The Instigator
Stumpy13
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
GarretKadeDupre
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Do the rights stated in the U.S. Constitution apply to those that are not U.S. citizens?

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...
GarretKadeDupre
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,097 times Debate No: 29051
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

Stumpy13

Pro

Somewhat recently a petition has been filed to deport Piers Morgan because of his avocation of stricter gun control. The obvious first error in this petition is that the people signing it want to limit his Freedom of Speech as addressed in the 1st amendment. The deportation of Piers Morgan based on his outspoken views would therefore be unconstitutional. The next question is then whether or not Morgan has the same rights as American citizens?

Through my interpretation of the constitution, I believe that anyone who is on American soil has the same basic freedoms and rights guaranteed to all Americans. These rights are morally straight and should therefore be offered to all humans. The extent of the rights given to him should also be questioned. For example, the right to vote. Only citizens are allowed the privilege. Should he be included? I think not. Or when it comes to taxes. If you pay taxes then you should be protected. Now if it is illegal immigrants, the rights may change. They may have the basic right of trial by jury and having a fair trial, but I believe that is as far as it should go.

I look forward to the counter-argument!
GarretKadeDupre

Con

My opponent believes that anyone who is on American soil has the same basic freedoms and rights guaranteed to all Americans, but then proceeds to say the extent these rights are given should be questioned.

I say that rights are absolute, cannot be given, but merely defended. I contend that rights of non-Americans should be defended on American soil.
Debate Round No. 1
Stumpy13

Pro

For clarification, I contend that non-citizens do not have ALL the rights as garaunteed by the Constitution but just some. The only rights I believe they shall have are the ones just associated with trial and crimes that have been committed on U.S. soil. The 1st Amendment rights should also be allowed for non-citizens.

However, the 2nd Amendment should not apply to non-citizens. The reason that this should be instituted is because of terrorists that have become permanent residents in the United States. Although it does not happen often, the access to weapons is a liability that needs to be addressed. Also, if non-citizens have the intention of harming people with weapons then they have easier accessability to these weapons.

The 4th Amendment, the restriction to unlawful search and seizure, shall also be suspended to non-citizens and applies more to illegal immigrants rather than permanent residents. Understanding that only a small amount of illegal immigrants commit serious crimes, this problem needs to be addressed for if the harboring of fugitives is evident than the police needs to take the necessary actions immediately. The same goes for weapons.

These amendments are my supporting evidence and conclude my argument that non-citizens should be given only select rights.
GarretKadeDupre

Con

"I contend that non-citizens do not have ALL the rights as guaranteed by the Constitution but just some."

Non-citizens have ALL the rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. As instigator, and since you haven't stipulated otherwise, you have the burden of proof to show otherwise.

I concede the rest of my opponent's arguments.

Thanks for this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Fine by me :)
Posted by Stumpy13 4 years ago
Stumpy13
Ohhhh after looking at my question, I now realize what you mean by my premise! Yeah it doesn't make sense to be for or against by solely looking at the question.
Posted by Stumpy13 4 years ago
Stumpy13
Everything is so official with the language and everything haha I'll finish this debate tomorrow
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
That's very gracious of you ;)
Posted by Stumpy13 4 years ago
Stumpy13
Be my guest. Still trying to learn how to make these topics more specified and the rules and everything haha
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
On second thought... with only 9 minutes remaining...
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Well in that case it's so vague I don't feel like debating it. Have a win.
Posted by Stumpy13 4 years ago
Stumpy13
More or less that's it. It's more like "Only some constitutional rights apply to non-citizens and few apply to illegal immigrants."
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
In a debate, there's a resolution. Pro defends it and Con argues against it.

It seems that the resolution is "Constitutional rights don't apply to non-citizens" and you are defending it.

Is this correct?
Posted by Stumpy13 4 years ago
Stumpy13
What do you mean? Sorry I'm new at this.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Grantmac18 4 years ago
Grantmac18
Stumpy13GarretKadeDupreTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: The topic, resolution, and positions assigned were contradictory. Pro did state he was new and unfamiliar with the format, thus, no penalties were given. Con simply: chose a position, presented an argument in its defense, and contested Pro's arguments; a clean victory. Pro, should have affirmed his position with more clarity and emphasis.
Vote Placed by rross 4 years ago
rross
Stumpy13GarretKadeDupreTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a good and interesting topic, but Pro needed to be clearer which side he was on :)