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

Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the USA

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/14/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,673 times Debate No: 38885
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Imagine a place where people don"t have a sense of belonging. Minors would have tremendous trouble becoming a citizen before 18; meaning throughout minor"s lives, until they became an adult they wouldn"t know where their nationality belongs. Citizenship is part of someone's identity and it"s not our right to steal that from others.Birthright citizenship is one of the most controversial issues in the USA. Although there are good reasons for abolishing birthright citizenship, the reasons for keeping this law around outweigh any reasons for abolishing it. If we abolished it we would be deliberately disobeying the 14th amendment and there would become a permanent underclass. Not only that, there would be lots of money to propose though it is not likely to succeed because it is a right guaranteed and protected by the 14th amendment.

For one we would be deliberately disobeying the fourteenth amendment. Indeed the 14th amendment can legally be revised by our congress. which would be a challenge itself though when our congress didn"t amend the constitution to simply be amended its self. Yes it has been around for a long time but that is no reason for blindly abolishing one of the laws that 1) made our country unique and proud. 2) it made our country extremely successful and taking that away seems like we"re asking to fall behind as a country. The 14th amendment says clearly "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." therefore we shouldn"t even begin the think about denying our fathers.

Additionally, it would be lots of money to propose and unlikely to succeed. Even if it was passed by congress the likelihood of the supreme declaring it unconstitutional is quite high. Sadly by that time we would have already spent 1000"s of dollars if not millions on advertising and carrying out this law. For this reason we would be wise to simply never start going "down" that path in vien. Instead we could use that money and pay of some of our billions in that we are in debt. No, "anchor babies" is not the problem. The phrase "anchor babies," which is at the heart of the arguments in favor of these bills, is completely misleading. U.S. citizen children cannot protect their parents from deportation, and they must wait until turning 21 to sponsor them for legal status. Having a child here is not a practical way for any immigrant to gain citizenship.

The amount of people being left with no nationality would not be "accounted for". for one many of children born in the U.S. but denied birthright citizenship might also be ineligible for citizenship in their parents" home country, leaving them without a nationality and forcing them to live at the margins of the international community. Besides these children would be undocumented, drastically increasing the total number of undocumented people living in our country causing Americas taxable population effecting roads, schools, government, safety, recreation areas, etc. Almost everyone would be negatively affected allowing loopholes in our government allowing more illegals. It"s an endless predicament that we best not start into.

All in all we would be woefully foolish of our congress to go down this path that clearly will hurt society way more than we could ever think it would help. Besides birthright citizenship hardly attracts the illegals; what attracts them is our government and economy style, safety and equality. Also abolishing birthright citizenship would effect our taxation system that our government so direly relies on. On top of that the likelihood of the law be declared unconstitutional is rather high while we all know how much capital would be required to advertise and debate this national law would cost. The thought of losing that money when we are billions of dollars into debt is stomach churning as falling farther into debt would be scary, maybe even fatal.


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, 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.
Debate Round No. 1


pianodude2468 forfeited this round.


As I have said in my previous statement, the abolition of birthright citizenship is a logical step for the United States to take. We are one of the only developed countries that still have this law in place. The 14th Amendment is being taken out context from when it was created in the mid-1800's. Finally, the money we would save from eliminating the welfare given out would greatly help our current debt problem.

The Con brought up the point that those born in the United States would not have a country or a nationality for themselves to align with. Well what happens in all of the countries that have eliminated birthright citizenship? They survive. They get along because that is what we all do as humans. They can leave and go somewhere else, or go throught the naturalization process. They do what any of us would do in their situation and they survive. It is not our responsibility that they were born in the United States illegally. It is their parents' fault. We have no reason to reward their parents' illegal actions by giving their children citizenship. That is an outlandish thought. With birthright citizenship abolished, the issue becomes the parents' for giving birth to their children somewhere they will not have any national alignment.

Finally, the Con fails to show any meaningful statistics or sources, but instead uses opinions to form his argument, such as speaking of uhe 14th Amendment as something the made the nation unique and proud and made the country successful. There is no proof to back such a statement and is therefore an opinion that holds no ground. Also, the Con uses many hypothetical situations that can not be proven under the changed circumstances, but cites information that uses current statistics of immigration to show what would happen after the 14th Amendment is abolished. These statistics obviously then lose all credibility in this debate.

For all of these reasons above, and that Con has not refuted any of my points, please vote Pro in this debate.

Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.