The Instigator
SinceWhen
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
thett3
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Birthright Citizenship Should Be Abolished In The US.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
thett3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,359 times Debate No: 21287
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

SinceWhen

Pro

First Round id for Accepting.

I ask that my opponent does not use arguments that are not written by him or herself unless given permission by the original creator.

This will be a PF type Debate.
thett3

Con

I accept, and will write my own arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
SinceWhen

Pro

I stand in firm affirmation of this resolution. I believe that it is unfair, unjust, cheating, and not what the creators of the 14th Amendment originally intended.

Firstly, it is important to know that birthright citizenship is one of the most controversial issues in immigration policy. The topic rose to the forefront in April of 2010 when Senator Lindsey Graham caused a stir by calling children who obtained their citizen status through birthright "anchor babies."

Contention 1: Birthright citizenship allows illegal immigrants to cheat the system and immediately become US citizens - Birthright citizenship gives illegal immigrants a motive for cheating the system and finding way to become legalized citizens. In a recent study there were approximately 11.2 illegal immigrants in the United States. The 14th Amendment gives motive for all immigrants to cheat there way into gaining US citizenship by having children. The process of becoming a United States citizen normally takes between 5 months and 2 years. A person who has a baby on American soil takes one. Because the baby is now a United States citizen the process is sped up immensely for parents. It is almost guaranteed that the parents will get citizenship because the government will not forcibly deport the parents away from the baby or remove a US citizen, this being the baby.

Contention 2: Birthright citizenship is unfair, unjust, and does not create an equal society - I believe that if we allow this bill to remain it gives people who have a child here illegally an unfair advantage. Think about the thousands of people that have to wait through the process for 2 years. The people who have to pay and study in order to become a US citizen. Also think of the people who were paying taxes and benefiting the US economy while the illegal immigrants were illegally in the country and used a leu poll in order to become a citizen. Does that seem fair. Our country is based on a place where we are all considered equal. Does a person who has no knowledge of our country and became a citizen over night deserve to be a citizen more than the hardworking man who has been struggling to gain citizenship for the past 2 years, or the man who has studied and payed for tests, or the woman who has been doing local jobs everywhere in order so that she can pay for the documents and tests in order to become a citizen? The answer is no.

Convention 3: Birthright citizenship is not what creators of the constitution originally planned - The 14th Amendment was created in July of 1868. The men who created it would have no idea what would happen 144 years later. It was originally made so that recently freed African Americans would have citizenship if they were born here. Present day this is a means for illegal immigrants to unlawfully sneak past the system and gain citizenship. There have been other countries that have corrected laws similar to this. In Ukraine, they recently got rid of their "Tourist Baby" bill. This bill now states that if you have a baby in Ukraine and you are not a citizen of Ukraine you will not be granted citizenship. So now back to us, I believe that if we abolish birthright citizenship we can create a new bill that is geared towards giving citizenship to babies born of legal citizens of the United States. This would create a more fair and just system and would also clear up the controversy that the original founders of the 14th Amendment could not foresee.
thett3

Con

Thanks. I'll firs present my own case, then, character permitting, refute yours.

==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 Con because Con is the status quo.


Contention one: The slippery slope

Consider 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: Justice

Let'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.

==Opponents case==


1. Cheating

This contention shows a misunderstanding of immigration policy. First, a citizen can only sponsor their parents to be citizens when they turn 18[2], so the argument that " Birthright citizenship gives illegal immigrants a motive for cheating the system and finding way to become legalized citizens" is fundamentally flawed. My opponent has given no empirics on how much faster someone could become a citizen with a citizen child than someone without one, the reasn for this is because there is little to no difference. Pros impact is quite simply non existent, there is a reason that politfact states that having a child in order to gain citizenship would be "an extremely long-term, and uncertain, process."[3]

Further, he's given you no theoretical why this is wrong; presuming that legal immigration is good, he doesn't tell you why illegal immigration is bad. No doubt, laws have been unjust before, so merely saying that one form of immigration is legal and the other isn't makes no moral difference; despite all the anti-illegal rhetoric, I've yet to see any reason to throw out these immigrants because they didn't jump through certain bureaucratic loopholes.

2. Justice

My Opponents second point is all just rhetoric. The only person who benefits from birthright citizenship is the child themselves, who's done nothing wrong anyway. My opponents argument operates under the assumptions that A). Anchor babies give their parents citizenship, B) This is unfair and wrong, and C) This keeps legal immgrants from coming in. A & B have already been demonstrated as false, and C has no warrant or card backing it up. Theres no reason to believe that birthright citizenship will lead to less legal immigrants, and recall further that my opponent hasn't drawn any moral distinction between legal and illegal immigration.

3. Not planned

This is irrelevant. The original meaning of the document doesn't matter, it's the current interpretation that does. My opponent hasn't even explained why the children of non citizens weren't considered in the amendment or given any card in support of this assertation, probably because they were. If the framers had indended it to only apply to free slaves and their children, they would have clarified that. The framers had a compelling interest in ensuring that no class/ethnicity living in the United States would ever be ostracized as non-citizens and discriminated against. The historical intent of the 14th amendment is much closer to the current interpretation of it than my opponents ideo of it is.

Therefore you vote Con.

1. http://reason.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. Ibid
Debate Round No. 2
SinceWhen

Pro

SinceWhen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
SinceWhen

Pro

SinceWhen forfeited this round.
thett3

Con

ugh....

well Forfeiting 2/3 rounds= I win.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
No one cares, unless you want to debate it as well. Otherwise, kindly leave me alone
Posted by RandomName 4 years ago
RandomName
I agree with chainmachine.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
Lol chainmachine, that's such a ridiculous vote. Care to say what his "good argument" was?
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
Too bad he's gonna forfeit :(
Posted by ahopele 4 years ago
ahopele
Very interesting topic.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by chainmachine 4 years ago
chainmachine
SinceWhenthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a good argument but had bad conduct for FF
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
SinceWhenthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit....
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 4 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
SinceWhenthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF