The Instigator
QueenVictoria
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Resolved: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
InVinoVeritas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,989 times Debate No: 37275
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (4)

 

QueenVictoria

Pro

As many people have been telling me that I need to start doing online debates to prove that I am capable of coaching, I will take that advice and challenge the community to this topic. I will take the side of the pro, here is my constructive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“I believe giving citizenship based merely on where you are born is bad public policy. Citizenship is more than that; it is about our proud history, common standards, and willingness to uphold our ideals.”

It is because I agree with the words of Congressman Tom Tancredo that I feel compelled to affirm today's resolution: Resolved: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States.

Definitions for this case are offered for clarity. If you object to any of these definitions, you will need to do so in round 1, otherwise mine will be used by default.

Birthright Citizenship: is when citizenship can be recognized to any individual born in the territory of the related state. (USlegal.com)
Abolished: is to formally put an end to something (google dictionary)


My case is upheld by three contentions and are as follows:

First: Anchor Babies And Their Families Possess Large Advantages At The United States’ Expense
Second: Historical Evidence Shows That The Fourteenth Amendment Has Been Severely Perverted
Third: We Can Safely Abolish The Law Of Birthright By Adopting European Ideas

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will now elaborate upon my first area of analysis:

Representative Daryl Metcalfe, who founded a national group of legislators critical of illegal immigration, said that “the fourteenth amendment greatly incentives foreign invaders to violate our border and our laws.” That is true. The advantages of a birthright citizenship are immense. The babies get medicaid, temporary and immediate assistance to needy families and food stamps, schooling, and other welfares. The rights do not end when the child turns 18. Because there’s a little thing in the United States called the Chain Immigration Policy. This policy says that as soon as the child becomes an adult, he can bring his mother and father, his spouse, his brothers and sister, his aunts, his uncles, his grandparents, nephews and his nieces into the United States. And according to this same policy, once they come into the United States, they all can bring in their own extended family. Does all of this not sound like a reward? “Granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants rewards those who have recklessly broken our nation’s laws.” (representative Gary Miller) “We are a uniquely humane and generous country, but very few people who understand the real costs would endorse these expenditures. It has little to do with the fact that they are foreigners and it has little to do with the color of their skin. It has everything to do with them being here illegally, and, while we are a humane country, we are also a country of laws. Illegal aliens, by definition, are not following the process and are not abiding by our laws.” (Bruce Bialosky) Not only are these illegal acts being rewarded, but they are being rewarded at the United State’s expense. According to the P.E.W. research center, In 2008, Eight percent of all babies born in U.S. hospitals had mothers who were illegal aliens. Because their parents are poor, the families contribute little in taxes, while at the same time, rely heavily on governmental services. Consider this excerpt from OfficialWire. “To give you a rough estimate of the costs, an average birth in a U.S. hospital is $8,800.00. And that’s without complications. A kindergarten through twelfth grade education is $9,644.00 per year, per child. Breakfast/lunch provided to anchor babies is $5.00 per meal. The bare minimum total cost to U.S. taxpayers for one child to age 18 is $218,792.00. The bare minimum total cost to U.S. taxpayers for 400,000 anchor babies, which is the estimated amount born per year, is roughly an annual $87.5 billion dollars. Birthright citizenship must be abolished.




I will now elaborate upon my second area of analysis:

To give you all a brief timeline in U.S. history, I’d like to present my second contention with the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation was passed in the year 1863. Now, the whole reason the Citizenship Clause was written by Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan in 1866 was designed to grant citizenship to and protect the civil liberties of recently freed slaves. It did this by prohibiting states from denying the privileges of citizens of the United States, which is depriving any person of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying to any citizen within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Howard did not propose this amendment so that several years into the future, immigrants could illegally trespass onto U.S. soil and have their children, which are immediately granted the same rights as fair citizens. This is proven by the author of the fourteenth amendment himself, who is noted to say in a debate over the matter, and I quote, “this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.” (www.14thamendment.us, among other places) The fourteenth amendment has been taken advantage of. The spirit of the law is being broken and this is a disgrace to the author and the meaning of citizenship in the United States. The most appropriate approach for solving this cheat of the system is to amend the fourteenth amendment so it is clearer to Howard’s intentions, which will abolish the birthright law as it has been perverted.



I will now elaborate upon my third area of analysis:


As I stated in my second contention, something must be done regarding the exploitation of an accidentally vague document. America is one of the very few advanced countries who still apply the birthright policy. The most reasonable method of action would be to abolish birthright citizenship and replace it based on laws used by the United Kingdom. UK citizenship laws say that a child born of the soil can enjoy citizenship as long as he has at least one parent who is also a citizen. This will be the solvent of all the issues given by a birthright citizenship while still holding on to the good qualities it may provide. People will still be able to apply for citizenship of the United States, however, they will have to wait their turn for a naturalization test the fair way, which means that instead of being bumped up to the front of the line because of an anchor baby, they will wait out their time just like our laws intended. This is a just law and will be of great advantage to our nation. To gain much overdue beneficial structure for the U.S., we must abolish our current birthright laws and adopt the laws of the Europeans.


I am now open to a rebuttal from my opponent.
InVinoVeritas

Con

Resolved:

Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States.

Definitions:


I agree with the definitions my opponent provided, but I would like to add another one that is central to the debate, I believe:

Citizen (n): "A member of a free city or jural society, possessing all the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties." [1]

Burden of Proof:

My opponent carries full burden of proof. In policy debate, status quo is accepted until deemed null.

Rebuttal:

1. In her first argument, my opponent puts forward the claim that the fiscal and social benefits that come with citizenship provide an incentive for illegal immigrants to have children in the United States. At first, this may seem like a very convincing case... However, we need to remember that "citizenship," by our definition, does not entail a "right" to "medicaid, temporary and immediate assistance to needy families and food stamps, [and] schooling" (quoting my opponent.) What my opponent has described are policies that have been attached to citizenship in the United States; certainly, we must distinguish these from the true foundations of citizenship. Most of these policy-driven fiscal and social incentives of citizenship can be removed. In other words, one can reform "benefits of citizenship" to a great extent without removing the core of citizenship altogether.

2. The quote that my opponent offers is incomplete, so its message has been completely distorted; the omission of the rest of the excerpt, in my opinion, exhibits very poor conduct--and voters should take note of this. Here is the complete quote (from 1866 Congressional Globe) that is attributed to Sen. Jacob Howard: "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." [2] As we can see, Howard was very clearly in support of the contemporary mainstream interpretation of the 14th amendment, which supports birthright citizenship (as reinforced by Supreme Court decisions such as that found in US v. Wong Kim Ark [3])--however, with the exception of ambassadors and foreign ministers, who, at the time, were considered ineligible because of their roles that dealt with international representation.

3. The point of contention is whether or not there is a problem with birthright citizenship in the first place. I feel no obligation to counter my opponent's plan of action--which assumes that an alternative ought to be found for the current system.

---

Counter-Arguments:

1. Illegal Immigrants' True Motivations:

Unauthorized immigrants actually do not, in fact, benefit greatly from their childrens' legal citizen status. A birthright citizen has to wait until he/she is 21 years of age and receives a middle-class wage in order to sponsor his/her parents for immigration status. [4] It is not uncommon for illegal parents to be deported, despite having children who are legal citizens--and this makes them have to either bring the children back with them to their home country or give them up to state-run child welfare institutions. And in order to acquire a legal immigration visa that would enable them to acquire citizenship through their children, the illegal immigrant has to leave the US--and this leads to a "three-to-ten year bar" from the United States that cannot be waived because of their children's legal citizenship status. [5] Indeed, it is far more likely that illegal immigrants are more greatly incentivized by the prospects of getting positions of work and visiting family, based on the serious restrictions on parental benefit derived from birthright citizenship policy--and the possibility of being taken away from one's children.

2. Demographic Realities in a Land of Immigrants:

According to the findings of the Migration Policy Institute (a non-partisan thinktank that focuses on population matters), repealing birthright citizenship would have disastrous effects that directly oppose the motivations of those who are looking to repeal it. According to its findings, if birthright citizenship were repealed in 2009, the percentage of unauthorized children would double by 2050 to four percent. And according to the analysis, by 2050, there would be 4.7 million unauthorized immigrants who were born in the United States--1 million of whom would have two US-born parents. [6] Indeed, such a reform would produce an excluded underclass of people who are completely culturally and linguistically oriented within the United States. From a pragmatic standpoint, such a reform would have extreme social and fiscal effects that would adversely affect all of those living in the United States, citizens or not.

---

Conclusion:

My opponent's first point is invalid because it confuses the policies associated with citizenship (e.g., food stamps) with citizenship itself; in other words, it is built off of the undefended premise that the policies ought to be affiliated with citizenship in the first place. My opponent's second point is invalid because it is framed around an incomplete excerpt; I have provided a full quote, which certainly attacks the resolution of this debate rather than supports it. My opponent's third point is simply an extension of the resolution after it has been affirmed... However, my opponent's objective in this debate is to affirm it.

In my counter-arguments, I put forward the proposition that immigrants are not primarily incentivized by the possibility of birthright citizenship for their children due to the heavy risks and ramifications it carries. I also explained the demographic catastrophe that repealing birthright citizenship would cause through MPI's findings through statistical analysis.

I have countered the motion called for in the resolution. Birthright citizenship should not be abolished.

Thank you. Vote Con.

---

Sources:

[1] http://thelawdictionary.org...
[2] http://theusconstitution.org...
[3] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[4] http://object.cato.org...
Debate Round No. 1
QueenVictoria

Pro

I will begin by rebuilding my case, then I will go on to attack my opponent's.



Rebuilding: contention one:

My opponent says that citizenship does not entail a right to Medicaid, temporary and immediate assistance to needy families, food stamps and schooling, but perhaps he forgot that he defined "Citizen" as "a member of a free city of jural society, possessing all the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government..." He goes on to say that "Most of these policy-driven fiscal and social incentives of citizenship can be removed." The right to Medicaid, food stamps, schooling, and everything else are given to all U.S. citizens, whether they have legal parents or not. What my opponent is suggesting, removing those rights, would mean removing it from everyone - as in legitimate, all American kids would no longer have their rights to school, Medicaid, etc. Unless, of course, he only means the rights would be confiscated from anchor babies and their parents. My response to this is that you cannot remove benefits of citizenship from one group of people. That would be ludicrous and by definition, discriminatory. The only option is to not give citizenship based merely upon the soil they were born, requiring no other criteria.

Rebuilding: contention two:

My opponent implies that I manipulated Senator Jacob Howard's quote by omitting the last sentence of his quote. I'd like to remind everyone that if I wanted to quote a sentence from the Declaration of Independence, I would not include the entire document. I would include only the relevant points of the document. The last sentence of the quote does not have any bearing on this topic. My opponent says that Howard was "clearly in support of the contemporary, mainstream interpretation of the 14th amendment," and justifies it with the last sentence of the quote, "...but will include every other class of persons." This is simply wrong. See, I might believe that too, had Howard not said "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...." When Howard says it will include "every other class of persons," he meant people who were NOT foreigners or aliens, therefore, the sentence is irrelevant to the topic. It's funny that my opponent tried to accuse me of omission, when in his last sentence of this attack said "As we can see, Howard was very clearly in support of the contemporary mainstream interpretation of the 14th amendment, which supports birthright citizenship with the exception of ambassadors and foreign ministers." Aren't you forgetting something along with ambassadors and foreign ministers? How about foreigners and aliens? That sounds omissive on your part.

Rebuilding: contention three:

My opponent says that "The point of the contention (he meant resolution) is whether or not there was a problem with birthright citizenship." and that he feels no obligation to argue it. If I remember correctly, the resolution was "Resolved: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States." Not "Do we have a problem with birthright citizenship?" Therefore, my third contention was 100% topical. My opponent did not attack my third contention, which means by default that he drops and agrees with my third contention.


I will now move on to attack my opponents case.


Attacking: his contention one:

My opponent starts off his paragraph with the information that an anchor baby has to wait until they're 21 to sponsor his parents for immigration status. However, cis.com states that the presence of an anchor baby often causes a judge to grant legal status to an alien who would not get it otherwise, and when there's a presence of an anchor baby in the household of an illegal alien, officials are less likely to deport the parent of the child than they are to deport an alien who is otherwise similar, but childless. They can also marry in Mexico and immediately bring their spouse and children. My opponent's whole point to this paragraph is that anchor babies do not actually benefit greatly from birthright citizenship, so let's remind him of the benefits: Medicaid, temporary and immediate assistance to needy families and food stamps, schooling, and other welfares. Their parents are given priority over other people waiting naturalization tests via the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. They have the right to vote, international protection, access to good jobs, student aid, all constitutional rights, need I go on? I'm not saying that U.S. citizens have a gold mansion and are fed grapes by naked women. My point is that while the U.S. isn't entirely perfect, it's a hell of a lot better than the quality of life elsewhere. Unauthorized immigrants and their children DO benefit greatly.

Attacking: his contention two:

His entire contention is about what would happen if we repealed the fourteenth amendment. You know what, maybe that's a tiny bit valid.... If I was advocating repealing the 14th amendment. This entire contention is invalid because he's arguing against a point I never made. I never said we'd repeal birthright citizenship, I said we'd adopt European citizenship laws in replacement, which means any child born of the soil can enjoy citizenship ---- as long as they have at least one parent that is a citizen. He provides a statistic and immediately tells us the harms associated with said statistic. However, there is no warrant. There is no link between the statistic and the harm. And honestly, I'm not trying to advocate repealing the clause. I'm advocating replacing the clause with U.K. laws.

Attacking: his conclusion:

He says my job was to affirm the resolution. I'd like to refer you to my first two contentions, which are affirming the resolution. I have done my job. However, I went above and beyond what was expected of me by reassuring everyone that there if a safe and harm-free way to deal with the situation; adopting U.K. citizenship laws. After all, my opponent did decide that we were doing policy debate. My opponent admitted that there were harms associated with birthright citizenship by saying "I put forward the proposition that immigrants are not primarily incentivized by the possibility of birthright citizenship for their children due to the heavy risks and ramifications it carries." This is a straight up, black and white admission that birthright citizenship has risks and ramifications. This is a broken system, and my opponent agrees.


My own conclusion:
Anchor babies get immense perks from the birthright citizenship clause. My opponent failed to address the economic harms they provide to the U.S. My opponent accused me of omission, then omitted part of the quote himself when he tried to correct me. My opponent dropped my third contention entirely and said it was irrelevant by slyly rewording the resolution. Sneaky sneaky. My opponent's first contention talked about how anchor babies don't get great benefits, and tried to prove this entire claim based on the fact that they can't bring their parents for a few years. My opponent's second contention argued upon a claim I did not make. In his conclusion, he admitted that birthright citizenship had "risks and ramifications." I'd like to stress, more than anything, that my proposition to switch to U.K. laws was not attacked. I urge a vote for the pro and look forward to my opponent's next rebuttal.
InVinoVeritas

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for her prompt response.

---

Rebuttal:


1. What my opponent is still talking about is the benefits associated with citizenship (and I avoid the use of "rights" because that implies an absolute entitlement.) I agree that all citizens should receive the same benefits; what I am saying is that the benefits are subject to change, or more specifically, to be taken away. If there were fewer citizenship "benefits" to begin with, then there would be less incentive for birthright citizenship. Indeed, the argument posed here by my opponent does not describe an issue with citizenship, but rather describes an issue with the benefits that have been made to come with citizenship--and the incentives that come with them.

2. What my opponent is doing here is pulling punches after the fight has finished. Let me share, again, the full excerpt that my opponent is referring to: "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." In this quote, we can see--based on conventional grammar/interpretation--that the first sentence states that people born "within the limits of the United States" are to be deemed citizens (and "aliens" is meant to elaborate on "foreigners," and it is not followed by a serial comma); the second sentence puts forward an exception, involving the children of foreign ambassadors and ministers (because it was assumed at the time that they were not technically on the US soil based on their roles as representatives--but he "include[d] every other class of persons." This interpretation is upheld by many legal scholars, including legal scholar Garrett Epps and history professor Eric Foner. [7]

3. In order to make her plan of action relevant, my opponent would have to prove that the following her plan (and transitioning to the system she is proposing) is superior to the birthright citizenship rule. The only reason given was that America is "one of the few advanced countries who still apply birthright policy" (and of course, we will not fall for an argumentum ad populum like this.) Otherwise, her argument is built on the premise that birthright citizenship should be abolished, but this has yet to be proven.

---

Counter-Arguments:

1. My opponent is changing the information that she is gathering from her sources. CIS.org does not say that an anchor baby "often" causes a judge to grant legal status to aliens; rather, it says "under some quite precise circumstances." Indeed, this is a rare occurence, not something that happens "often," as my opponent unfairly worded it. [8] Voters should take note of this when it comes to conduct.

My opponent then follows up by listing the benefits of citizenship again. Please see my first argument (for both rounds) about why this sort of argument is irrelevant to the matter at hand; the incentives that come with many of the benefits being listed can easily be taken away without removing the label of "citizenship."

2. The study does not describe repealing the 14th amendment (as my opponent mistakenly suggests), and I never said that it did. The study strictly describes what would happen if the birthright citizenship standard were repealed. The results described in the argument are catastrophic; the idea of a million non-citizens with two American-born parents is, indeed, a horrific portrayal of the likely results of abolishing the birthright citizenship rule; this would lead to a perpetual underclass of people (who would have few to no connections with their ancestors' home country) through the generations. [9] And my opponent's central argument throughout this debate is to do just that--to repeal the birthright citizenship standard, as the resolution states. And she has yet to prove why her "UK system" alternative would somehow offset the results of this MIP non-partisan study.

---

Conclusion:

Again, I have clearly countered the motion called for in the resolution. Birthright citizenship should not be abolished.

Thank you. And again, I urge you to vote Con.

---

Sources:

[7] http://mediamatters.org...
[8] http://www.cis.org...
[9] http://www.migrationpolicy.org...
Debate Round No. 2
QueenVictoria

Pro

Thank you for your response, Con. For my final round, I will again rebuild my case, move on to attack my opponent's, and offer my conclusion and some key voters.


Rebuilding: contention one:

My opponent says that I'm, "still," (in italics, as he put it) talking about the benefits of citizenship. Of course I'm going to continue to talk about it. As long as these benefits are being offered to babies of illegal parents, and until he proves that these benefits pose no harms, yes. I'm still going to talk about them. He acts as though I'm droning on about my argument that has been long disproven, but I'd like to remind the community that he is yet to rebut it legitimately. My opponent's initial argument to my first contention was that they didn't really benefit that much, but when I reminded him that the anchor babies are granted Medicaid, temporary and immediate assistance to needy families and food stamps, schooling and other welfares, their parents are given priority over other people waiting naturalization tests, they have the right to vote, international protection, access to good jobs, student aid, all constitutional rights, and much more, my opponent dropped his claim, which means agrees with me that they do indeed get immense benefits. He reiterates that the benefits can be taken away, and that they should. What my opponent literally just suggested was that we get rid of Medicaid, temporary and immediate assistance to needy families and food stamps, schooling and other welfares, the right to vote, international protection, access to good jobs, student aid, all constitutional rights, and more citizenship benefits. Let me run that by you one last time. My opponent suggested we get rid of those benefits for all U.S. citizens.




Rebuilding: contention two:

My opponent starts off his attack by saying that I am "pulling punches after the fight has finished." Con, if the fight was finished, we would be in the voting period. After my opponent decided that he cannot rebut my defending argument, he throws out a new proposition. My opponent now argues the placement of commas in Howard's quote. "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States..." My opponent's new point is that "aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers," is used to elaborate on what a foreigner is. Not only would this be grammatically incorrect (if this were true, the comma after "aliens," would not be present) but it is completely, obviously, blatantly, wrong. It is a list of circumstances (hence the serial commas). My opponent says (word for word) that "'aliens' is meant to elaborate on 'foreigners,' and it is not followed by a serial comma," but if you look at the quote for a fraction of a second, you would see that both foreigners and aliens are both followed by, you guessed it, a comma. He even included the quote from Mr. Howard in his own rebuttal, and you'll see that it has commas. I'm sure we've all attended an English class at some point or another, and I will now pass the entire quote on to the community to read: "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." The use of commas were, quite frankly, serial commas. This means that my entire second contention still stands.



Rebuilding: contention three:

My opponent dropped my third contention. He did not argue it within the first round, therefore he conceded to it long ago. He is now trying to pick it back up, but that simply does not work. However, for the value of the community, I will accept the con's challenging statement, "My opponent would have to prove that the following her plan (and transitioning to the system she is proposing) is superior to the birthright citizenship rule." I would like to reiterate that this is not an argument for the con, as he has already dropped and conceded to the argument, but for the community to fully understand the basis of my contention. The difference between U.S. citizenship criteria and U.K citizenship criteria is not actually very different. In fact, there is only one small aspect that is dissimilar. Both countries say that basically "If you're born on our soil, you are automatically a citizen and can enjoy the benefits of citizenship," however, the U.K. requires you to have at least one parent that is already a a citizen. Converting to this law would fix everything. Citizens would be able to enjoy benefits given for being a citizen, but the system could not be cheated. Everyone would get a fair turn in line for a naturalization test and once a parent becomes legal (fairly) then their children could become citizens and enjoy citizenship. This would take care of all the problems we face with unfair cuts in line, taxes due to parental deportation, and much more. This is the perfect solution.

I will now move on to attack my opponent's contentions.


Attacking: his contention one:

My opponent says that it is a "rare occurrence," that an anchor baby will cause a judge to grant legal status to aliens. I'd like to offer the information that On June 17, 2011, the Obama administration announced that immigration officials no longer have to deport illegal aliens -- if they have children that are U.S. citizens. Consider this quote from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement: "
When weighing whether an exercise of prosecutorial discretion may be warranted for a given alien, ICE officers, agents, and attorneys should consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, whether the person has a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, child, or parent;" That doesn't look very "rare" to me.




Attacking: his contention two:

This can be adequately rebutted if I just copied/pasted my last argument to this very same contention. Please refer to my last "Attacking his contention two," paragraph. To reinforce, I would not repeal the 14th amendment. I would replace the citizenship clause with U.K. laws. Previously, I stated why U.K. laws would be more applicable.





My final conclusion:

The con's case has no foot to stand on. Initially, I was going to make a list here of arguments he dropped. Now I realize I cannot make such a list due to the amount of my time it would take. I'd like to thank the con for arguing this topic with me, it was a great round and I highly enjoyed debating it with him. I urge a vote for the pro, thank you for reading!
InVinoVeritas

Con

Rebuttal:

1. The point of my argument is not that the benefits should or should not exist. I am simply saying that the "immense benefits" are not a necessary aspect of "citizenship"--and they are irrelevant to the resolution at hand. If the problem is, indeed, that there is too much incentive for immigrants to get citizenship because of benefits, then an entirely different debate can be had about what benefits ought to come with citizenship. But, as my opponent has seemingly failed to acknowledge, this is, indeed, an entirely different debate. We are strictly talking about "citizenship" in the context of the definition I provided (which was not contested by my opponent.) Any additional benefits that are attached to citizenship are simply not germane.

2. "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. [emphasis mine]"

I have stated that "aliens" is meant to modify/elaborate on "foreigners." And "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers" modifies both of them. I think it is clear for anyone with a basic knowledge of grammar that the stated exception only applied to those who were the children of ambassadors or foreign ministers; this is not talking about all foreign people. The interpretation my opponent is putting across defies fundamental grammar and logic, and I can't imagine why she didn't simply drop the argument.

3. My opponent originally put forward a plan of action, which assumed that the current system is a problem--and I rightfully argued that she has prove that the system is problematic before taking that further step. Now, she is trying to insert arguments for her solution last second (e.g., "Everyone would get a fair turn in line for a naturalization test and once a parent becomes legal (fairly) then their children could become citizens and enjoy citizenship"), which is pretty unfair. Anyway, her new arguments here are vague, inadequate (by failing to account for a transitional period, for example), and easily outweighed by my counter-arguments (from this round and past rounds.)

---

Counter-Arguments:

1. I never denied that such a factor can be "considered." But my opponent's source fails to contradict the idea that it is rare for illegal immigrant parents to be kept here just because of their children, when their status is put under consideration by immigration officers.

Anyway, the argument my opponent posed isn't necessarily relevant, unless we assume that Obama's policy ought to be upheld. One could easily take my side by opposing Obama's policy, while upholding the statute of birthright citizenship. In other words, Obama's recent policy does not mean that birthright citizenship ought to be abolished; it could just mean that Obama's policy (regarding considering parental citizenship based on child status) itself ought to be abolished. So this argument doesn't really support my opponent's stance.

2. Opponent dropped.

---

Conclusion:

Birthright citizenship shouldn't be abolished. My opponent didn't come remotely close to meeting her burden of proof; the status quo holds. Vote Con.

Thanks.

Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Donald, try reading the debate. The BOP was on Pro.
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
https://docs.google.com...

Sorry if the RFD seems a bit harsh. I hope there are no negative feelings from this, as this was nothing but my honest evaluation of the debate. I think you both did well, and there are definite improvements to be made on both sides. I was going to do a video RFD but my fiance is sleeping. Good luck in future debates guys!
Posted by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
"Quote"- Because I agree with X, I affirm/negate the resolution.

Oh how I remember that format...
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
In regards to how she fulfilled her burden of proof, she was able to use her arguments about the costs of allowing birthright citizenship to continue and her U.K. plan which would lessen the impacts of changing the status quo to prove that the pros outweigh the cons of abolishing birthright citizenship. I outlined this all in my RFD.
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
Also, in regards to BoP, she argued sufficiently to fulfill her burden of proof. You still needed to show that she was wrong with the key information and points, and you didn't. Her having full burden of proof does not mean that you can have weak refutations.
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
Thank you for asking.

I did not view all of your arguments as drops. The literal drop was in regards to her UK plan. This would be considered a drop because you never actually addressed her U.K. argument; you disregarded it without giving sufficient reason for it to be disregarded by the voters. Presenting plans are perfectly acceptable, as long as they are outlined. She outlined the plan. You needed to attack it.

The essential drop was with your refutation of her point about the benefits that come with citizenship. It felt as though you were arguing that the only thing that matters is the title of citizenship, rather than anything that comes with it. This was such a weak and unconvincing refutation that I regarded it as essentially a drop. Pro was also quick to point that out.

The other drop was when you argued about how the quote was incomplete, Con refuted it, and then you didn't refute that refutation, but rather chose to use your comma argument. This drop didn't really matter to me though, because your comma argument was effective.

The rest of your arguments were fine counters, but either they weren't sufficient, or Pro refuted your refutations better than you refuted hers.

If you have any further questions, let me know.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
ClassicRobert, I don't see why you consider all of my arguments as "drops"; they are fine counters. Also, you seemed to judge as though the BoP was split, when it was actually just on Pro.
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
Video of RFD
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
Conclusion

Pro won this debate, as she was able to present more impactful arguments and empirics, and Con dropped her most important point about the negative impact of allowing birthright citizenship to continue, and her second most important point, which was how there is an alternate system to change birthright citizenship in a positive way. If I were Con, I would have gone for more of a moral argument, about how abolishing birthright citizenship is akin to blaming the child rather than the parents, etc. I would also recommend trying to address all arguments by Pro, and if you really want to risk dismissing them as irrelevant, then you should have a pretty airtight reason to do so. I am only voting on arguments, as the other parts of the ballot were to even to give to one side or another.
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
Pro won this debate, as she was able to present more impactful arguments and empirics, and Con dropped her most important point about the negative impact of allowing birthright citizenship to continue, and her second most important point, which was how there is an alternate system to change birthright citizenship in a positive way. If I were Con, I would have gone for more of a moral argument, about how abolishing birthright citizenship is akin to blaming the child rather than the parents, etc. I would also recommend trying to address all arguments by Pro, and if you really want to risk dismissing them as irrelevant, then you should have a pretty airtight reason to do so. I am only voting on arguments, as the other parts of the ballot were to even to give to one side or another.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
QueenVictoriaInVinoVeritasTied
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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: I don't find statements like "...after the fight has finished" appropriate. To claim that the Pro has already lost, and accept victory before the challenge is near ending is wrong. Con spent too much time trying to make up the voter's mind for them.. I will decide if I think she has lost or on how I shall vote, not you.. Thank you. Spelling and Grammar was excellent from both sides. Sources: Con had sources, as opposed to Pro. Convincing Argument: Con dropped many arguments, including Pro's main. Con took faith in this being a Policy Debate, but I don't care what kind of debate it is... I score them all the same. The name of the debate does not change how convincing an argument is. I felt both sides needed BOP, and between the two, Pro exceeded more.
Vote Placed by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
QueenVictoriaInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hbcZ23l65xFzrKsSvLfXjg4BM1m8RkYcEMBhSdh49f8/edit?usp=sharing
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
QueenVictoriaInVinoVeritasTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oke5nqzWGQ&feature=youtu.be Text transcription of RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
QueenVictoriaInVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: PRO argues that the costs of maintaining the rights and benefits of American citizenship are burdensome, and the best way to relieve these burdens is to reduce the number of future citizens. PRO implies that the Americans who should be stripped of their citizenship are those who have a Mexican parent. (The figures used to demonstrate the financial costs of American rights are for Mexican immigration.) This argument is supported by pointing to the financial costs of maintaining the rights of American citizens and the changes in the way that the 14th Amendment has been interpreted. It is assumed that fewer citizens would mean fewer rights that would have to be maintained. The EU is suggested as an example of an alternate system. CON argues that American citizens can be stripped of the benefits of citizenship rather than their entire citizenship. This is postulated as a less severe penalty for having a Mexican parent. In the end, PRO never satisfies the Burden of Proof