from CPB. Org collected since 2012 shows that border patrol and government agencies are doing an exceptional job at slowing the importation of illicit drugs into the U. S. At our southern borders. Texas and Arizona hold the highest rate of seizures, Totaling more than 7 million pounds of drugs seized by authorities from 2012 to 2014. This region has required a focused effort because South America has long been a primary source for cocaine and marijuana. Unfortunately, Despite the high volume of seizures, Drugs are still finding their way across and have a profound impact in many states along southern and coastal borders. In 2014 alone, California had the highest incidences of drug-related deaths at 4, 521. It was followed closely by Florida (2, 634) and Texas (2, 601). Arizona, However, Is an exception; with the highest seized drug volume and only 1, 211 drug-related deaths in 2014. This is a clear indication that search and seizure by U. S. Border Patrol and local authorities have been highly effective in that region. While the volume of drugs flowing into the U. S. Through northern borders is considerably less, With fewer recorded seizures, There still remains a threat in those regions. Data shows us that some northern states are hit just as hard by drug trafficking. In 2014, Drug-related deaths in some areas of the north rivaled those of southern border states including Ohio (2, 744 deaths), Pennsylvania (2, 732 deaths) and New York (2, 300 deaths). Search and seizure programs have effectively stopped millions of pounds of illicit drugs from entering the U. S. , But there"s clearly more to be done to protect the youth of America and limit the volume of drugs traveling deeper into our cities. The majority of drugs appear to travel by land, With 59% of total drugs seized attributed to Border Patrol efforts in the U. S. And abroad. Over the years these efforts have forced smugglers to turn to maritime routes to move illicit drugs around the globe. ' https://drugabuse. Com/featured/drug-trafficking-across-borders/ I look forward to your response

There are several reasons that Puerto Rico should vote to become a state of the U.S.A. One reason is the economy boost. Puerto Rico is currently struggling economically, and so is the U.S. The jobs being held by the people in Puerto Rico will boost the USA's economy because those are more jobs, creating more products, creating more money. Also, Puerto Rico has a frighteningly high violent crime rate, especially among youths. A better trained police force might help to lower the violent crimes.

>I am going to write out my case in the traditional LD format. My opponent may do the same or just type out her arguments as she pleases. >Angelina Jolie once said that "[She is] the kind of person who doesn't recognize borders. [She doesn't] understand why we think it is okay to keep someone within one border when they are unable to feed their family when they could be getting help somewhere else. [She doesn't] see people as different so I don't understand the idea of borders in this world. " I agree with her and it is because I think freedom is essential in international affairs that I negate the resolution: :: Negated :: The US should have a border fence >For clarification during this debate I would like to offer the following definition: Freedom: the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint >I would like to offer the following observation: My opponent has the burden of proof to prove why we should have a border fence. If she fails to do this then CON will in this debate. :: Value :: >My value is freedom. Freedom is a global and national concept involving the abilities and liberty of the people. Without freedom no society functions or survives thus making freedom internationally valued. In this debate the freedom at question is whether or not individuals outside of the US should have the ability to find and maintain an occupation inside the borders of the US. :: Value Criterion :: >My value criterion is equality. Equality is practiced worldwide and is definitely necessary to maintain societies. I vouch for equality in this debate because I believe that all individuals, no matter what their ethnicity, background, or residency should have the same ability to find a job and maintain it in the US. To win this debate my opponent must prove that these individuals outside of the US do not deserve equality to those inside it. :: Contention 1 :: >My first contention is that all individuals deserve the same chances to get a job. There is no conceivable reason that an immigrant would be worth less than a person already living in the United States. This is because of the following: 1. Immigrants and citizens of the US are all people 2. No people deserve more rights than other people Due to this logic there is no reason that the immigrant community is worth any less than the American community. :: Contention 2 :: >My second contention is that illegal immigrants are in need of the job opportunities that exist in the US. My opponent neglects the fact that illegal immigrants come to the US for a REASON. This reason is to survive which they believe (and they are correct) they can achieve by getting a job in the US. According to a Press Briefing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform by Joel Kaplan the economy (and job market) are "the magnet for illegal immigration. " The economy and job market in Mexico are decimated so these people which we speak of are forced to travel to the US, the closest country with a decent job market. :: Contention 3 :: >My third contention is that a lack of illegal immigrants would devastate the US economy. An overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants which come to the US live in California and Texas (. http://www.statemaster.com...). These numbers were as of the 200 census and are greater now. If these millions of immigrants in the work forces of these states were not in the US then the economy of these states would be devastated. ---:: Opponent's Case ::--- >My opponent's case is not really a case. It is a list of beliefs. I will address them 1 by 1. 1) "I feel that we need a concrete border to keep out all illegal immigrants. " I disagree with this. See: All 2) "It is not fair to all of the hard working U. S. citizens to have their jobs and house taken of by illegals who do not need to be here. " The illegal immigrants in fact do need to be here. See: Contention 2 >I look forward to the response of my respected opponent.