The Instigator
skinny-DRE
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Lexicaholic
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Immigrants have the same rights as a citizen of the country

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  
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: 8/9/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,819 times Debate No: 9181
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

skinny-DRE

Pro

The argument is that anyone in a country whether they were born there or not should be given a minimum wage, the right to vote and the right to stay in that country of which they have immigrated to. Just to say this is my first debate on this website but on other sites this has been the most heated topic I have debated.
Lexicaholic

Con

Immigrants should not be given the right to vote, remain within the country or receive the protection of a minimum wage if they are not at the very least naturalized[1] citizens of the country. Pro has argued that immigrants should be granted all three of these rights. An immigrant is "a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence." [2] Immigrants do not need to be naturalized citizens of the country in which they attempt to take up permanent residence.[3]

To the extent that they are not naturalized, immigrants, as non-citizens, are not subject to the same social responsibilities of citizens, including taxation. This results in higher costs to the citizens of the nation being immigrated to. [3] Therefore, illegal immigrants (illegals) act as parasites of sorts, weakening the host society (the host) they invade and harming its citizens (the members) thereby.

In addition to the detrimental aspects of illegal immigration, illegals, being non-citizens, have no duty to defend the host nor to support its social institutions. The social contract creating the rights Pro would have extend to the illegals is not only between the individual members of the host, but also between the members and the host itself. The rights and privileges of the host extend to its members because its members accept the responsibility of supporting the host. The illegals have no such covenant with the host, and are therefore rightly excluded from the scope of its protection. As with any contract, without consideration, there is no agreement. [5] Illegals have given nothing up for which the host would owe them an obligation of protection.

Therefore, because illegals are engaged in parasitic, rather than symbiotic, balance with the host, the host may rationally exclude them from receiving its protection and desire their removal. Furthermore, illegals, having provided no consideration by which the rights due under the social contract would inure to them, have no claim against the host to provide such consideration under the social contract.

Illegals being a subset of the set 'immigrants', my opponent's contention that "anyone in a country ... should be given a minimum wage, the right to vote and the right to stay in that country" is proven invalid. The resolution is negated.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.bizjournals.com...
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
skinny-DRE

Pro

skinny-DRE forfeited this round.
Lexicaholic

Con

Forfeit noted, argument extended.
Debate Round No. 2
skinny-DRE

Pro

skinny-DRE forfeited this round.
Lexicaholic

Con

My opponent has failed to respond to my contentions and has twice forfeited in this debate. In addition he has used no sources. In addition he is Pro and the instigator, which heavily implies that he had the burden of proof. Pro has failed to support his claim. My claims invalidates his claim. Pro has failed to disprove my claims. Therefore, I urge a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
skinny-DRELexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
skinny-DRELexicaholicTied
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