The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Birthright Citizenship should be retained in the United States

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 927 times Debate No: 21664
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




My opponent recently votebombed me on a debate that I clearly won[1], so I've decided to let him prove himself.

When I PMed him about it, he responded: "birthright citizenship is unfair, plain and simple", with no analysis of any actual argument made in the debate, and that annoyed me. So if birthright citizenship is unfair, let him prove it. He can make his case in round one.



First off, my opponent should know that his constant assault on character and sharing Pm's should count off for his conduct. I will personally be respectful and polite to my opponent despite his "character".

I would like to thank my opponent for starting this argument since this is an excellent topic!


.I Well this one is simple, if your parents illegally immigrate here. Then why do you get the same rights as a person who's ancestors sacrificed sweat and blood to create this nation! I would like to ask my opponent if he thinks that fair?

.II Now I do support the constitution.. To a point, on topics like immigration. It simply doesn't apply in this age, with illegal immigration from Mexico being an issue.


My main point is simple, illegal immigrants children getting rights for the cost of nothing!

Debate Round No. 1


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==


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 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
C. Birthright citizenship is a problem that warrants a change in the constitution.


==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.


I thank my opponent for his response.


.I Still, the point remains that you haven't explained how my case is wrong. I will simply list what policies I would find acceptable for citizenship.

.II Illegal immigrants still are protected by the police force and use the public education system. That really is not fair, giving them an education and allowing them to work in establishments for the same pay as regular citizens is unjust. Illegal immigrants do not typically go to college or produce nearly enough money to be worth their income, they also are a minority who has the most typical involvement in crime.


.I Your source is correct but then adds "Rich Chinese moms" which I don't think is statistically backed up anywhere so therefore its legitimacy is dismissed until you back it up.

.II Still even so, doesn't matter if the mom intends to if the baby is born there and she is already there illegally in the first place its the same outcome. I don't see the difference if intended or not she is on the soil illegally and therefore having a baby is still abusing the system.

.III Yes, but they still cause competion and many still go through public school. In the end still costing the government money and in the process possibly making real US citizens lose jobs.

Citizenship subtext to post .II under Illegal Immigration

* Parents must both be legal citizens of the USA
* Legal immigration remains the same as current policy


Whatever my opponent may believe, Illegal immigrants cost some portions of money and sometimes take jobs from real US citizens. Meaning they cause problems and many more come a year. Illegal immigrants due to being poor also are a big source of getting drugs over the border.

Debate Round No. 2


Thanks Con.

My opponent ASSERTS that illegal immigration is bad, with literally no analysis. He only states:

"giving them an education and allowing them to work in establishments for the same pay as regular citizens is unjust"

The first part can be turned, since these immigrants will be here anyway, it's better to have them educated than condemn them to manual labor because they have no education; that's a way to throw away talent. THe argument could also apply to Poor citizens. Sure, illegals dont pay taxes (although they generally make so little that they would pay nothing or next to it under our tax codes) but neither do citiznes in poverty; at the end of the day, the major reason for having public facilities is to help the poor, so my opponent needs to draw a moral distinction between citizens and those he deam illegal. That will be hard to do.

The second part of his argument is:

" Illegal immigrants do not typically go to college or produce nearly enough money to be worth their income, they also are a minority who has the most typical involvement in crime."

Straight up, no sources or warrants on these correlation causation fallacies. Secondly Turn: Education reduces crime and poverty, this turns his education argument and his implied economic argument.

However, most important is that NOWHERE has he linked illegal immigration with birthright citizenship! This is incredibly significant, because his only impacts aren't even linked to the resolution. He's already lost this debat because hes given you no reason at all to change the status quo.

My Framework has been dropped and therefore conceded. This means that he needs to prove uniqueness on his impacts, as well as justify an amendment and he hasn't tried to do that at all.

He attacks my second contention saying that my source is "dismissed", while apparently ignoring the citation it offers from Time magezine. He hasn't offered any counter statistics, so we have to go with mine anyway. His second two points have nothing to do with my case, and make no actual attack on them. So my Contention two stands.

My Contention one has been totally dropped, and therefore conceded. Extend the impact that this sets a dangeerous precedent, and extend that argument that birthright citizenship doesnt warrant a constiutional amendment.

Please vote Pro.


chainmachine forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


chainmachine forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by thett3 6 years ago
Right, because my opponent forfeited and dropped all my arguments, thus conceding to them. There was no need for an analysis when one debater forfeits 67% of his rounds, there would have to be an EXTREMELY good reason to vote Pro if that happens, and you didn't give one.

Of course I'm arrogant, don't waste keystrokes telling me something that I, along with virtually everyone who knows me on this site, already know.
Posted by chainmachine 6 years ago
I gave an analysis, read your vote section please. I gave just as much information as other voters but it was not in your favor which you can't seem to handle. Also "letting me prove myself" you are arrogant. Your not the fist of justice, please don't act like it. Yes and what is wrong with telling you my. You also start off with personal attacks. Which i will note, so please do understand you will most likely lose the point for conduct if you keep acting this way.
Posted by thett3 6 years ago
No lol, a vote with no analysis of any actual arguments is considered a votebomb, it isnt a term I made up.
Posted by chainmachine 6 years ago
Votebombed? Your a very very sore loser.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 6 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits