The Instigator
simplymara
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
zeyneb.majid
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

Congress should've passed the Dream Act.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,351 times Debate No: 14413
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (6)

 

simplymara

Pro

Congress reapealed the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' yet didn't pass the Dream Act. When your goal is to better America, yet your actions are like the ones just mentioned, it becomes hard to believe that Cognress truly has America's best interest in mind. Clearly immigration is a problem that's not going away, and since Congress was unfair by not passing the Dream Act, it just prolonged the dilemma.
zeyneb.majid

Con

Dream Act
The Dream Act is a bill that would provide certain illegal and deport able alien students who graduate from US high schools, who are of good moral character, arrived in the U.S. illegally as minors, and have been in the country continuously and illegally for at least five years prior to the bill's enactment, the opportunity to earn conditional permanent residency if they complete two years in the military or two years at a four year institution of higher learning. The students would obtain temporary residency for a six year period. Within the six year period, a qualified student must have "acquired a degree from an institution of higher education in the United States or [have] completed at least 2 years, in good standing, in a program for a bachelor's degree or higher degree in the United States," or have "served in the uniformed services for at least 2 years and, if discharged, [have] received an honorable discharge." Military enlistment contracts require an eight year commitment, with active duty commitments typically between four and six years, but as low as two years.

Contention 1: The dream act provides a pathway to citizenship for illegal alien children smuggled into America by their illegal parents.
If the dream act had been passed then an illegal and deport able alien students who have graduated from a high school and have been in the country for 5 years can obtain residency for 6 years. When there are already a huge number of people who immigrate into the United States, congress allowing illegal alien children is outrageous. The people who immigrate legally have to wait years. If congress had passed this bill, not only would this allow illegal alien children to become citizens, but also make it seem like it is ok to illegally smuggle children to America. According to ALIPA, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC or ALIPAC is launching a national campaign to try and stop Senator Durbin's Dream Act Amendment, which would provide Amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, give them taxpayer subsidized in-state college tuition rates and place them ahead of American students. "[1] The dream act would have made it seem as if, if you can make it across the border than you can stay there and it is an ok thing to do therefore only making more and more people wanting to smuggle their kids as well. According to a polling data by the Civitas Institute shows that over 81% of likely voters had opposed "Dream Act" legislation.[2]

Contention 2: The Dream act rewards criminal activity.
Illegally smuggling alien children into the United States is against the law and there for a criminal activity. If the dream act had been passed, rather than being punished for their wrong doing, they are being rewarded by being allowed to stay in the United States rather than being deported. If this had been passed then the number of people illegally smuggling kids into the United States would only increase therefore bringing up the number of illegal immigrants rather than down. Not only does this not help the united states, it also promotes and makes it seem alright to illegally smuggled alien children into the United States. If the Dream Act had been passed it would have also angered the people of the United States,
"This legislation will harm American students and families while rewarding illegal aliens. It will cost taxpayers billions of dollars and provide another big incentive for people to illegally immigrate to the United States," says Gheen. "Four out of five Americans want the Senators to say No to the Dream Act and any Visa increases. Americans want immigration enforcement instead!" [3]

http://www.alipac.us... 1,2,and 3.
Debate Round No. 1
simplymara

Pro

1. "The dream act provides....citizenship for illegal alien children smuggled....by their illegal parents."
These illegal children were brought here because of their parents, a fault not their own, so Con arguing that
"allowing illegal alien children is outrageous"
is not outrageous at all. That statement might be true if congress was granting citizenship freely to the parents or anyone else with no conditions, but that isn't the case for the Dream Act. These children would have to work hard to earn their citizenship and just like "people who immigrate legally have to wait years" so will they. Also, it doesn't "place them ahead of American students" by any means. Schools are interested in their academics and such, not their nationality, so if an American student is "behind" an illegal student, the fault goes to the lack of potential or motivation of the individual.

2. "The Dream Act rewards criminal activity."
That statement is untrue. Rewarding the PARENTS would be rewarding criminal activity since it was they who committed the crime, not the kids. Con argues that the Dream Act would reward instead of punish. Well, are we going to punish the innocent children who had nothing to do with the "crime" ?? That would be unfair of America. It is like saying that the child who acquires AIDS from the prostitute parent is also a prostitute, and if we are going to punish the prostitute, might as well punish the kid.

America ignores the fact that immigration exists by rejecting bills like the Dream Act.
Instead of America helping reduce the number of illegals here, it just ignores the fact that we have them, and does nothing about it. Passing bills that are not so important like the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is further proof of this point. America should instead fix the broken system that is way too expensive and takes way too much time. THAT would encourage people to come to America the legal way.

It is unreasonable to say "deport them all."
Not only is our national debt around 14. trillion so we have no money to waste, but we would be breaking up families. Many of those illegal children are potential professionals a step away from their profession. And what keeps them away? The lack of a social security. These people want to be part of America. They were brought up as Americans, think like Americans, and act like Americans. Many times their only language is English. So if we deport them, we are taking everything they consider their home.

Congress needs to do something about this dilemma, and passing the Dream Act would've been a big progress step for America!
zeyneb.majid

Con

First of all I would like to point out that my opponent has no offence in her case what so ever so clearly she loses the round by default. To begin I would like to restate the definition of the Dream Bill, "The Dream Act is a bill that would provide certain illegal and deport able alien students who graduate from US high schools, who are of good moral character, arrived in the U.S. illegally as minors, and have been in the country continuously and illegally for at least five years prior to the bill's enactment, the opportunity to earn conditional permanent residency if they complete two years in the military or two years at a four year institution of higher learning. The students would obtain temporary residency for a six year period." In the definition it clearly states that we need to reward alien students who are of good moral character. What makes this good moral character, how can you judge a good character. Is there a scale of "good" or "bad" characters, please explain this to me.
Now moving on to my opponent's refutations to my case;
1.My opponent repeats that the crime is being committed by the parents not the kids. However allowing these kids to stay and receive the citizenship that they don't deserve, also allows their parents to stay, which is rewarding criminals. No we are not giving citizenship to their parents, but we are letting them stay in America when they don't deserve to. Illegally immigrating into America is a crime, and allowing these people to stay because they gave birth to their children here is a reward to this crime that they have committed.

2.My opponent once again brings up that rewarding their parents would be rewarding criminal activity. However as I stated before, by allowing these parents to stay is rewarding them. My opponent says that we are going to be punishing innocent children who were not a part of the crime. However sending them back to their home, where they should be not illegally immigrated in our country is not punishment. These "innocent kids" are too young to realize what is going on; if we deport them home it will not make a difference to them.
Debate Round No. 2
simplymara

Pro

Thanks for your reply.

My offence was clearly mentioned. My opponent offered no refutations.
My opponent asked what made a good character. According to Ethics, when someone constantly does wrong, but one time does something good, it doesn't make him a 'good' person since he was generally bad. And if someone constantly does good, and one time does something bad, it doesn't make him a 'bad' person since he was generally good. With the bill, as soon as they apply, they would be watched in their behaviors. Good moral character would mean, no felonies, no crimes, keeping up with the requirements of the bill and so on. It isn't difficult to understand.

1. My opponents stating that "allowing these people to stay because they gave birth to their children here is a reward.." is an incorrect statement since we are talking about illegal children and not American citizens born of immigrants. Is it better for America to award someone unjustly or for America to punish someone unjustly?

2. My opponent does not seem to understand the bill. We are talking about all those kids who are graduating, who have graduated, or who are about to graduate, so when my opponent argues that they are too young to realize what is going on, the statement proves false. Not only are they well aware of what is going on, but they will be deported to a strange land. What they know as their home is America, the only difference is that they were not assigned social securities.

Once again, my opponent offered no refutations to my case.
It is unfair for America to ignore the issue, and we cannot deport them all so we need to do something about our problem with immigration. Once again, the Dream Act should have been passed.

Thank you for debating this issue.
zeyneb.majid

Con

To start off I would like to thank my opponent for responding and giving an interesting debate.
Moving on I would like to begin with refuting my opponents "offence"
"Congress was unfair by not passing the Dream Act" is a completely untrue statement. However if congress had passed the Dream Act that would have been the unfair thing. As I stated in my case, the Dream Act gives countless privileges to illegal immigrants who don't deserve them. When legal American citizens already have to pay taxes why should we give rights and privileges to people who merely do not deserve them. My opponent says that we should punish the parents not the kids, however as I stated in my previous case, allowing the kids to stay also allows the parents to stay which is a reward for them.
Now to furthermore defend my side of today's argument.
My opponents keeps bringing up if it's better for America to awards someone unjustly or for America to punish someone, however we are not unjustly punishing anyone. These people immigrated here illegally. Anything that is illegal has to be punished because of the mere fact that it is illegal. The definition of illegal is, "forbidden by law or statute, contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc." By law and definition, something that is illegal has to be punished because it is illegal. My opponent saying that America will be punishing these people unjustly is compeletly false. In reality if the Dream Act had been past, that would have been the unjust thing. As i stated many times in my case, illegal immigrants are just that, illegal and they need to be punished not rewarded for their wrong doing.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by annacho 6 years ago
annacho
@simplymara:

I agree with your argument. The Dream Act offers a more promising outlook in the futures of these highly potential and blameless Dreamers, their skills and talents are crucial to our deteriorating economy and military, and also because it is inhumane to break up families, it is incontrovertible that the Dream Act must be passed by Congress and signed into law.
Posted by simplymara 6 years ago
simplymara
@Zazzman
illegals here are not just Mexicans.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
They are not Americans.
Posted by Zazzman 6 years ago
Zazzman
http://www.foxnews.com...

Is it Unbiased? Then it's the Mexican government, in this recession, who's suffering a burden from illegal aliens *leaving* the US.

Is it Biased? Then you can accept that the bias of that organization is to paint illegal immigration as a scourge upon our nation - this bias runs contrary to the evidence they themselves put forward in the link. Thus, it is somewhat reasonable to take Fox News at their word on this issue.
Posted by simplymara 6 years ago
simplymara
actually, its not fallacious guys! think about it, these kids are being denied certain rights also, and its NOT their fault! they cannot serve in the military, they cannot go many times to certain universities, and they cant find decent paying jobs, they cannot get an I.D. or a license. ok, lets say we deport them. if they were deported, they would be denied certain rights where ever they are from for the lack of documentation!
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
@simplymara

You don't think that civil rights are important? This country has evolved through civil rights. This is what made us pioneers in the first place. I agree that congress has its priorities way out of wack, but DADT couldn't have been repealed soon enough. I'm sorry, but your analogy is fallacious.
Posted by adealornodeal 6 years ago
adealornodeal
Your analogy doesn't make sense, though. DADT grants rights to a group of people who have been denied rights that are given to everyone else. On the other hand, passing the Dream Act isn't granting DESERVED rights to anyone. By not passing the Dream Act, we aren't stripping anyone of their rights.
Posted by simplymara 6 years ago
simplymara
of course they are different! you're right! but i was pointing it out to show you Congress' priorities!
it's kind of like a student with homework for two diffeerent classes. the student completes the homework that isnt as critical to his grades and puts the one that is till later. it would make more sense for him to do the one thats more important first. so with Congress, sure discrimination is an issue, but not as critical as immigration
Posted by adealornodeal 6 years ago
adealornodeal
@simplymara: The Dream Act and DADT are two very different issues and shouldn't be compared.
Posted by simplymara 6 years ago
simplymara
I was pointing out that America has a problem with immigration. Both bills happened around the same time, so Congress dismissing one but passing the other shows you what kind of priorities Congress has.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by adealornodeal 6 years ago
adealornodeal
simplymarazeyneb.majidTied
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 Zazzman 6 years ago
Zazzman
simplymarazeyneb.majidTied
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 jimmye 6 years ago
jimmye
simplymarazeyneb.majidTied
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 Amethist17 6 years ago
Amethist17
simplymarazeyneb.majidTied
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 Sky_ace25 6 years ago
Sky_ace25
simplymarazeyneb.majidTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
simplymarazeyneb.majidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06