The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Illegal aliens should not be given American citizenship at all

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 776 times Debate No: 95016
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




Hillary Clinton said that if she wins the presidency, illegal aliens who are not violent criminals will be given a pathway to citizenship. I believe that giving illegal aliens citizenship, violent or not, will harm United States and diminish its immigration laws. Instead deportation for all illegal aliens (if not all, at least half) should be considered.

1) lannan13 cannot join. Love you bud but I wanna debate this with another user
2) Use citations
3) Follow this structure:

ROUND 2: Opening Statements
ROUND 3: Rebuttals of Opening Statements
ROUND 4: Defense and closing statements


I will partake in this debate. Good luck to you.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting this debate. Good luck.

What is an illegal alien, or for the sake of political correctness, undocumented alien? An illegal alien is either an individual who has entered the United States illegally and can be deported if apprehended or an individual who entered legally but has fallen "out of status" and can be deported [1]. Generally, there's nothing much different between a legal and illegal immigrant so immigrants, both legal and illegal, will be mentioned in the points below since if illegal aliens are given citizenship, they will become naturalized legal immigrants.

I am going to address Hillary Clinton's position on illegal immigration. She supports a pathway to citizenship for all illegal aliens who have not committed crimes and deport only the "individuals who pose a threat to public safety" [2]. She also defends President Obama's executive action which allowed almost half of illegal aliens living in the country a "temporary, quasi-legal status and work permits" [3]. Currently, many reports estimate that there are about 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States. This may not be entirely accurate as not all of them participate in surveys and the numbers could be much higher.

Hillary Clinton will ensure that many illegal aliens will be given a pathway to citizenship as long as they are not convicted of violent crimes. I argue that giving them a pathway to citizenship or legal status diminishes the rule of immigration laws, raises the fiscal deficit on the long run, keeps the American-born citizens and minorities employment rates and wages lower. I will also add that it will obscenely benefit the Democratic Party because only the Democratic Party has supported this immigration reform.

My first argument is that the rule of immigration laws are diminished if we give a pathway to citizenship or legal status for illegal aliens. The laws [4] are clear: "Any alien who at the time of entry or adjustment of status was within one or more of the classes of aliens inadmissible by the law existing at such time is deportable" and "Any alien who was admitted as a non immigrant and who has failed to maintain the non immigrant status in which the alien was admitted or to which it was changed under section 1258 of this title, or to comply with the conditions of any such status, is deportable." All of the illegal aliens are liable to deportation as the laws specify, whether committed a violent crime or not. There is no any other crevices into this and the laws do not state that paying fines or any of that sort is the punishment. Indeed, unlawful presence of an illegal alien is not a crime but a civil offense which has deportation as its punishment [5]. Some states like Arizona, however, describes the presence of illegal aliens as a crime. It's either the rule of immigration law is eradicated or deportation as a punishment. The former yields anarchic results as well as encouragement of illegal immigration. Even if we change the laws, they will not apply to the illegal aliens as they are bound to the former laws like the ones posted above.

My second argument is that there will be an immense fiscal deficit if illegal aliens are given citizenship or legal status. This makes sense as all four types of government benefits will be open to them: direct benefits, mean-tested welfare benefits, public education, population based services. The Heritage Foundation report [6] states that college-educated households tend to be net tax contributors, paying taxes that exceed the amount of benefits they receive. A well-educated household pays $54,089 in taxes and receive $24,839 in benefits, leaving a fiscal surplus of $29,250. It is the exact opposite for poorly-educated households and they are net tax consumers. The amount of benefits they receive exceed the amount of taxes they pay. It is reported that a poorly-educated household pays $11, 049 in taxes and receives $46,582 in benefits, generating a fiscal deficit of $35,113. This piece of information is crucial because half of illegal aliens have not completed high school and a quarter only completed high school. Not to mention the Social Security and pension plans that will be available to them. The Heritage Foundation also reports that granting them amnesty will raise the lifetime fiscal deficit to $6.3 trillion in fifty years ($126 billion annually). A piece of information that should not be ignored is that moderate to low-income earners can receive EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) and many illegal aliens are low-income earners, making them eligible if given pathway to citizenship or legal status.

My third argument is that giving illegal aliens citizenship or legal status will keep the native-born and minority groups' employment rates and wages lower. Like what I wrote earlier, about 75-80% of illegal aliens have not received a college diploma and they either have high school diplomas or have not completed high school. This will make them more eligible for unskilled labour which do not require education. Businesses and companies are more likely to hire immigrants (both legal and illegal) because native-born less-skilled workers. which drags blue-collar jobs' wages down. Immigrants [7] depress the wages of blue-collar jobs between 1-3 percent but raise wages by 0.004% for less skilled native workers.

Regarding the impact of giving legal status or citizenship to illegal aliens to the minorities, I will use a collection of reports [8] by the United States Commission on Civil Rights in which there are several findings:

- 6 in 10 black males have a high school diploma or less
- an individual who has a high school diploma or less earns less today than those of the same degree thirty-five years ago
- illegal immigration increases the supply of low-skilled, low-wage labor available in the US labor market
- illegal immigration tends to depress the wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens with black males forming a disproportionate number of them

It is also found by Professor Gordon Hanson's report that black high school dropouts' employment rate dropped massively from 72% in the 1960s to 42% in 2000s; white high school dropouts' employment rate also dropped significantly from 83% to 64%. He also questioned the notion that the lowering wages contribute to the black males quitting the job and turning to crime. His co-authored research suggested that in a 10% immigration-induced increase in labor markets is associated with a 4% decrease in black wages, 3.5% decrease in black employment rate and 0.8% increase in black incarceration rate.

Final question is do immigrants (both legal and illegal) create jobs? The answer is yes, they do but most of the jobs they create are provided for other immigrants too. In other words, they take more jobs than they create. I will provide an example to show exactly what I mean. A fictional Chinese immigrant named Ms. Wong lives in a community where many first generation immigrants live in Los Angeles. Ms. Wong works as a hairdresser in a Chinese barber shop where a lot of her co-workers are also Chinese. After work, she goes to a Chinese grocery store and buys some noodles for dinner. On a weekend, she goes to a Chinese mall where she buys her clothes for a much cheaper price. All the places she goes to are owned by Chinese people that typically hires Chinese immigrants. Sure, she also helps the natives by subscribing on the Internet or visiting museums but she would need help from a Chinese speaker on translating the English words to her language. This will require one of the first to third generation immigrant on the job because from then on, fourth generation (or the native-born) is unlikely to grow up speaking the language.

Now if we give citizenship to illegal aliens, it will obscenely benefit the Democratic Party. Why is this a bad thing? This is a bad thing because the party cannot even provide a reason why giving them citizenship will benefit Americans as well as deliberately ignoring the immigration laws in which all of the illegal aliens are bound. It is a perfect time to get rid of all illegal aliens and slow down the influx of legal immigrants for a balanced American society.





Hello, my name's Woody!
Debate Round No. 2


Obviously, CON is being a troll and I do not want to go any further if this is going to be the course of the debate.
Debate Round No. 3


Ok whatever you say. Vote PRO.


Vote KHAN!!!!!!!!!1!!! The other guy wants to strip children of their 14th Amendment rights or separate families!
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Hayd// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con provides no arguments in the debate and drops all of Pro's. Thus Pro wins.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Con's arguments essentially functioned as forfeits in the debate, which means this debate is treated just as any other full forfeit debate. As such, votes are not moderated unless those votes go to the forfeiting side.
Posted by Sunsummer7 2 years ago
Dudes, I totally aced that debate.
Posted by Bremners 2 years ago

Illegal aliens perfectly knew that entering without documents and having out of date legal papers will not yield good results. Why do you think they get scared running away from authorities or when their employers threaten to report them to authorities? Therefore, why should they think their children will live a good life? The children get to stay in a foster home or be with a parent who is legal.

If Trump wins the presidency, he should make it known to the whole world that by a specific date, birthright citizenship for tourists, illegal aliens and HB-1 visa holders will be revoked.
Posted by CuriousFear 2 years ago
@SGR Anyone who is not a redneck white American probably
Posted by SGR 2 years ago
What do you mean by Illegal Aliens?
Posted by TheBenC 2 years ago
If a woman made it here illegally and now has 2 kids, both under 10 years old, you suggest we kick her out? Those kids are Americans. They are part of "us". The best thing for them is to have their mother. Surely an intelligent society can find a solution without ripping American children from a good mother.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hayd 2 years ago
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: Con provides no arguments in the debate and drops all of Pro's. Thus Pro wins.