The Instigator
NKJVPosttribulationist
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
bigwigaustin
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Birthright citizenship.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 1/18/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 229 times Debate No: 106853
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

NKJVPosttribulationist

Pro

Birthright citizenship to babies born here, and there mothers. I support this, make the first move.
bigwigaustin

Con

Before I begin, I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate, and I look forward to debating this topic. That said, I'll proceed with my opening statements and arguments.

I am against birthright citizenship in general(there are a few, rare cases where I may consider it as a possibility, but for the vast majority of cases it is completely unacceptable and a disgrace to this country). Birthright citizenship is a magnet for illegal immigrants. They come over to the USA when they're almost ready to have a child, and when the child is born, they've got a citizen to anchor them in the country. Even though the parents are not citizens, the child is, which creates an anchor for the illegal immigrant parents to stay.

Birthright citizenship also puts a burden on the taxpayers, forcing them to pay the costs for the children to be born and, in most cases, raised, as the parents of the child are illegal immigrants and are, thus, the government is forced to comply with the needs of and supply for the child. These costs amount to a few billion dollars - all supplied by the taxpayers. Not only do taxpayers have to pay for the needs of the child, though, but they also have to pay for the well-being of the illegal immigrant parents. In total, illegal immigration costs $135 billion dollars - again, all supplied by the taxpayers. Of the total amount of illegal immigrants coming into the US per year, those with "anchor babies" that provide for birthright citizenship constitute about 10% of the entire flow, meaning they cost about 13.5 billion dollars a year.

Believe me, this is unacceptable.

On top of this, the repeal of birthright citizenship does not violate the constitution in any way. The constitution clearly conveys this, by stating that the government has the power to choose whom is in the jurisdiction of the United States and is, therefore, eligible to become a citizen.

With this I conclude my opening statements and arguments.

Sources:
http://www.nationalreview.com...
https://fairus.org...
http://www.nationalreview.com...
http://www.breitbart.com...
Debate Round No. 1
NKJVPosttribulationist

Pro

I am for birthright citizenship because it is a Constitutional right ccording to the 14 Amendment. It is also cruel to turn someone away if they were born here.
bigwigaustin

Con

My opponent states that birthright citizenship is "a constitutional right according to the 14th amendment".

The 14th amendment states that "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." The key phrase here is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This means that birthright citizenship isn't guaranteed by the law, and just a simple bit of legislation passed by congress and signed by the President would be able to reverse birthright citizenship without changing the law in any given way. Birthright citizenship is not a constitutional right by default, and can easily be reversed if the leaders of the country decide against it.

My opponent also suggests that deporting illegal immigrants that are anchored here by birthright citizenship is "cruel". I refute this statement. The parents of the child are fully aware of their actions and know that the act being attempted is fully illegal. Mu suggestion is that we help these immigrants obtain legal papers through the due legal processes and, if they refuse, they are deported.

Sources:
http://www.nationalreview.com...
http://www.breitbart.com...
Debate Round No. 2
NKJVPosttribulationist

Pro

What about the 14th Amendment though? Those who are born here should be allowed to stay here. It is cruel to deport them. Create a pathway to citizenship.
bigwigaustin

Con

I have already addressed the issue of the 14th amendment. It clearly states that "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." What this means is the government, specifically the senate, can choose who becomes a citizen based off of various facets of the case, such as economic costs, legal issues, and so forth. It does not say "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens." The founders purposely added "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to allow the government to have some control over things such as birthright citizenship.

Sources:
http://www.nationalreview.com...
http://www.breitbart.com...
Debate Round No. 3
NKJVPosttribulationist

Pro

Stop including right wing news sources.
bigwigaustin

Con

My sources contain no falsehoods, only interpretations of the 45th amendment's statements. Also, they correctly reveal my standing on this contentious topic. No news source is completely unbiased. For example, one would argue that Fox News is a more conservative news source and CNN is more liberal-leaning. If I'm not supposed to provide any sites that could be a bit biased, there would be a grand total of 0 websites available for me to list as sources, especially regarding this topic, which is one where republicans and conservatives disagree on nearly every single facet.
Debate Round No. 4
NKJVPosttribulationist

Pro

There is no 45th Amendment, but there is a 14th Amendment. Try again.
bigwigaustin

Con

Actually, there is a 45th amendment, but that doesn't matter. If my opponent would have checked his notifications, he would have seen that as soon as I submitted my arguments, I realized my error in saying "45th amendment" instead of "14th amendment" and duly posted that I had made a mistake in the comments section. I do see that he didn't address anything that I stated in round 4 except my error, so I will assume that he has submitted to my point regarding my sources.

I believe that, throughout the entirety of this debate, I have both clearly and thoroughly made my case against birthright citizenship through showing the economic burdens, the moral burdens, and the legal burdens that birthright citizenship places on America and its citizens. I would like to thank my opponent for creating the debate, and with this I close my final statements.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bigwigaustin 5 months ago
bigwigaustin
As the voting period draws nearer to an end, I urge all of the readers to vote on this debate so it does not end in a tie. Thank you.
Posted by bigwigaustin 6 months ago
bigwigaustin
In round 4, I said the 45th amendment instead of the 14th amendment, which is what I meant to say. I apologize if this caused any confusion.
No votes have been placed for this debate.