The Instigator
XStrikeX
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
PARADIGM_L0ST
Pro (for)
Losing
25 Points

Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 11 votes the winner is...
XStrikeX
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 14,323 times Debate No: 12805
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (11)

 

XStrikeX

Con

Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution on July 9th, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: "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." This has been interpreted to give "birthright citizenship" to anyone born in the United States, except for the children of diplomats and Native Americans. The main reason for dispute is due to the fact that many illegal immigrants travel to the United States and give birth.

I am XStrikeX and I am arguing that the 14 amendment of birthright citizenship should be ended. Here are my arguments.

1. Birthright citizenship is offensive to legitimate immigrants. When a person desperately wants to come to America, and must wait in line, or who was born in another country a week or a month before moving to America, it seems offensive that they are less deserving of citizenship than the child of someone who came illegally. Citizenship is also something that should be earned. Citizenship is about much more than where you were born. It is about your willingness to contribute, engage in a society, perhaps learn the prominent language of that society, and more. The idea that citizenship can be acquired by the mere fact of being born in the United States seems to cheapen this social compact.

2. Birthright citizenship creates incentive for birthright tourism. Senator Lindsay Graham said: "They come here to drop a child. It's called drop and leave. To have a child in America, they cross the border, they go to the emergency room, have a child, and that child is automatically an American citizen. That shouldn't be the case. That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons [1]." Also, another incentive for illegal immigrants to have children here is because that child, being an automatic American citizen, becomes an "anchor baby." This means that the child's parents can take advantage of the free citizenship and be sponsored for residence and citizenship thanks to the American immigration law's family-reunification bias. Also, the baby's illegal mother will not be deported. In 1993, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors reported that two-thirds of births in L.A. County hospitals were to illegal aliens, mostly Mexicans. Conservative estimates of illegal-alien births here, assuming an illegal alien population of between 8.7 and 11 million, run from 287,000 to 363,000 per year [2].

3. This birthright is a problem. It accounts for a disproportionate amount of births. A recent study by the Washington Post found that Congress has heard testimony estimating that more than two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals, and more than half of all births in that city, and nearly 10 percent of all births in the nation in recent years, have been to mothers who are here illegally [3].

Sources:
1. http://www.guardian.co.uk...
2. http://www.mnforsustain.org...
3. http://www.commercialappeal.com...
PARADIGM_L0ST

Pro

I would like to thank CON for starting this debate. I trust that debating such a provocative topic will hold the attention of the audience.

==== COUNTER-ARGUMENTS AND CLARIFICATIONS ====

My opponent begins his argument by mentioning the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution that provides the pretext for citizenship. He claims that because illegal immigrants come across the border and have children, that it must therefore nullify the 14th Amendment. He seeks to repeal it on that basis.

1. CON alleges that illegal aliens are offensive to those who came to America legally. CON neglects to evaluate the historical context, so it is therefore incumbent upon me to do so to highlight inconsistencies in his rationale.

With the exception of Native Americans, all citizens of the United States are the beneficiaries of illegal immigration. All of the colonial world would have been deemed as illegal immigrants had Native Americans ("native," being the operative word) codified a nation of their own with specified borders.

Even supposing, however, we dismiss this rather obvious instance of illegal immigration, that presumably CON is willing to overlook, I wonder what his familial roots are. I wonder if he can trace his roots to France, Spain, Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, etc, which would most assuredly, and poignantly, highlight the unintended hypocrisy of his current position in the debate. The wave of Irish, German, Dutch, Italian, Chinese, etc, immigration brought with it the same hysteria we see today, but at various times in American history. The Know-Nothing Party of the United States, who vehemently protested "the scourge of the Irish Race" were commonplace. Violence, which is chronicled in the infamous Martin Scorcese film, "The Gangs of New York," were historically accurate, right down to the movie's protagonists. [1] The same arguments were made, respectively, concerning the Italians as well. In fact, it really wasn't until the 1970's that Italians went from being Latin to being considered Caucasian. What was able to allay these fears? Successful assimilation in to the American culture, where color, creed, and beliefs no longer mattered, such as we see today.

2. CON states that current legislation incentivizes illegal immigrants to come here illegally, versus legally. But this overlooks the heart of the problem. The reason why people come here illegally is because of massive bureaucratic red tape that otherwise prevents people from ever being here on legal visa's. Not that this even matters when analyzing CON's debate. CON stated, in no uncertain terms, that he wants the 14th Amendment to be ended. This would mean that even children born to parents on legal work/school visa's would not be legal citizens of the United States, never mind the one's who come here illegally. I, for one, would like to hear a proposal from CON rectifying this discrepancy.

More to the point, what of those which are illegal? Anti-immigration pundits inflate the argument far beyond its merits, as if the country is being overrun by a hoard of illegals. According to the Pew Research Center, 8% of all newborns, 5.4% of the total workforce, and 4% of the total US population are attributed to illegal immigrants. [2] Juxtaposing this figure by 1830 Irish immigrants (and not any other nationality) comprised 8.5 million, so that today 41 million Americans identifies with having Irish ancestry. [3] That was only the first wave of Irish immigration. Did America collapse under the weight of sheer numbers from a strange and foreign culture? No. And what are the effects felt today by such a large diaspora? The outcome has been overwhelmingly positive, both socially and economically.

3. CON alleges that a disproportionate amount of births of an unnamed people were born in Los Angeles public hospitals, 10% purportedly coming from illegal immigrants. I suspect the real debate is the amount of Hispanic migration versus "illegal immigration." These xenophobic sentiments have been expressed by a number of anti-immigration fringe groups throughout the history of the United States. [4] The real question is why this would be troubling to CON at all. He neglects to explain the supposed pitfalls of this incursion, and I think in the interest of the debate, my opponent needs to identify exactly why a disproportionate amount of births from the phantom people is problematic.

==== ARGUMENTS ====

The real issue at the heart of the debate, besides the latent racist and xenophobic arguments hidden in a sea of fallacious arguments typical of the anti-immigration crowd, is directly attributed to the entitlement programs of the United States. Entitlement programs are simply, for lack of a better term, socialist programs that indiscriminately give to those who have not contributed. Why not simply get rid of the entitlement programs, but keep the people who have just come here to provide their family the best opportunity possible? Immigrants to the US in the past had to be self-reliant, learned to be self-reliant, and were some of the most enterprising individuals on the face of the earth. The welfare state, with the promise of instant subsistence, is the real enemy, not immigration itself. That distinction cannot be overstated. Medicaid, Section 8 housing, food stamps, public education, etc, are the tools of dependence. You get rid of that and immigrants, nor natives, can exploit the system. [5]

Secondly, the United States is very selective with whom they'll turn a bind eye too, versus who they will allow to come in. As a native of Miami, Florida, and a law enforcement officer in the US Coast Guard, the immigration issue is one that I have more experience with than the average American who cries foul ball from a far distance. The amount of Cuban immigrants allowed to stay versus the amount of Haitians is atrocious. And why? Because Cuban immigrants are some of the most enterprising immigrants. Their level of economic success in the US and their level of assimilative adaptability are clearly evident. The economic success of South Florida can directly be attributed to Cuban migration. Because of this, the US tends to turn a blind eye.

Moreover, it is a fact that the majority of Cuban-Americans typically vote for conservative Republicans. This is not at all lost on the GOP; and who is it that has the greatest anti-immigration stance? The Republican Party.

Contrast this with Haitians who tend to vote Democrat, and which whom statistically do economically measure up to Cubans, and it is evident why the anti-immigration crowd pushes them aside. When we pick up Haitians, it's to bring them back to Port-Au-Prince, not to bring them to the shores of the Southeast United States. [6]

I await my opponents reply.

==== SOURCES ====

1. http://www.understandingrace.com...
2. http://pewhispanic.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://www.rasmussenreports.com...
6. http://humanrights.change.org...?
Debate Round No. 1
XStrikeX

Con

Many thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate and responding.
I would like to quickly move onto my refutations and new arguments.

Refutations

1. I am slightly confused as to what my opponent is truly arguing. Instead of wondering about what my family roots are, or citing a movie, I would appreciate if you could make the argument more clear. However, correct me if I am wrong, I believe you are arguing that America is a land of freedom, free of prosecution, and free of religious intolerance. If so, I argue that these people are not American citizens and they realize it. They do not deserve to live in our extremely tolerant land when they themselves are not true citizens, but illegal immigrants. And their children certainly do not either. If you claim that America is so free, then why does the Constitution, the very document that defines America, contain the three-fifths slave law and the prohibition of outlawing the Atlantic slave trade [1]? I do not understand how my opponent refuted my argument and thus, it still stands.

2. So what's so problematic with legal children citizens of illegal immigrants becoming illegal citizens? All they need to do is become legal citizens, which is what true immigrants to the United States and other countries do. It's not that big of a deal.

"According to the Pew Research Center, 8% of all newborns, 5.4% of the total workforce, and 4% of the total US population are attributed to illegal immigrants."

This debate has little to do with actual illegal immigrants, but more about the children they produce and their citizenship. I feel that most of my opponent's arguments are focused on illegal immigration in it's entirety. I personally believe that illegal immigrants are bad and have a negative effect, but that is useless in this specific debate.

3. No, it is not just about Hispanic immigration, but the Hispanics make up the largest percentage (more than half) of illegal immigrations to the US [2]. My opponent asks what the problem with a disproportionate amount of births is. Here is my response. Because illegal immigrants have the power to procreate in the United States and to bring new citizens into the union, they exacerbate the concerns of immigrants that feel they are being put at a disadvantage.

"Why not simply get rid of the entitlement programs, but keep the people who have just come here to provide their family the best opportunity possible? Immigrants to the US in the past had to be self-reliant, learned to be self-reliant, and were some of the most enterprising individuals on the face of the earth."

We are not "getting rid" of or deporting the people who have birthright citizenship, but simply forcing them to obtain true citizenship instead of automatic citizenship of no charge. Plus, these are the children of illegal immigrants who have disrespected US' laws and immigrated here illegally, only to have a legal child who can put in a word for them when they are persecuted due to illegality. In the second sentence, the key word my opponent mentioned is "immigrant." He never mentioned illegal immigrants and I would like him to cite any illegal aliens that became "the most enterprising individuals on the face of the earth."

"The welfare state, with the promise of instant subsistence, is the real enemy, not immigration itself."

I do not see why the welfare state should be eliminated. Sure, illegal immigrants will no longer exploit or take advantage of the public benefits, but the benefits are taken away from the legal citizens and public who need programs in public health and public housing and unemployment compensation. Illegal immigrant parents, not the United States government, are to blame for immigrating illegally and deciding to give birth to a child in the United States. The consequences to their children are a result of their folly, not of the government for deciding to end birthright citizenship.

"Secondly, the United States is very selective with whom they'll turn a bind (blind) eye too, versus who they will allow to come in."

Well, this probably means we simply need to be more fair and less selective. But, this argument is, like the previous one, focusing on illegal immigration which is irrelevant to the topic, birthright citizenship.

Arguments

1. The writers of the 14th amendment, if they had known of our situation, would not want birthright citizenship for illegals. If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not.

2. Birthright citizenship is outdated and came from a period of less immigration. The guarantee of birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment came in a time when our borders were wide open and international travel was more difficult. When a family came here they usually intended to settle and stay, not have a child to lay a foothold down and put in a word for them.

3. Once again, birthright citizenship is unfair to true legal citizens. What about those who waited in lines and worked hard and studied hard to learn U.S. history and pass the test to become a real citizen? Birthright citizenship is simply a slap in the face to them. The concept of a pair of illegals having a child in the US and having him or her automatically be born as a citizen is absurd and unfair.

4. The illegal behavior of parents should not be awarded. While it is true that denying the child of an illegal immigrant birthright citizenship is harmful to the child, it is also true that giving them birthright citizenship rewards a mother for having willfully broken US law. Such a reward is unjust and unfair, and undermines the US rule of law. So, this is not about punishing children, it is about not rewarding illegal behavior.

5. Birthright citizenship encourages illegal families to have children in the United States. I have already expanded on this in the previous round.

6. A majority of Americans oppose birthright citizenship. Rasmussen took a poll in June of 2010, asking people if they thought children of illegal immigrants should have citizenship. Fifty-eight percent said no and only 33 percent said yes [3].

My opponent has frequently spoken about illegal immigration and not the main subject of birthright citizenship. I would like him to focus more on the matter at hand and the topic I posted, instead of illegal immigration. If you would like to debate illegal immigration, PARADIGM_L0ST, I would be very happy to do so in the future, but not now.

I look forward to the next round.

Sources:
1. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.nationalreview.com...
PARADIGM_L0ST

Pro

==== COUNTER-POINTS ====

P1. My opponent has clarified his position more clearly in this round. The crux of his argument is that he would like to focus specifically on the children of illegal immigrants versus illegal immigrants themselves. I will attempt to argue against that position, but it must be noted that CON places the cart before the horse, as we have a chicken/egg problem (which came first, the illegal alien or their offspring?) If my opponent says that the progeny of illegal aliens are also illegal aliens, then what exactly is the difference?

"I argue that these people are not American citizens and they realize it. They do not deserve to live in our extremely tolerant land when they themselves are not true citizens"

CON gives a self-refuting proposition when he asserts that illegal immigrants do not deserve to live in our tolerant land by citing just how intolerant he would like America to be. He claims that their children do not belong here, but gives no basis for why the 14th Amendment should be repealed.

P2. "So what's so problematic with legal children citizens of illegal immigrants becoming illegal citizens? All they need to do is become legal citizens, which is what true immigrants to the United States and other countries do."

Remember what my opponent clarified at the beginning of Round 2. He has stated that his focus is with the children of illegal immigrants, rather than the all-encompassing debate over illegal immigration. In lieu of his clarification, in tandem with his recent question, I ask CON how he proposes infants, babies, toddlers, and children apply for citizenship...? The bottom line is that the 14th Amendment states that people born in the United States are therefore citizens of the United States. Since no actual basis for repealing has thus far been given, it is imperative that CON give a detailed analysis for WHY it should be repealed. Anything less, in my estimation, is grounds for forfeiture.

P3. CON alleges that based on the disproportionate number of births places "exacerbate the concerns of immigrants that feel they are being put at a disadvantage." Here CON does not give any description of the "concerns" immigrants would have, and then completely neglects a criticial point in this debate. Those born in the United States ARE citizens, and so he ironically (and quite possibly, hypocritically) places the concern of immigrants over citizens of the United States. He forgets that people born in the United States ARE citizens and does not address why it is supposedly such a bad thing. And so, as we can see, CON still neglects to give an actual reason for repealing the 14th Amendment.

Secondly, who is disproportionate? I already cited a statistic that show 8% of all births in the US are attributed to illegal aliens.

P4. "We are not "getting rid" of or deporting the people who have birthright citizenship, but simply forcing them to obtain true citizenship instead of automatic citizenship of no charge."

Again, CON brings up the clear distinction between illegal immigrants (adults who cross the borders illegally) with their children. How exactly can newborn infants apply for citizenship? If you don't want to deport them, but also not give them a legal status which they are entitled to under the Constitution of the United States, and they are too young to comprehend what citizneship evens means, what else would you have them do?

==== REFUTING ARGUMENTS ====

P1. CON states that had the Framers dealt with our current situation, they would not want citizenship for the offsrping of illegal immigrants. Historically, he is wrong. The Alien and Seditions Act of 1798 [1] made similar arguments until Thomas Jefferson strenusously fought against the unconstitutionality of it, citing the abridging of the 10th Amendment. [2] It wasn't until later, during the ratification of the 14th Amendment, that a more comprehensive and clear amendment be made. That immigration debates have been a long part of American history is irrefutable, which means that the basis for the 14th Amendment has been given considerable thought.

P2. CON argues that "birthright citizenship" is outdated during a time of less immigration. This is simply not true. Per capita and percentage-wise, there was far more immigration in the past than there is currently. According to the Washington-based thinktank, the CATO Institute, the foreign-born population of the United States is 8.5 percent of the total population (as of 1990). The proportions in the United States during the period from before 1850 to 1940 were
higher--always above 13 percent during the entire period from 1860 to 1930 -- and the proportions since the 1940s were lower. [3]

P3. Here, CON posits that birthright citizenship is unfair to immigrants who come here legally. I say it is decidely more unfair, not to mention impractical, for infants who did not choose to born in the United States or anywhere else. Secondly, how exactly it is supposedly "unfair" has still not been addressed by my opponent. He continues to mention how it is unfair for infants to be citizens in the country they were born in, but has thus far not offered one iota for why it is so.

P4. CON makes the admission that " While it is true that denying the child of an illegal immigrant birthright citizenship is harmful to the child, it is also true that giving them birthright citizenship rewards a mother for having willfully broken US law." So here we see that, even though CON specifically wants to make the argument about birthright citizenship, his argument is geared towards the parents. Well, which is it? Would my opponent like to talk about illegal immigration, or how the 14th Amendment should be repealed?

Secondly, on Point 4, CON admits that uprooting infants, who have no choice in where they are born, is harmful to them. Knowing this would be harmful, I seek clarification for where these children would go, especially since they have a Constitutional right to be citizens who are treated with the same dignity and respect as he enjoys.

P6. CON states that a poll indicates that the majority of Americans oppose birthright citizenship. This is an immaterial non-sequitur, and an Argumentum ad Populum [4]. It's a logical fallacy geared towards an appeal to majority opinion, in hopes that we will all jump on the bandwagon via peer pressure.

==== ARGUMENTS ====

Some opponents to Birthright Citizenship argue that the Jurisdiction Clause invalidates the children of illegal aliens the legality of citizenship. But this is simply not true, because everyone who is in the United States, either legally or illegally, is subject to the laws and ordinances of the United States. So whether visiting the US, and giving birth while on vacation, or coming here with the intent to better the existence of their children, children born in the United States are in fact legal citizens without exception.

Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled, both in 1898 and in 1982, that the 14th amendment should be read inclusively to confer birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. In fact, over 100 years ago, the Supreme Court case of U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, determined that a man of Chinese descent, but who was born in San Fransisco, was in fact an American -- this decision was rendered even at the height of the anti-Chinese immigration movement. [5]

==== CLOSING ====

My opponent has failed to substantiate or legitimize any reason to overturn in the 14th Amendment, and all of his points have soundly been refuted with logic. I await my opponents reply.

==== SOURCES ====

[1] http://avalon.law.yale.edu...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.cato.org...
[4] http://philosophy.lander.edu...
[5] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...
Debate Round No. 2
XStrikeX

Con

Thank you for the response.
This is the last round so I shall be making my refutations and restating my arguments and telling why I believe that the Opposition has won this debate.

Refutations

"He claims that their children do not belong here, but gives no basis for why the 14th Amendment should be repealed."

This is because my opponent's counter-argument had no relation to the children of illegal immigrants. The argument he presented was simply about illegal immigrants in general, but not the children. I have presented arguments for why the 14th amendment should be repealed and I'm sure my opponent knows that.

"I ask CON how he proposes infants, babies, toddlers, and children apply for citizenship...?"

They don't need citizenship at that age. Illegal immigrants like to have children in the United States because they automatically become legal citizens that can help their parents become citizens quickly. That's a benefit that attracts illegal here to have children. If the law is repealed, then illegal immigrants will not have children here. And if those children want to become American citizens, then they can when the become young adults or even older.

"CON alleges that based on the disproportionate number of births places "exacerbate the concerns of immigrants that feel they are being put at a disadvantage." Here CON does not give any description of the "concerns" immigrants would have, and then completely neglects a criticial point in this debate."

I have constantly stated a point that my opponent seems to ignore and not bother with. Wouldn't an immigrant, who worked hard to wait in the lines and learn about American history, who feels honored to even have the opportunity to become a legal citizen, wouldn't he feel angered that a child of an illegal immigrant, a bad person, could automatically be born as a citizen? These illegal immigrants should not be rewarded with citizenship for their child. That makes little to no sense in any circumstance. As I mentioned in the 2nd round, a Rasmussen poll found that more of the United States is against birthright citizenship for the children of illegals than those who support. Clearly, the true, legal citizens of the US have their own concerns.

"How exactly can newborn infants apply for citizenship? If you don't want to deport them, but also not give them a legal status which they are entitled to under the Constitution of the United States, and they are too young to comprehend what citizneship (citizenship) evens means, what else would you have them do?"

By repealing the birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens amendment, it deters illegal immigrants from having children here in the first place. That's one of the main reasons why illegals have children here. For the free citizenship. Now, about the child become a legal citizen. A child could not live by himself/herself, meaning there must be an illegal parent in the picture. The parent should then, as an illegal, get citizenship for herself and the child, or pack up and leave or suffer consequences, seeing as they are on our United States soil illegally.

"CON states that had the Framers dealt with our current situation, they would not want citizenship for the offsrping of illegal immigrants. Historically, he is wrong. The Alien and Seditions Act of 1798 [1] made similar arguments until Thomas Jefferson strenusously fought against the unconstitutionality of it, citing the abridging of the 10th Amendment."

The Alien and Seditions Act had nothing to do with the children of illegal immigrants. The act was about the power and right of the President to be able to deport any resident alien that could be potentially dangerous to the US, the duration of residence required for aliens to become citizens, and that it is a crime to publish false writing against the government and its officials [1]. What similar argument is there? Jefferson argued stating that it violated the 10th Amendment, where power is reserved to the people [2], legal citizens, not illegals. How does this have any relevance in any way?

My opponent refutes my argument that birthright citizenship is outdated because back then there was a time of less immigration. He continues to support his refutation with two percentages. One stating that in 1990, the foreign-born population of the US was 8.5%. From 1860 to 1940, it was above 13 percent. Now, percentages can always be deceiving. Just because in 1990 the foreign population was 8.5% doesn't mean that there was fewer immigrants. Population of the United States has risen in the past years. This percent could be and most likely is a larger number of people than the 13% my opponent claimed. I also find it peculiar why my opponent mentioned a 90 year and 70 year spread and compared it to 1 year, 20 years ago. In 2005, just the Hispanic race made up 14.4% of the US population or about 43 million people [3]. Back then, I'm not even sure there WERE that many people in the US.

"Here, CON posits that birthright citizenship is unfair to immigrants who come here legally. I say it is decidely more unfair, not to mention impractical, for infants who did not choose to born in the United States or anywhere else."

How is it unfair to child, who gets free citizenship? His parents were the ones who illegally and secretly smuggled into the US and had a child! Again, it's unfair to the people who actually worked for their citizenship because they waited, learned, and passed a test.

"I seek clarification for where these children would go, especially since they have a Constitutional right to be citizens who are treated with the same dignity and respect as he enjoys."

They would return to their family and get true citizenship at an older age when they can care for themselves.

"CON states that a poll indicates that the majority of Americans oppose birthright citizenship. This is an immaterial non-sequitur, and an Argumentum ad Populum [4]. "

I've never known those words and thank you for adding that to my vocabulary. Anyway, isn't this a democratic republic? The people have spoken and they want these birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants ended. What happened to the 10th amendment that Jefferson defended? Don't the people have power?

"But this is simply not true, because everyone who is in the United States, either legally or illegally, is subject to the laws and ordinances of the United States."

If everyone is subject to the laws of the United States, as you say, then why do we have illegal immigrants, drug smugglers, robbers, troublemakers, and scams?

"Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled, both in 1898 and in 1982, that the 14th amendment should be read inclusively to confer birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants."

Well, that's what we're currently arguing and the topic has been brought up again, so I don't see the argument here.

Arguments

My opponent has constantly repeated that I have no actual reason to repeal the 14th amendment. I will try to make these points as clear as possible.

1. Birthright citizenship is unfair to the current legal citizens who worked hard for their citizenship.
2. We should not be rewarding the illegals with citizenship for their child.
3. Citizenship is something that should be earned.
4. It encourages illegal parents to have a child in the US.
5. Birthright citizenship is outdated and came from a time of less illegal immigration.

For these arguments, CON should win this debate.
I congratulate my opponent on good arguments and excellent vocabulary and near perfect spelling.
Thank you for a wonderful debate.

Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.infoplease.com...
PARADIGM_L0ST

Pro

I would like to reiterate my thanks to my opponent for the opportunity to debate this topic. I hope the audience will be pleased.

==== REFUTATIONS ====

"I have presented arguments for why the 14th amendment should be repealed and I'm sure my opponent knows that."

I completely disagree. My opponent has consistently not shown a cause and effect for the first 2 rounds of debate. I trust the reader's judgment will clearly see that no causality has been offered. For instance, he mentions a disproportionate amount of illegal immigrant children, which is not even remotely accurate (See Round 2 argument for statistics) and furthermore he does not explain WHY a disproportionate amount of births would have deleterious effects.

"They don't need citizenship at that age."

That's an absurd notion. If children of illegal immigrants would not need citizenship at that age, then no one of that age would need citizenship. CON further alleges that granting citizenship to their children is an incentive to come to the United States. My opponent forgets that the greatest incentive is the United States itself. People risk life and limb to come to the United States, with or without children. Their incentive is better their lives, period.

Secondly, repealing the 14th Amendment ensures that none of us, including you, would have citizenship of the United States. My opponent is on record stating that wants to repeal the 14th Amendement, rather than add an addendum. This would result in there being no citizens of the United States whatsoever, which would therefore would create no legal way to exclude anyone, let alone the children of illegal immigrants.

In other words, my opponent did not actually think the proposition all the way through. For that reason alone, I would think that sensible voters would recognize this as grounds for a forfeiture.

My opponent then states that an illegal immigrant is a "bad person," even though, curiously, he clarified in Round 2 that we are exclusively discussing the children of illegal immigrants. He then goes on to repeat the Argumentum ad Populum argument ( a straw man) which bears no relevance to the fact that my opponent wants to repeal the 14th Amendement.

"How does this have any relevance in any way?"

CON postulates that the Alien and Seditions Act has nothing to do with the "children" of illegal immigrants. CON's entire argument, however, is that giving the children of illegal immigrants legal status, as it is clearly stated in the Constitution of the United States, then this helps give legal status to illegal immigrants. Even though my opponent states that the argument is about their children, reading between the lines we can clearly see that his argument is in fact geared towards illegal immigrants themselves.

Secondly, there is no evidence to support the notion that children born in the US will do anything to favor illegal immigration. In fact, all it does is point INS in the direction of the illegal parents. In other words, this "drop and leave" phenomenon that CON is a complete fabrication, as there is no evidence to substantiate the claim. [1]

"Population of the United States has risen in the past years. This percent could be and most likely is a larger number of people than the 13% my opponent claimed. I also find it peculiar why my opponent mentioned a 90 year and 70 year spread and compared it to 1 year, 20 years ago. In 2005, just the Hispanic race made up 14.4% of the US population or about 43 million people"

The US population rises every year, not to mention the entire world, always increases. You cannot look at the statistics as a whole, but rather per capita, in order for it to yield any results worth looking at. CON alluded to a point that an exorbitant amount of illegal alien babies were being born. This is simply not true, as CON selects only one city along the Southwest border. He does not compare the figures with the rest of the United States, nor does he distinguish hispanic children with children born of illegal immigrants. This questions the motive behind the argument, as it may in fact be more about racism and xenophobia than it does actual tangible results. Because, once again, CON has described any cause and effect status, only subjective claims about how it would make legal immigrants upset that the children of illegal immigrants are citizens.

"How is it unfair to child, who gets free citizenship? His parents were the ones who illegally and secretly smuggled into the US and had a child! Again, it's unfair to the people who actually worked for their citizenship because they waited, learned, and passed a test."

This goes without saying... The child didn't smuggle themselves acorss the border, nor is there any provision in the Constitution that would distinguish legal status of the parents, as it is immaterial. You could be a French stewardess and give birth in the United States. Should the child be entitled to a dual citizenship? Under the Constitution, absolutely.

And one wonders whether or not CON would make it illegal for people to marry in to citizenship. The point is, his idea of fairness is skewed, in my opinion.

"isn't this a democratic republic?"

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a Direct Democracy -- which means that we can't vote away personal freedoms granted by the Constitution. A Direct Democracy is mob justice.

"If everyone is subject to the laws of the United States, as you say, then why do we have illegal immigrants, drug smugglers, robbers, troublemakers, and scams?"

Just because laws exist doesn't mean that people don't break them. That's why the laws exist, after all.

==== CONCLUSIONS ====

1. My opponent was unable to find any legitimate basis for repealing the 14th Amendment. Remember: Repealing the Amendment would mean doing away with the entirety of it, which would not give anyone in the US a legal status, nor did he offer a provision of the 14th Amendment.

2. CON could not establish a link for why birthright citizenship should be ceased. Instead, my opponent opted to a cause without an effect. No causal relationship juxtaposed with an effect is useless proposition.

3. CON stated that citizenship should be earned, but his was not earned. He was granted citizenship based on the fact that he is subject to the United States by virtue of being in the United States. Laws work for us and against us, depending upon the circumstances.

Resolution: Negated

For these reasons, fair and sensible people vote PRO.

==== SOURCE ====

[1] http://www.politifact.com...
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by TheAlmighty 6 years ago
TheAlmighty
Great job, XStrikeX. You remind me of someone I know
Posted by PARADIGM_L0ST 6 years ago
PARADIGM_L0ST
You too, thank for having me
Posted by XStrikeX 6 years ago
XStrikeX
Good debate, PARADIGM_L0ST.
Posted by InquireTruth 6 years ago
InquireTruth
"all people are born same and should have same rights..."

Nah, some people are born really weirdly.
Posted by Natalija 6 years ago
Natalija
all people are born same and should have same rights...
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by PARADIGM_L0ST 6 years ago
PARADIGM_L0ST
XStrikeXPARADIGM_L0STTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by XStrikeX 6 years ago
XStrikeX
XStrikeXPARADIGM_L0STTied
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:40 
Vote Placed by superdebater 6 years ago
superdebater
XStrikeXPARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Brendan21 6 years ago
Brendan21
XStrikeXPARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by arethusa668 6 years ago
arethusa668
XStrikeXPARADIGM_L0STTied
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:40 
Vote Placed by gabe17 6 years ago
gabe17
XStrikeXPARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by RazaMobizo 6 years ago
RazaMobizo
XStrikeXPARADIGM_L0STTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Davewerty 6 years ago
Davewerty
XStrikeXPARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by Postup10101 6 years ago
Postup10101
XStrikeXPARADIGM_L0STTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TheAtheistAllegiance 6 years ago
TheAtheistAllegiance
XStrikeXPARADIGM_L0STTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04