The Instigator
debate339
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
DJ-R3mix
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to 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 3 votes the winner is...
debate339
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 620 times Debate No: 43317
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

debate339

Con

first is for acceptance
DJ-R3mix

Pro

I accept your challenge Eric. Maybe this time you can win on your choice of topic.
Debate Round No. 1
debate339

Con

Question: Should undocumented immigrants already in the United States, be allowed to become U.S. citizens?

The answer is no, when illegal aliens come over they can only get small salary jobs at the risk of the U.S. government finding out about their presence. By taking these jobs away from a country whose unemployment rates are already over 7%(Bureau of Labor Statistics), they are stealing what could be a "bread on the table" job from hardworking American citizens.

Aside from the fact that our jobs are being taken away, the thought of providing them with jobs, welfare, housing assistance, food assistance, and student loans is legally ridiculous. Why would we reward them for coming over illegally and stealing jobs and other resources from legal citizens? Common since dictates that if a person within your authority breaks the law, you don"t reward them for their actions.

This year half a million fewer students nationwide enrolled in colleges, but the number of Latinos enrolled spiked by 447,000, 17% of those students were illegal immigrants from the southern border of the U.S. In 2012 the number of Latinos enrolled was at 3.4 million, an all time high, (NPR.org). By allowing illegals into the country, who are not only stealing government support or low class jobs, they are stealing education from students and taking even higher class jobs from people who are legal American citizens.

Our country is funded by taxes. When illegal immigrants come into the picture our country as a whole loses money. Whether it is income tax, or health care our country is losing money for every transaction they make. While it may seem to be a useful way for businesses to save money by hiring unlawful immigrants, in the long run it"s a practice that is harming our country more than not, as 11% of all lower and middle class workers are illegal aliens (NPR.org), and giving them citizenship would only invite others to take more jobs.

When it"s all said and done rewarding illegals for breaking our laws is counterproductive to our country as jobs are being stolen, colleges are being filled, and taxes are being dodged. To give these people citizenship would only harm the U.S. more then not. When illegals living in the U.S. get citizenship it only invites more people from other countries to come in illegally in hopes for free citizenship. Granting them amnesty may give the U.S a slight economy boom at first, but in the long run will lead to our demise.
DJ-R3mix

Pro

Ok, So now that I have waited for a few hours to get this statement, this is what you give me. This is too easy.

First of all, Immigrants could account for the population increase. Therefore, We could have alot of workers to fill in some of the jobs that no one would want to take. So that's a plus.

Second of all, the American people are becoming lazy, so if there is a ethnicity race to the jobs, the immigrants might take them or the American's will have to shape up and quit being so lazy.

So I still agree with the fact that Immigrants be allowed to have citizenship in America.
Debate Round No. 2
debate339

Con

For my final argument i will focus on your statement "Immigrants could account for the population increase." Yes the overall population increases, that is a known fact, when you have one group combined with another group you get a bigger group.
Now ill ask, is that a good thing? for an example i will bring the country of Kenya into the picture. the Kenyan government was lax about the immigration of Ethiopians into the country but now kenya went down on the DTS scale to a 2 from a 3. When the immigrants joined the kenyan population the government had to mine resources at a dizzying rate and built massive cities that we know as "slums." If we keep letting immigrants in the country will falter but at this point nothing but the extreme can be done. If we give these illegals a pathway to citizenship we are just inviting more immigrants into our country creating more of a problem. thank you for this debate but i believe my case is made and there is nothing more to say.
DJ-R3mix

Pro

For MY final argument, I am just going to attack Debate339. First of all, America is in a lot better shape in it's building and economy. So we don't have to worry about the "slums" popping up across America. Therefore, I still stand on the fact that immigrants are a help to America.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by AgnosticRadar 2 years ago
AgnosticRadar
This debate is quite sad. Pro didn't even perform this debate properly, and at the best he could. In my opinion, I would've fought a lot harder for my arguments than what Pro did.
Posted by Iamthejuan 3 years ago
Iamthejuan
It was hard to judge this. I wanted to give pro at least one point, but his arguments were fail on so many levels. Forgive my bluntness, but one should not debate that which they don't fully understand, or if they are unwilling to use something at least similar to proper grammar.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by chengste 3 years ago
chengste
debate339DJ-R3mixTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO had no sources that is why I gave sources to con
Vote Placed by Iamthejuan 3 years ago
Iamthejuan
debate339DJ-R3mixTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument is so full of holes that I don't know where to begin. Pro's arguments, however, were not logically correlated or expanded upon (and they could have been). I am calling this for con, because while I find his arguments bad, pro did a terrible job of arguing his point, as if poorly paraphrasing things he briefly read on Google. Con also had much better grammar, while pro seems to lack an understanding of structured debating.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
debate339DJ-R3mixTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: This is really just sad. Despite the fact that I found Con's arguments thoroughly unconvincing for a number of reasons (not the least of which is that he never once provides a decent argument against citizenship and instead focuses on why illegal immigrants inflict harms on the economy), at least he provides an argument. The fact that it has some incorrect assumptions of what happens following citizenship isn't addressed by Pro. So Con wins on argumentation. As his sources were just "NPR.org" instead of accurate links to the information he cited, no one wins on citations. Grammar was even. Con also wins on conduct, as Pro spends most of the time being incredibly cocky and dismissive. That's what cost him this debate as well. You need more than 2 lines of argumentation to dismantle Con's case, and since both of your arguments were just mitigating alternate causality points, it was nowhere near enough.