Question: Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?

Title: America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants. Content: What I mean is illegals and other immigrants should have the legal right to become citizens provided that they are not career felons. This would improve the economy by puytting these ableds to work, and getting them off welfare, reducing crime, and providing opportunities for people who would be an asset to the US of A. I take the affirmative position, make the first move.

Title: Americans oppose the deportation of all illegal immigrants. Content: A USA Today/Gallup Poll dated March 2007 asked, "Should the government deport all illegal immigrants back to their home country?" In response, only 24% of American citizens believed the government should deport all illegal immigrants. Furthermore, 59% of American citizens believed the government should allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens, but only if they meet certain requirements.

Title: Illegal immigrants should be granted the rights of legal citizenship Content: Ah, I see where I may have been unclear. I believe that if an illegal immigrant does not become a legal citizen, then they should not get the rights of citizenship. If an immigrant becomes a legal citizen, instead of "jumping the border", than they do deserve the rights that come with citizenship.

Title: Should illegal immigrants be allowed to live in the U.S. Content: Of course not, it is in the title illegal. If something is illegal it isn't allowed. Immigrants are allowed and should continue to be allowed, but illegal immigrants should not. If someone really wants to get into the U.S. they should go through the legal way and get a real citizenship. Would it make sense to allow people that haven't passed tests to freely live in the states without having to pay taxes, no. Any illegal immigrants currently in the country should be forced to leave until they can legally register as a U.S. citizen. This is necessary to gain the rights and duties of a U.S. citizen. However, people who are the children of illegal immigrants and never had a life outside the U.S. should be required to apply for citizenship, but not forced from the states unless they fail to do so. Only legal citizens are allowed to live in the U.S. long term as this is what preserves the structure of our country and it should stay this way.

Title: Should we deport illegal immigrants? (Not just from Mexico) Content: What I am saying is that immigrants need to get their citizenship legally. I am not against immigrants in the slightest but I believe that they need to come to this country legally. As for babies, I believe that there is an easy solution. A special building, for the infantile illegal immigrants would be built, and eventually they would be up for adoption by families. They could then learn to speak English and go to school. They would be considered citizens. I do believe that immigration laws are here for a reason. I have read up, and out of the 11 million illegal immigrants that have moved to the United States, of which 820,000 have been convicted of a crime. I think that all immigrants need to apply for citizen ship for the safety of us all. I am not saying that all illegal immigrants are criminals, or that they are more prone to commit crimes, but we need to do background checks to make sure that no immigrants are criminals who would endanger our society. That is why we have a process of citizenship that people need to complete to become a citizen. Now, I think that all illegal immigrants who have been discovered should be forced to apply for citizen ship. If they have nothing to hide, they will accept, and if they are able they will become a citizen. A large percentage of illegal immigrants in the United States have been living here for an extended period of time and that means that they should have adjusted to our society and would easily pass the test and receive their citizenship. They would receive another attempt should they fail the test. If they fail it again, then they are not fit to be in society. The laws of immigration are here for a reason, and those who do not follow them must be reprimanded (deportation) or inducted as a full fledged citizen.

Title: America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants. Content: Illegal immigrants already waste a lot of money. Illegal immigrants being given a pathway towards citizenship would show disregard for the federal government's laws. Illegal immigrants also take away jobs that should belong to legal immigrants.

Title: Immigration Content: I believe if there are some pathes for illegal immigrants to get citizenhood, the path will promote more illegal immigrants to enter the United States. Actually there are some legitimate paths for foreigners to got citizenhood, and the way to define whether an immigrate is legal or not is to check whether they got citizenhood through these paths. If the government provided another path for the illegal immigrants to get citizenship, how could we define they are legal or illegal? It seems that every illegal immigrats will be potential legal immigrants at that moment.

Title: Illegal Immigration Content: To be clear, I am saying that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U. S. and apply for citizenship. The Con position will argue that all immigrants should be deported.

Title: U.S. Immigration policy is too harsh on the southern border Content: Wow...where do i begin? first, one of the sole purposes of a government is to protect ITS citizens. A government cannot allow anyone and everyone in who wants in without going through the proper channels. This means that if an immigrant wants to become a citizen, there is a means of doing so, in which they will then recieve all the rights of a natural born citizen. along with protection, it is necessary for a government to know who is coming into the country. Are you suggesting that we allow any and all to just walk across the border and call themselves a citizen? that would have been great for America during the cold war when soviet spies and sabatours could just walk right in and out to never be found again. This goes for terrorists today as well. Is it worth risking American's lives? Illegal immagrants are breaking the law...PERIOD. besides that fact, should not an American wanting a job take precedence over that of an illegal? Is it fair that illegals should be allowed to live in this country and reap all the benefits without paying taxes like everyone else? Also, an increase in illegal immigration is directly proportional to an increase in crime. Besides the negative effects of that fact alone, this leads to a strain on government resources - police, jails, etc. which are paid for by taxes, which are bad enough, but lead to a strain on funding for other needed things. And you think the US gov. is too tough? I say make it tougher, build a fence, do what is necessary to reduce illegal immigration.

Title: Immigration reform is good for the country Content: I do think immagrents should come leagly but i dont think it should be very "user frendly" i think they should apply or even ahving bidings to enter they should action citizenship to Want to be American Citizens it would clear up a lot i see immagrents here all the time that come leagly and own shops and are super nice people but i dont think illegal immagents shpuld come and i dont think it should be much more easeyer

Title: Deporting illegal immigrants would cripple the US economy Content: - Some argue that illegal immigrants should be deported, rather than provided legal licenses that further integrate them into society. The problem with this approach, however, is that it would withdraw from society the substantial contributions (economic and other) being made by illegal immigrants. The costs would be prohibitively high. Therefore, efforts to integrate illegal immigrants are necessary, including providing them with driver's licenses.

Title: Should we deport illegal immigrants? (Not just from Mexico) Content: Yes. I believe that we should deport illegal immigrants from the United States. For starters, many of the people that move illegal to the United States are unskilled and illiterate. Some illegal immigrants can also be dangerous criminals escaping from their country of origin to the United States. Though the process for gaining citizenship is rigorous, it should be enforced, as it improves the nation as a whole. Due to their lack of skill, many illegal immigrants are poor and cannot take up jobs to support themselves. In response to this, many are forced to go to food kitchens or use food stamps. The increase of food stamps and the food in food kitchens has resulted in the government raising the taxes of legal immigrants (aka. citizens), and families that have been living in and supporting the country for generations. I am not against immigrants moving to the United States, but they must be able to contribute to society. If we allow people to go around breaking the laws that has held this country together for generations, whats stopping people from breaking other laws. We take a firm stance against murder and other crimes, and we must do the same with our laws on immigration. Many of the immigrants are also children and are unable to contribute to America as a whole. These children must be sent back to the country that they came from. You may say that some immigrants are smart, and just don't have any money. Well, in that case they can apply for citizen ship. My own mother moved here (America) when she was 21, with no money. It took her 16 years to get her citizen ship, but it payed off. We cannot allow those who just come here illegally to stay and bring down our society.

Title: Effort to regulate our countrys borders Content: yeah it would make things easier if become a U.s. citizen but not all immigrants wish to contribute to all that it takes to be a citizen. most illegal immigrants that are in our country come for economic reasons because their country does not have much of an economy or avaliable jobs, if they already face problems economically which is why they come to our country leads in unwilling tax payers that do all the same we do. im not referencing to all. its unfair but it should be harder to get granted citizenship because all that has happened in our country, we cant just let anyone in our country...how is that safe or reasonable?

Title: Driver's licenses for illegal immigrants undermines legal immigration Content: - Offering illegal immigrants driver's licenses will unfairly subvert the process that all other immigrants have to go through to become legal citizens of a country.

Title: illegal immigrants should have paths of citizenship Content: As the audience can see, he has failed to respond to my questions. He has the BOP. I will make a petite argument just for the sake of winning. Illegal immigrants should not have paths of citizenship because then they will have to pay a lot in taxes with very low paying jobs. It is better for them to stay illegal so that they may get through the system without having the United States take their money. Also, they would most likely get on welfare, which would throw the USA into even deeper debt than it is. The United States can not afford anymore debt. (1) By the way, this is not the responce I'd use in a real debate. I am just making a simple arguement that won't be responded to properly. (1). www. usdebtclock. org

Title: Arming more people and the rite people is the key to our future Content: I hate to play semantics but it seems as if Pro is saying the government should arm citizens..... If this is the case I am against it....... The government should let people arm themselves.

Title: Illegal immigrants should be granted the rights of legal citizenship Content: Illegal immigrants should mot be granted the rights of legal citizenship. And why should they? They come into the United States and want to be treated like a citizen, but they are not. If they come to America searching for a better life, than wouldn't it be better for them to become a legal citizen anyway? If they come here illegally, than why do they deserve the rights of legal citizens? Yes, they do deserve human rights, but not the benefits of being a citizen of the United States. They do not pay taxes, they do not deserve the benefits of our educational systems, our roads, our public buildings, anything payed for with taxes. I invite anybody to agree or refute this.

Title: giving hard working illegal immigrants american citizenship Content: This is an interesting resolution; one which I'm sure many Americans have though about at one time or another. When we begin to look at illegal immigration we can see and weight several things; and at the finish we realize this. It is by no means right to give something to those who would steal it. Now my opponent brings up something in his constructive that really frames the debate, that the United States was indeed founded on immigration, and those policies are still things we value today. We still hold true to the idea that any-one of any background can come to this country. Now that includes the citizens who choose to come illegally. If they truly desired a better life for themselves, there are proper means by which they can obtain this better life. That is though naturalization and legal immigration. However every single day, many people simple show grave disrespect for Our country's laws. Instead of looking to the proper means, instead of working hard for their citizenship (as many people do) They steal it for themselves. And while doing so take Jobs, away from those who need them; Cause a drain on social funds that could be used elsewhere; they don't pay taxes but reap the befits of Public education for their children, and the rest of society. They are criminals, just the same as one who would work hard to rob a bank, or steal jewelery. So I conclude with this, why in any scope of the word; by any definition is it ever right to reward those who break the law? it is through this question we conclude that it is wrong to give citizenship to those ho do not deserve it. For all these reasons, I urge a Con vote.

Title: should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship Content: I think you forgot the topic question. "Should illegal immigrants be allowed citizenship?", is the question we are discussing. You repeatedly state that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens, and yet if we were to give illegal immigrants citizenship, then they would be citizens. There are currently an estimated 11,100,000 illegal immigrants residing in America, according to a recent survey taken by The Department of Homeland Security. America doesn't really have any choice but to give these immigrants citizenship; it'd be impossible to send back that many people to their homelands. In order to find and deport every illegal immigrant, the U.S government would need to undergo a massive bureaucratic expansion, in order to hire more workers to find the immigrants. You stated that "illegal immigrants take up jobs that are for us." Employers should be allowed to hire whoever they chose to, and not be forced to hire based upon legal status. Businesses will increase in size the more people that they hire, which will help support America's economy. In conclusion to my argument, America needs to face facts; millions of illegal immigrants currently reside in America, and the vast majority of them are hardworking, taxpaying and law abiding. We should give them complete amnesty and work together to help make America a greater nation.

Title: Americans oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants Content: A 2010 CNN/Opinion Research asked, "Do you think the United States should or should not make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens of the United States?" Sixty-six percent of respondents said the U.S. should not make it easier. 33 percent said it should.[21]

Title: The United States government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the United Content: P1. The debate is whether The United States government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the United States. The issue is immigration in relation to United States citizenship. We participated in a debate for 3 rounds defending our premises on whether the substantial strengthening or not strengthening would explicitly explain a sound argument for pro and con. We are not debating the regulation immigrants or as in individual persons not belonging to the U.S, but rather the system in which declares the individual a citizen and allows them into the country. P2: As stated in premise 1 during the first round, Notario Fraud is one aspect of the immigration system that requires attention and revision. In my argument, the issue is not whether I argue for immigrants to enter or not enter the country. The issue is the substantial regulation, in which I argue, will uphold U.S laws, will minimize waste, and will increase education for those interpreting the law as well as increasing the confidence of immigrants who will have their first time experience with an unfamiliar government and unfamiliar laws. I argue to maintain, regulate and revise this legal process to provide a platform for immigrants who are faced with an adversary government, sometimes in an unfamiliar language. Those who study immigration law should gain legal certification and uphold U.S law as well serving those who wish to become legal citizens; they should be well informed, well educated, and make a conscious effort to provide legal aid for families. Fallacies committed: ad hominem debater (con) questions position instead of responding to the given premises and asks a meaningless question. The debater attempts to argue against (pro) based on an assumed ignorance of the topic for debate. P3: Strengthening the regulation of immigration to the United States does not imply a violent, nagging, persistence. It simply suggests research, a revision in legal language, in which U.S individuals who are properly accredited through federally recognized organization can communicate the proper legal information for individuals who seek citizenship. "The reason most come to the U.S is because the immigration system is as is." This statement is unclear, what aspect of the immigration system assumes more control? Your argument assumes that all immigrants come to the United States for the same reason which weakens this argument. To make such a broad statement as argued by you in Round 1 "Immigration creates jobs, because a lot of immigrants create their own businesses which allows for some employment opportunities .If the regulation of immigration is increased, this may cause for fewer immigrants to be let in, and for more immigrants to be deported." such as "immigrants" alludes to begging the question in your premise 3 for round 2. We cannot assume all immigrants create jobs and start businesses. Your argument "Strengthening the regulation of immigrants TO the U.S. would not allow the "same platforms for immigrants that we have for American citizens", because there would be more control over them (who can come in, the conditions they are allowed in under, etc.) does not relate and assumes the same for all immigrants who enter the country. A stronger regulation means a stronger system which prevents fraud and legal consequences for immigrants as well as criminal persecution for actors interpreting the immigrations laws. This argument contains a slippery slope, in which the arguer assumes as a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences such as the control of immigrants. Such regulation does not assume absolute control of the bodies of immigrants. It I don"t understand how the first sentence of your premise 3 for round 2 relates to the idea that a stronger regulation would deter them. The last sentence again, appeals to consequence in which regulation will ultimately control immigrants and also assumes all immigrants seek citizenship for the same reasons. If we are not regulating and remaining current with the legal language in which we use to interpret the law to citizens the immigration system will become burdened with fraud and create corrupt theories which authorized citizens interpret and communicate with immigrants or potential U.S citizens. By creating a fair platform for immigrants, we decrease the risks of deportation, of criminalization, and can maintain the integrity of the legal system and those who come in contact with it. C: The U.S government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the U.S.

Title: Allowing Illegal Immigrations To Still Get Benefits Content: Debate OutlineThis is a debate about whether or not illegal immigrants should receive the same benefits legal immigrants and citizens would receive in a country. For example: insurance, employment, housing, Welfare, Social Security, foodstamps. Structure: The debate will consist of four rounds: Acceptance Thesis and Opening Argument Rebuttals and Arguments Rebuttals and Conclusions [no new arguments should be made] General rules: Throughout the debate, a set of rules are to abided by, by both contenders. Each time a rule is broken it shall be considered by all voting parties preceding the conclusion of the debate. Standard debate rules apply: no insulting, keep it appropriate, keep bias minimal. And with that said, I wish luck to the person that accepts this debate. Hopefully this will be more fun and insightful!

Title: should all illegal immigrants get amnesty Content: I would like to begin this round by laying down one fact. First, there are between 7 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States. http://www.csmonitor.com.... Additionally, I would like to ask my opponent one question: if all these illegal immigrants came into the United States legally, would you turn any away, and would you be supportive of them? America was, of course, founded by immigrants, and is currently populated with the sons and daughters of immigrants, so I think most Americans should be supportive of immigration in principle. Because my opponent has not stated his opinion on this idea, I will assume that he or she is supportive of large-scale legal immigration unless he or she were to say otherwise in a response. This preface leads me to the following argument: Illegal immigrants are often portrayed as being leeches who suck away American jobs, and in most other scenarios, I would be against illegal immigrants. They don't pay taxes, and receive much of the benefits normal citizens do receive. However, I believe the current illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty for one reason: if you are poor, it is nearly impossible to immigrate legally, let alone become an American citizen. Many of America's immigrants in the past would not have been able to immigrate legally, because they would be too poor in the current system. To immigrate legally, you need all sorts of documentation, and while I believe these papers are a noble attempt to stop the people like drug dealers from getting in to America, most of these Latin American immigrants simply do not have the paperwork necessary. When you are living in total poverty under an oppressive government, it is difficult to keep track of things like birth certificates, if you even had them in the first place. http://www.alternet.org... Therefore, I believe that until the immigration process stops becoming a bureaucratic nightmare, all illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty. In addition, the United States should allow its immigration process to be more open, and allow immigration on a larger scale.

Title: Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship to the undocumented currently living in US Content: So. My opponent on,y responded to two of my sub points so what I'll first do is rebut those attacks and then re affirm my other sub points and contentions. 1:A) he opens by saying potential is a lie. Okay so let's look at this logically, he is doing his own calculations and that's fine if they were anywhere near correct which they are not. However I can still work with his numbers, even if it costs $210 billion that's not on net. So on net it's still the 1.4 trillion dollar number from the COB study I linked in my original round southeast point still stands. My opponent then states that these people do not deserve a path to citizenship? He doesn't say why they don't deserve an earned path to citizenship I can't really respond to that. He said that we would lose these traditions and yet I'm waiting to hear how, and what traditions are going to be lost in the process. My opponent stated in his rebuttal that these people do not want to assimilate in our country, and thus should not be made citizens. We can see that this is actually not true, at all. In fact 92% of the undocumented do want to become US citizens! This shows a want to assimilate and progress our economy. My opponent is probably going to say something along the lines of "well why aren't they applying for citizenship now?" Well the main reason is because they are unable to pay the fees in order to become a legalized person while working towards citizenship. A path to citizenship will immensely help them, in fact Pew Hispanic Research Center estimates over 90% will take advantage of a path to citizenship at that point. Since much of my case went unaddressed I will close by simply saying we can simply put all economic benefits aside, we know that the United States government values morality over everything else. Now if people are not citizens they will be deported of caught. Even those who are just legalized can be deported under circumstances, and the threat of deportation, separation of families, human trafficking, and death for 11.7 million undocumented people is something that must be addressed throughout this debate. Thus I strongly urge a Pro ballot in the round. Thank you.

Title: Path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the US Content: Path to citizenship encourages illegal immigration

Title: Drivers licenses for Illegal immigrants in the US Content: Illegal immigrants in America should be integrated into society

Title: Allowing Illegal Immigrations To Still Get Benefits Content: Thanks, Pro. == PRO CASE == R1) Causes 1. This is just a moral case for allowing illegal immigration; that is not what this debate is about. In fact, Pro is actually hurting his case by showing that the US has such superior living conditions that simply allowing them to be here is a substantial improvement on its own, regardless of whether or not they are receiving benefits. I could agree with every word Pro has said here and it still would not prove Pro's position. Reject this argument because it is inapplicable to the resolution at hand. 2. Regardless of how much strife illegal immigrants may have to go through, the state is first and foremost obligated to serve the best interests of its own citizens, and I have shown with my C2 that giving benefits to illegal immigrants puts a significant strain on the government budget and, by extension, the citizens. Moreover, the majority of academic studies on immigration conclude that the presence of illegal immigrants is harmful to the well-being of America's poorest citizens by competing with them for the same jobs. Therefore, the government shouldn't do anything that makes it easier for illegal immigrants -- including the provision of federal benefits -- and instead take action to reduce their numbers. https://www.hamiltonproject.org... 3. I have no idea what point Pro was trying to make with his tirade about European colonization and Columbus Day. He's going to have to explain how that connects to the resolution for it to even be considered an argument. R2) Work 1. The part where Pro actually connects "immigration is beneficial" to the resolution is extremely ill-warranted. He provides absolutely no evidence that illegal immigrants "need" benefits more than native citizens do. Considering Pro's claims that immigrants benefit the economy by filling in high-demand jobs, we would expect that they would be making ample money to be financially self-sufficient. 2. I have provided actual academic studies demonstrating that illegal immigrants hurt the job security and wages of America's poorest. Pro has just noted a decrease in unemployment rate without making any attempt at linking it to immigration. Unemployment rate is affected by thousands of variables, so to just arbitrarily attribute it to increased illegal immigration is absurd. Prefer my evidence, obviously. == CON CASE == C1) Incoherent Pro's only response is that illegal immigrants can become citizens, and thus the government doesn't have to deport them. But that is NOT within the parameters of the resolution. If that is what Pro wanted to debate, he should have made the resolution something like "The USFG should grant all illegal immigrants amnesty". The resolution we are debating specifically states that *illegal* immigrants should be given benefits, implying that they would still be "illegal" when they are receiving benefits. Thus, my criticism stands -- Pro's plan cannot be implemented because of its paradoxical nature. Also, cross-apply (in advance) this counter to all other mentions Pro makes of making illegal immigrants citizens; the resolution is not about ammesty. C2) Cost 1. Pro essentially says that our debt is already so high that even 500 billion extra dollars makes little difference. That's nonsensical. We have to start paying off our debt eventually, and Pro's plan just makes it harder to do that any time soon. Pro's response is akin to a smoker who refuses to stop smoking because his lungs already seem to be beyond repair. It simply isn't tenable in the long run. 2. Pro is blatantly false in his claim that most Americans are illegal immigrants. Even the first settlers could not have been considered "illegal immigrants" because there was no state to "immigrate" into; Native Americans did not have the bureaucratic governments, citizens, or official immigration processes necessary for such classifications to exist. Pro's rebuttal fails. 3. Pro dismisses the notion of giving benefits attracting more illegal immigrants as being "laughable". However, I provided academic analyses demonstrating that it *does* happen. If anything, Pro's flippant dismissal of empirical evidence is "laughable". Pro says that if that were the case, having a welfare state would attract more legal immigrants... and he's right. It does. So, again, he has just hurt his own case. It is rather intuitive, really -- people respond to incentives. Providing benefits *does* attract illegal immigrants en masse. C3) Unjust Again, cross--apply the point that this debate is not about amnesty -- it's about providing federal benefits to immigrants who are currently classified as being here illegally. It is unfortunate that Pro has spent so much space on amnesty, because it is completely non-topical. == CONCLUSION == I don't feel like writing one. It's 3am again. Resolution negated.

Title: Immigration Content: I disagree with your point about "If everyone is given a path to citizenship, then there would be no need for the terms illegal and legal. We would all be Americans, having all the equal rights and privileges. " I think if the government promote this kind of unlimited immigration policy, the country will be out of control. Actually, almost every country in the world has its immigration restrictive laws, for the reasons of structure of population, national security, cultural protection, trade safety, etc. Therefore, some limitations in immigration to divide immigrants into legal and illegal are necessary.

Title: Illegal Immigration Is Bad For Americans Content: Why should illegal immigrants be able to even get jobs here in the first place? If you are not an American Citizen, you should not be entitled to the same rights that an American Citizen has. I forget the name of the law, but it goes something like this: If you are not a citizen of America and you are in America, you: A) Are not protected under the law by the constitution or it's amendments since they are reserved for American Citizens. B) You are however, held responsible for any criminal acts that you commit. You say that Illegal Immigrants could be a major contributer to the economy if they became citizens. I agree, somewhat. If they are actively applying for citizenship or else taking a citizenship course, they should be allowed to stay. If they are simply here to either commit crimes or steal American jobs, get the hell out. If they come on a visa, okay, but once it runs out, get the hell out. Wouldn't it make more sense for American Citizens to get those jobs first?

Title: Controlled Immigration Content: Overall, my opponent is saying that the government should decide who gets in to a country and who doesn't. I'm saying that the people should decide. I'm saying that if I want to go and live in Bhutan or the Vatican City, I should be allowed to without having to go through immigration. Contrary to some people's belief, immigration isn't there to help people come in - it is there to keep people out. So while I agree with my opponent that immigration is often one's need, I disagree that some government official sitting in an office (playing Solitaire) will know about this need better than the person with the need. I also agree that the world needs greater cultural exchange - but surely this would happen if we didn't keep more and more people out? I agree that knowledge needs to be spread, but this spread cannot happen when governments have immigration restrictions. Prosperity does come from immigration, like my learned opponent states, but strangely, not from government imposed immigration restrictions. Therefore, to reiterate, I oppose controlled immigration in favor of open immigration. What I'd really like to know is why my opponent thinks that before a person comes to the states, they need to have a green card. Surely all of these great advantages my opponent propounds are not there only because not enough people can get to the United States - lack of green pieces of card is keeping them out. Which brings me, finally, to the first issue my opponent brought up - lack of immigration controls in present-day America. I contend this. According to the Collins Paperback English Dictionary, control is the power to direct something. Does the government of the United States have the power to direct immigration? Yes. They may legally make any law concerning immigration that falls within their jurisdiction. Do they have the ability to exercise these powers? Usually. Far more Mexicans are stopped at the border than run across it. Perhaps they cannot catch them all, but in general, I think it is a fair enough conclusion that there are American immigration controls. If my opponent continues to assert the opposite, maybe he should ask the American immigration service what they do all day? Given that my opponent offers no rebuttal to my constructive case, I will build on my arguments numbers one and two. My first argument was on the fundamental freedom of movement rights we all possess. Once again, the role of the government in a democratic state (which is pretty much every government in the world) is to ensure the rights of the electors, not restrict them. Governments, however, are placing many restrictions on immigration. In ancient times, before modern governmental structure, freedom of movement was a universal right. It can therefore only be detrimental to our development to restrict this movement in any way - we have lost something that we once had. Controls on immigration are a restriction on movement like any other. For this reason Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the U. N. General Assembly, gives all the right to enter their "own country. " But who decides that constitutes a person's own country? Can a government really tell a person "that is YOUR country, thus you are stuck there? " No. That should be a decision for the potential immigrant, not big brother. The really strange thing about this example is that all the nations that signed and ratified this fundamental document now have immigration departments in their governments, controlling human rights like mad. Perhaps it is because of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 12 of which adds a few caveats - national security, public order and so forth. Yet the problem is still the same - these are subjective judgements imposed by bureaucrats in ivory towers. I doubt they often recognise how much is at stake. As is written in U. N. General Comment 27, part one "Liberty of movement is an indispensable condition for the free development of a person. " I believe the U. S. Constitution provides for freedom of movement also, with "reasonable limits" - but how can a test for the reasonableness of a fundamental right be determined? And so we move on to my second argument. The system is broke. Let's fix it. In round one, I gave you a clear model of how the system could be fixed right now. The system is not working when Africans starve and people invite me to lavish banquets. The system is not working when people from central Asia need medical care but cannot get it, while my doctor tells me off if I don't see him often enough. The system is not working when people are stuck in war torn or politically unstable countries and are left with no future despite their numerous qualifications, while I enjoy peace and security with a bright future despite only being a college student. These are the times when immigration is most needed . .. and, unfortunately, the most restricted. Africa, more than any other continent, has more travel restrictions by foreign countries than any other country. Why? Commercial interest, famine, resulting desease, resulting poverty. That is what happens when the power is not with the people - the system becomes vulnerable to exploitation. Look at the so-called boat people who come to Australia. They are turned away in their hundreds, despite being more needy than many of the migrants who come in, because they are less skilled. Well, of course they are, but why should your level of skill determine your civil rights? I put it to you that it should not. I put it to you that governments have no right to tell me where I can and cannot live. Therefore they have no right to control immigration. This is how it should be. This will fix the problem. As my third argument is quite a major one, I'll wait until my last round to expand on it. Now I'll hand back to my opponent so we can hear the rest of his case.

Title: Make Emigration Illegal Content: I'm assuming you mean immigration so tell me if I'm wrong. But immigration should be legal. When you make it illegal, America isn't America anymore. It's turned into a country like North Korea. If someone's country is being bombed like Venezuela or something, then their citizens should be able to come here for safety.

Title: This is a gateway privilege that allows these people to integrate into American society. Content: These people do not deserve to use the services of the USA. They are not citizens, they are law-breakers and society has no obligation to make life easier or more comfortable for those who break the law. Regardless of their contributions to society or the economy, illegal immigrants have broken the law. The consequences of their breaches of the law should be remedied. If necessary, illegal immigrants should be punished in proportion to the harm that their act has caused. Under no circumstances should illegal acts allow these individuals to gain access to the status and legal privileges that citizenship confers.

Title: Birthright Citizenship Content: Hi I would like to start of by stating thank you to who ever accepts this debate. I am fairly new to this website so I ask my opponent for a good clean debate. I hope this will be of benefit to me and my opponent & I know it will be really fun. I tried this debate before with another person but he/she never rebut my cases, so I ask someone to take this debate and give me a challenge. Thank you.Debate: Birthright Citizenship - Should the right of citizenship for all children born in the United States, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, be removed?Definitions: Birthright Citizenship - refers to the citizenship granted to a person by virtue of the circumstances of his/her birth. Accordingly, any person born within the territory of the U.S. is granted citizenship by birth. A child born overseas to U.S. citizens also acquires a U.S. citizenship.Pro - I will choose Pro for this debate meaning I believe a child should be a citizen of the United States wether his parents are immigrants or not.Con - Will be chosen by my opponent for this debate. He will protect his case stating that a child should not become a United State citizen if his parents are illegal immigrants. Terms:1. For the sake of the well being of me and my opponent as well, I ask him/her to keep private matter to himself. If this debate has to do with his/her personal life I ask him/her to not bring it forward to this debate.2. I ask of him/her to think of this debate as only a debate and nothing else.3. I ask for my opponent to use great deal of grammar, as I will try as well and to use reliable sources. If I lose or win a debate I like to learn from them so I ask for my opponent who will accept this debate to take it serious and give it all he's/she's got as I will do the same.4. Have fun I want to enjoy myself as I am sure my opponent will love to enjoy him/her self as well.Outline:Round 1: Will be for acceptance and any questions or terms Con may have.Round 2 - 5: Will be presenting cases and rebuts. Good luck.

Title: Nationality Status for Srilankan Innocent Tamil People! Content: Then they should wither migrate to their homeland and become citizens, or move to another country which accepts new people and apply for citizenry in that country. I believe I have stated my point fairly clearly, and I wish you praise for using a language that is not your primary on a website full of strong, fluent speakers. This was a nice debate, and I enjoyed the "Absurdity" and deciphering, as a challenge, very much. Thank you for your time, and I hope you have good luck in all aspects of life. Adieu.

Title: Should immigrants be transported and not aloud into the country because they steal jobs and families Content: Well that's too bad. Vote con! For I have explained why immigrant's should be allowed in the country. My last arguments also have not been addressed. My name is Brian Johnson and this debate is over.

Title: Birthright Citizenship should be retained in the United States Content: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION . I Still, the point remains that you haven't explained how my case is wrong. I will simply list what policies I would find acceptable for citizenship. . II Illegal immigrants still are protected by the police force and use the public education system. That really is not fair, giving them an education and allowing them to work in establishments for the same pay as regular citizens is unjust. Illegal immigrants do not typically go to college or produce nearly enough money to be worth their income, they also are a minority who has the most typical involvement in crime. REFUTES . I Your source is correct but then adds "Rich Chinese moms" which I don't think is statistically backed up anywhere so therefore its legitimacy is dismissed until you back it up. . II Still even so, doesn't matter if the mom intends to if the baby is born there and she is already there illegally in the first place its the same outcome. I don't see the difference if intended or not she is on the soil illegally and therefore having a baby is still abusing the system. . III Yes, but they still cause competion and many still go through public school. In the end still costing the government money and in the process possibly making real US citizens lose jobs. Citizenship subtext to post . II under Illegal Immigration * Parents must both be legal citizens of the USA * Legal immigration remains the same as current policy CONCLUSION Whatever my opponent may believe, Illegal immigrants cost some portions of money and sometimes take jobs from real US citizens. Meaning they cause problems and many more come a year. Illegal immigrants due to being poor also are a big source of getting drugs over the border. Source: . http://www.cis.org... . http://www.usillegalaliens.com... . http://www.mnforsustain.org...

Title: U.S. Immigration policy is too harsh on the southern border Content: Let me begin by saying that it is a privilege to be allowed to become a citizen of this country - not a right. No government has to allow people in, and when the country in question is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, the privilege of becoming a citizen has even greater worth. As we have already established, it is necessary to have a process of legalizing immigrants rather than allowing all in, so here are reasons why the legalization process is difficult. - the admitance test should be challenging. Im not at all saying it should be near impossible to pass, but it should require studying of the testable info. It is important that new citizens understand the history of this country and the basics of our government. Which is the basis for the next two points: -This allows them to better contribute to society and the political process. This is another reason for the tediousness of the process. When there is a pool of billions who want in, those who become citizens should prove that they can and will contribute to society. The best way of doing this is to teach them many vital aspects of the US. -Also, the more one knows about their new home, the more a "part" of it they feel, which leads to greater assimilation. Assimilation is vital to our country's survival (united we stand,devided we fall)- if new citizens dont become part of the American culture then it creates division and competition among groups (im not saying that immigrants should forget their native culture either). -I want those who apply for citizenship to be scrutinized. Not just anyone should be allowed in. As i previously stated, it is a privilege. I dont want other country's criminals and others that will contribute to problems in our country. Also, this step of the process is even more critical post 9/11 for obvious reasons. Yes, the process is long, tedious, and slow; and i concede that it is not perfect. But for many reasons it requires more than just a sign-in book to become a legal citizen. A few quick notes on other comments you made: I beleive that it should be mandatory for immigrants to speak and read english (at least enough to operate in society). Not being able to speak the country's primary language (basically im proposing english should be the national language) obviously leads to many problems. The proposed fence is a double fence meaning a two fences with a patrolled space between (in addition to the patrolled US side). The design and proper implementation of the fence would be very effective and would make a difference.

Title: In the US, illegal immigrants should not be deported. Content: My opponent is trying to remove the 'illegal' out of 'illegal immigrant.' Legal immigrants can benefit this country, but all illegal immigrants are criminals, because they did not legally come into this country, thus should not be rewarded with citizenship. Instead, they should legally immigrate. The notion that illegal immigrants are not criminals, despite having broken the law is outrageous. Breaking the law is what makes someone a criminal. Criminal definition. crim"i"nal G2;krimənl noun 1. a person who has committed a crime. This is exactly what an illegal immigrant has done, so why should they be allowed to reside in this country, because they committed a crime? Pro has to provide irrefutable evidence to prove this topic, but has not done so, therefor not fulfilling BoP.

Title: Immigration Content: Yes, their are some paths for foreigners (aliens), who are here legally, to get citizenship. However illegal immigrants (aliens), DON'T have a path to citizenship, because they are here illegally. If everyone is given a path to citizenship, then there would be no need for the terms illegal and legal. We would all be Americans, having all the equal rights and privileges. If they are already here, they should stay here.

Title: Strengthening US Immigration Regulations Content: I am not sure as to why my premise would be invalid. We are talking about legality of citizens. Because public schools cannot turn down illegal immigrants, I'm sure there are illegal immigrants who have dropped out, along with natural-born as well. There is still the issue of kids in college debt. I am not sure what point you are trying to make in your second premise. You, in more words or less, stated that we should lower the regulations on people becoming american citizens, should we change what the law on murder so we won't have to worry about the issue of murder anymore? Or lower the regulations on sexual harassment so that we can rid of that issue to? Crime is crime, no matter how big and how small and there are no victim-less crimes. If we deport illegal immigrants we are deporting poverty. If they are trying to come here to pursue larger goals in life how can they do that with very limited skills and education? If they came here legally, they could receive government aid such as medicare and medicaid to assist them in making their lives better for themselves and their family. However, that is not the case. They also are obtaining fake documents such as social security cards to work. http://www.nytimes.com... So, not only are they committing the crime of coming into the United States but they are also committing identity theft. They can also use there to illegally receive government aid. While they may be working 2 or 3 jobs, they're are not actually making a sufficient amount of money to be over the poverty line. If they are making the "bare minium", as you say they are. How much could that possibly be? Being in poverty means they are more likely to commit crimes. http://www.americanprogress.org... "In some areas of the country, up to 12 % of felonies, 25% of burglaries and 34% of thefts are committed by illegal aliens." http://citizensforlaws.org... Not only that, 28 percent of the foreign-born workers over 25 haven't completed high school. Which means that the possibly of moving up on the ladder of success is very very little. There's barely any jobs you can get without a high school diploma, even less that a college degree where you can make enough money to support a family. If we take the number of median wage workers who are foreign born (not only illegal) is $511 a week that comes out to $24,528 a year. (Assuming that is gross) http://www.slate.com..., For a family of 4, the poverty line is about $23,850 for a family of four. http://useconomy.about.com... Assuming since those who were foreign born are here legally, those who are here illegally is substantially less. It is also selfish. If you bring your children to the united states illegally and you end p being deported, who is going to take care of your children? Themselves? Seems highly unplausible. It has happened before. Parents were deported back to their home countries, leaving their children behind back in America. Here's an example. http://www.cnn.com... In conclusion, we should regulate immigration of illegal immigrants in the United States, not only because it hurts our economy, it is a crime, punishable by law, just as any other crime is. It would make their lives easier to come into the United States legally and work for their living legally. If they are here legally, they can receive government aid. It is selfish to possibly leave your children behind. They are not as innocent of other crimes either, such as theft and murder and burglary because living in poverty there is a higher change you will commit a crime.

Title: Resolved: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States Content: This is where your whole argument is wrong. If we abolish birthright citizenship we can put a law in place that allows only babies of citizens to become citizens at birth. Also while illegal immigrants come her for opportunity, they can do that but they need to do it in the proper and legal manner. That are protocols and regulations that they need to follow in order for them to become citizens and with this it would cause our country to be more american, rather than many other countries illegal immigrants coming here and immediately becoming citizens because they have a baby. The 14th Amendment needs to be changed because it is outdated. Also when you say that changing the constitution is unjust, you are mistakenly wrong because changes are made all the times. These changes are called Amendments, these Amendments are there to fix mistakes and problems within the constitution. A new Amendment can be made in order to amend the 14th and help to fix the common misinterpretation that we have today. Thus i would like to finish my argument by giving an analogy. Say you are waiting in line at islands of adventure for the hulk, the line is the time average people have to wait and the ride itself is the gaining of citizenship. Now think if someone were to cut you right when you get to the front of the line and they did not have to wait at all. So now in regard to the debate does it seem fair for an illegal person to just be given immediate citizenship over a person who has waited up to 2 years? Do you think that is fair? How would you feel?

Title: Birthright citizenship. Content: That said, I'll proceed with my opening statements and arguments. I am against birthright citizenship in general(there are a few, rare cases where I may consider it as a possibility, but for the vast majority of cases it is completely unacceptable and a disgrace to this country). Birthright citizenship is a magnet for illegal immigrants. They come over to the USA when they're almost ready to have a child, and when the child is born, they've got a citizen to anchor them in the country. Even though the parents are not citizens, the child is, which creates an anchor for the illegal immigrant parents to stay. Birthright citizenship also puts a burden on the taxpayers, forcing them to pay the costs for the children to be born and, in most cases, raised, as the parents of the child are illegal immigrants and are, thus, the government is forced to comply with the needs of and supply for the child. These costs amount to a few billion dollars - all supplied by the taxpayers. Not only do taxpayers have to pay for the needs of the child, though, but they also have to pay for the well-being of the illegal immigrant parents. In total, illegal immigration costs $135 billion dollars - again, all supplied by the taxpayers. Of the total amount of illegal immigrants coming into the US per year, those with "anchor babies" that provide for birthright citizenship constitute about 10% of the entire flow, meaning they cost about 13.5 billion dollars a year. Believe me, this is unacceptable. On top of this, the repeal of birthright citizenship does not violate the constitution in any way. The constitution clearly conveys this, by stating that the government has the power to choose whom is in the jurisdiction of the United States and is, therefore, eligible to become a citizen. With this I conclude my opening statements and arguments. Sources: . http://www.nationalreview.com... . https://fairus.org... . http://www.nationalreview.com... . http://www.breitbart.com...

Title: should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship Content: How is an immigrant (albeit an illegal one) so different from an American Citizen? So long as they pay taxes like everyone else, how are they anymore detrimental to society? All immigrants want is a chance to gain a brighter future through hard work, they aren't looking for the easy way out. In fact, it makes far more sense to grant illegal immigrants full citizenship, because illegal immigrants don't have to pay taxes, and citizens do. If you give an illegal immigrant citizenship, then you guarantee that they pay taxes to the United States Government. The immigration policy is far more complicated than many might be led to assume. An honest foreigner will have a hard time getting into America as a citizen. Despite the fact that on our symbol of freedom: The Statue of Liberty; it states, "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." America should be the land of opportunity for those who so desperately need a chance to restart their lives in a new place.

Title: Immigrants have the same rights as a citizen of the country Content: 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...

Title: Voter I.D. laws are constitutional and needed Content: I believe I have been refuting your arguments well enough. You claim a distaste for the "nation-state". I don't see it as a problem. By your logic then, there would be no citizens, no immigrants, people could come and leave this country as they pleased, which is something we certainly don't need. You are against nationality. I don't see why you would be. Without it, we wouldn't have any laws. The citizens wouldn't belong to this country, they wouldn't have to pay taxes, abide by any laws, so obviously, the idea of a nation-state is perfectly fine.The study I linked to is still a study, albeit the site it is on isn't necessarily the greatest source, but it's a study nonetheless. And, unlike you, I prefer to separate immigrants (the legal ones) from illegal immigrants. The reason being, that people who immigrate here legally are less likely to commit crimes. Why would you sign all the papers, and be put "on the grid" so to speak, when all you're going to do is commit a crime in this country? On the other hand, what does an illegal have to lose? See what I'm saying? So obviously, an illegal immigrant is far more likely to commit a crime, especially a violent one, than a legal immigrant. Summing up what I've said, I don't see this problem as complicated as you do. I see it as, we have citizens, immigrants, and illegal immigrants. We also have a problem, of who has the right to vote in the elections of our country. Obviously, it is only logical to allow the citizen the right to vote. Why should an illegal immigrant be allowed to vote? Or even a legal immigrant? The citizen is the only one who should be allowed to vote, because the right to vote was entitled by our country to its citizens, and to no one else. And without the nation-state, where we have a citizen or a non citizen, then we will have no laws because no one will be entitled to follow them. Definition of law-[1]-"A binding custom or practice of a community". Without the "community", (a community of citizens), then there is no law. So I argue that my opponents argument against the laws of voter I.D., because of the "nation-state", is unsound, and that voter I.D.'s are something that this country needs to implement, and should have long ago. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Title: should people be illagal Content: Are you on the side of that they should be illegal or not to be? Cause it sounds like you want people to be illegal..

Title: Effort to regulate our countrys borders Content: its not about paying your way to earn citizenship. you argued that it wasnt easy to be granted citizenship and if people were so willing to pay taxes and become a citizen then why do we have people in our country living here illegally while we pay high taxes ? i dont doubt that these people work as hard but if they want to be here they should undergo the process to get citzenship before coming into our country before they come here for the free ride. and its 100% accurate that their are people here not willing to get their citizenship, just work for labor jobs to bring back money to their country. either undergo the process to ensure our countries saftey and provide security for actual citzens here or get them out of our country

Title: Immigration into the UK should be reduced. Content: Yes. I mean that people who do not contribute and cannot provide for themselves shouldn't be allowed in and that anybody who has entered the country illegally should be deported. If there is an important reason, such as a war, I think that countries with a larger landmass which are more likely to be nearer the source of the conflict should take in those immigrants. However, the number taken in and the length of their stay should be limited. I think this country used to be great but immigration on the whole has been a major contributory factor in a 'fall from grace'. This is not the only factor however.

Title: The United States government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the United Content: P1: The topic says regulation of immigrants TO the U.S, not IN the U.S. That does not mean regulation of United States citizenship. If that were the case, that would be the topic. P2: "notario fraud will prevent an individual who wishes to do so". If notario fraud prevents immigrants from wanting to come here, why would YOU (as pro) want to strengthen regulation against it? That would only make it happen less, which would allow for more immigrants to want to come. That's something that I should be arguing P3: Strengthening the regulation of immigrants TO the U.S. would not allow the "same platforms for immigrants that we have for American citizens", because there would be more control over them (who can come in, the conditions they are allowed in under, etc.) A stronger regulation would deter them from wanting the come. The reason most come to the U.S. is because the immigration system is as is. C: The U.S. government should not substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the U.S.

Title: Immigrants should be eligible to run for office of the President of the United States Content: I'll divide this into 3 parts: 1) My Case2) Con's Syllogism3) Con's case 1) My CaseCon ignores my entire case in favor of an absurd assumption that: "when we offer citizenship to immigrants, we don't need to offer them all rights as well"The government doesn't grant rights to its citizens in bits and pieces. When immigrants are naturalized, they become American citizens with all the same rights as all other US citizens. The only place the constitution uses the word "native-born citizen" in particular is in its presidential eligibility clause. "US Citizenship is not defined by Pro's ideals; it is defined by the US."Con attacks a strawman. I never said it was defined by my ideals. I was using the 14th Amendment which says:All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. [1]With his 2 unsubstantiated claims above, it is Con who is attempting to define citizenship by his own ideals. I don't think Con understands the concept of citizenship. Colonialism & CriminalsCon's case rests on the fact that the law provides security. I have shown that it is misguided and provides no security. Far more dangerous people such as convicted criminals exist in our current pool of presidential candidates. The fact that criminals are allowed to run shows that pre-emptive security is unnecessary in presidential elections. People should decide for themselves who is dangeous and who is not. Con attacks my statements on criminals out of context. My rebuttal to Con's contention about security was that security doesn't increase by allowing criminals but disallowing immigrants to run. It had nothing to do with whether or not criminals should be allowed to run. Con's attempts to differentiate Naturalized US citizens from "Americans" are misleading. They are not mutually exclusive terms. 2) Con's syllogismCon makes a syllogism that seems to work at first glance but is deeply flawed becase it relies on the assumption that naturalized US citizens must not be included under the definition of US success. 1. Changes to Pres. requirements .... likelihood of US successCon doesn't address my point that choosing from all citizens gives a greater likelihood of success than choosing from just 7/8 of it's citizens. Con gives no justification for excluding 1/8 of the US population from the definition of "US success." Extend. 2. Success .... decisions to be made based solely on US interests.Con misrepresents my rebuttal. He COMPLETELY ignores my assertion that the interests of all US citizens count as US interests. By saying that "we agree on the basics" he claims a false concession whereas it is he who conceded by not addressing my rebuttal. 3. People have a natural loyalty.... Con never shows how caring about a nation is dangerous in and of itself. Bush hates Iraq (Con's admission) and dragged the US into a war. Isn't that more dangerous?4. More likely to include foreign interests Bush example: This negates Con's contention and works for my side because a US-born citizen is just as likely to have a personal connection to a country as a Naturalized citizen. Bush hated Iraq so much because of the conflicts his father started with Iraq. Bush was not born in a country like Iran which is an enemy of Iraq. Bush was born in the US, yet he had this intense, emotional response to Iraq because his father had a conflict. His emotions did not serve US interests. Could this have been any worse if Bush was born in Iran? Why is it that being born in the United States is of any importance at all? Personal conflicts are not exclusive to Naturalized citizens. A Naturalized US citizen may love the country of his birth, but a native-born US citizen is just as likely to hate a country that his father had a conflict with. Con wonders how we would know if a person is exceptional. I already answered this by showing how their previous decisions in a position of power as a senator or governor are public. Extend those as Con dropped them. Con never responds to my contention that Naturalized citizens will be more heavily scrutinized than Native-born citizens because people will be cautious with them to begin with. He concedes. It is less likely that a Naturalized US citizen will be able to convince the people to elect him if his real intentions were dishonorable. "The US lost over $ 3 tril and 4000 lives over something that didn’t exist." We lost this because a US-born citizen couldn't put his emotional hate aside. It completely contradicts Con's assertion that Naturalized citizens are dangerous because they have "personal connections." He says they are more likely but so far, all he proved was that immigrants love their country of birth which by itself does not show that they are any more dangerous. Should we stop people whose fathers had been president because it is more likely that they would hold a grudge? Why not? This fits in perfectly with Con's argument and actually makes more sense than preventing immigrants from running. 5. Will not increase US success. Con ignores my rebuttal. I'd like to remind Con that in a debate, unaddressed points count as concessions [2], and if Con brings any of these conceded points back up in the last round when I can't respond, voters are to disregard it. 3) Con's case(a) "[Pro] is suggesting here that the constitution has no place enforcing a rule that will protect the country"- Con appeals to the constitution's right to enforce laws, yet disregards the fact that the law was not written for the reason that he claims. It was written to protect the US from colonization, not from immigrants. - I proved that no protection occurs. It doesn't stop people who are truly dangerous (criminals) nor people with a bundle of confused emotions (Bush). The average risk of the current pool of candidates with criminals and all is the same as, or more than, the average risk with immigrants included. (b) "decision must be based on having the best leadership possible to lead the country, not fulfilling the desires of those who wish to run"- The government has no obligation to provide the "best" leadership. The voters do that. - The government makes a decision based on assumptions which may or may not be true but depend entirely on possible likelihood. That is inherently unjust to people who are incorrectly denied because of the government's assumptions. (c) Grandma analogy: "harms caused by the rare instances of the unexpected outweigh the harms caused by the restrictions themselves." If that is the case, then restrictions should be placed on all US citizens and no one should run for president. Con already showed that even native-born citizens can be dangerous (he made my case for me) and the risk exists regardless of who is running. For that reason the above logic cannot be applied to elections. ConclusionCon's argument relies on strawmanning my position, claiming concessions when there were none, dropping points, and misrepresenting my rebuttals. He could not find an effective argument so instead he makes up his own definition of citizenship - a charge he ironically lays on me. He also does not include naturalized US citizens in his definition of "US success" even though that 1/8 of the population is just as American as the remaining 7/8. I have given considerable reasoning why immigrants are not any more dangerous than the people who are already allowed to run such (criminals and people whose fathers had run before them). There is a certain amount of risk already in our current pool of candidates. Expanding it to include immigrants does not increase the average risk that is inherent in a candidate pool.The voters have the right to vote for who they want. While they may not make the best choice, democracy demands that they make the choice, not the government. For all these reasons, immigrants should be eligible to run for president. The resolution is affirmed. Sources [1] http://bit.ly...[2] http://bit.ly...

Title: Illegal immigrants should be granted the rights of legal citizenship Content: I feel that you are right in a way but, if the immigrants work and abide by the laws and pay their taxes why should they not receive citizenship?

Title: Path to citizenship is about earning citizenship Content: Demetrios Papademetriou, PhD, Co-Founder and President of Migration Policy Institute (MPI): "we should ask unauthorized immigrants to earn their new legal status. Unauthorized immigrants could begin the regularization process by registering with immigration officials and then be given, say, three years in which to qualify. The criteria for regularization should be forward-looking, easily proven, and consistent with what we as a society consider important. Steady employment, paying taxes, speaking English capably and having a clean criminal record are a good start. And the process should a pay for itself by collecting a substantial but reasonable fee from the immigrants who are regularized."[8] The difficult conditions of this path to citizenship, which gives illegal aliens no advantages over legal aliens, provides no incentive for illegal immigration over legal immigration.

Title: Immigration into the UK should be reduced. Content: "anybody who has entered the country illegally should be deported" Wouldn't you want to deportation to be legal and be allowed to deport them by the law. You need to explain how these immigrants are destroying the UK. Going back to my point, why should a country be allowed to not allow anyone to enter the country. There isn't a reason that a great country such as the UK should support a large number of people because of the greatness of the country. The country should not be allowed to exclude people and only allow people born in the UK to live in the UK. People should be allowed to do as they please. If anything, your argument should be about reducing the world's population effectively and ethically instead of just blaming the large amount of immigrants, which is a by product of the world population increasing at too rapid of a rate.

Title: Amend the United States Constitution to allow naturalized US citizens to run for President Content: I see where your coming from. This sounds like a good idea, to let all citizens of America have the ability to become President, but there are reason why the President cannot be a naturalized citizen. Contention 1: Loyalty The Natural Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago found that Americans are the worlds most patriotic people. Gallup found that 1/3 of all Americans are extremely patriotic. These articles are not refering to naturalized citizens, or else they would have stated this. Why is loyalty an issue for becoming President? Well, it is a very important factor when relating to foreign affairs. Hippocampus. org says that out of all the duties of the President, Chief Diplomat and Commander-in-chief are some of them. What if a naturalized citizen, say from Mexico, runs as President and wins the race. And then, Mexico decides to declare war on another one of our allies, say a more important one to us. Who would the President side with? Would he or she decide to fight with the more important one, or with the Mexicans? If he or she sides with the Mexican Government, this action could be seen as biased. Now, whether or not it was, this could greatly reduce that President's leadership and America's hegemony over the world. With only naturally born citizens being allowed to run for President, this eliminates this problem all together, thus ensuring America remains the superpower it is today. You cannot simply trust that a person's loyalty can be changed by saying : "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen". Thats to great of a change for many to take this step, and many could easily say this simply to get into the U. S. It is not discrimination, its survival. This loyalty issue seems to be your biggest point. However hard you try, it is not easy to change loyalities so easily, especially when family and friends may live in the county that the person left. If they want to run for President, allow them to be 'annexed', just like what America did with Hawaii in the 1800's. If they want to become President, the first step would be to become a U. S. territory, similar to Puerto Rico. Then, after a few generations, most of the population of the territory would feel loyal to the U. S. simply because the fly the flag of the U. S. After this, these territories can become states, just like what Hawaii and Alasksa. Through this process, the people of the Earth can run for President of the United States, and America would not be at any threat. Not only would this give them more freedoms, but American Hegemony would be spread. This is the best option availible. By only allowing an individual, not a territory, to shift loyalities. It becomes increasingly difficult to discover where their true loyalties lie. . http://www-news.uchicago.edu... . http://www.presidentsusa.net... . http://www.gallup.com...

Title: Illegal Immigration In California Content: Our government certainly does not protect illegal immigrants' rights over its own citizens but if you have some examples that would be great. Every human being has innate rights, no matter their immigration status.They get rights because they are human. I assume that my opponent is referring to Sanctuary Cities that basically say to illegal immigrants: As long as you're not harming the society, then we're not going to hound for you and try to arrest/deport all of you. Listen, it's not about being Mexican. Mexicans are not the only people coming into the U.S. illegally. Many people come in on visas and then overstay their visa illegally. We get people from India and Nigeria and China. It's not just Mexico. What it's really about is that a majority of illegal immigrants contribute to society. They actually do pay taxes, they get jobs, and create jobs in their communties. Most of them don't come here just to sell drugs. The belief of sanctuary cities is that it's a waste of time/money to try and catch and deport every illegal immigrant. Most of them aren't harming society so using money to get all of them would require a lot of work and the only return is that we have one less illegal immigrant in the country. Which I would say is kind of a waste. I think that illegal immigrants should be treated on a case-by-case basis. We can't lump them all as bad people who we must get rid of RIGHT NOW. Obviously, the ones harming society must go but we have to realize at the end of the day, these are people. Some of them are families, some of them are breadwinners, some of them are children.

Title: Birthright Citizenship should be retained in the United States Content: First off, my opponent should know that his constant assault on character and sharing Pm's should count off for his conduct. I will personally be respectful and polite to my opponent despite his "character". I would like to thank my opponent for starting this argument since this is an excellent topic! ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION .I Well this one is simple, if your parents illegally immigrate here. Then why do you get the same rights as a person who's ancestors sacrificed sweat and blood to create this nation! I would like to ask my opponent if he thinks that fair? .II Now I do support the constitution.. To a point, on topics like immigration. It simply doesn't apply in this age, with illegal immigration from Mexico being an issue. CONCLUSION My main point is simple, illegal immigrants children getting rights for the cost of nothing! Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Effort to regulate our countrys borders Content: First of all, if the reason they cannot afford to become citizens is because they cannot take time off of their low paying jobs back from their home country to learn all the things that the citizenship test entails, they must get here quickly in order to get a job before they starve to death. Secondly they cannot become a citizen once here without a high risk of deportation which has serious consequences when they are returned to their home country. Sure there are some who are not willing to get citizenship but a large majority of illegal immigrants would like nothing more than the security against deportation of a citizenship in the United States. Finally, I fail to see how illegal immigrants are any more dangerous than the legal ones. I would say that the legal ones are often more dangerous than the illegals.

Title: Arizona illegal immigration law Content: Government protection (from illegal immigrants) is a const. right.

Title: Illegal immigrant parents are to blame for having children abroad. Content: Illegal immigrant parents, not the United States government, are to blame for bringing immigrating illegally and deciding to give birth to a child in the United States. The consequences to their children are a result of their folly, not of the government for deciding to end birthright citizenship.

Title: should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship Content: i think that illegal immagrants should not be allowed citezship because they came to this country illegaly. they should have got a green card or a passport so they could come here legaly.

Title: Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Content: Hi! I am Lola and I would like to debate that immigration reform should not include a path to citizenship. On to my first contention, illegal immigrants have already broken U.S. Immigration law by crossing the border illegally. Title 8 U.S. Code section 1325 defines crossing illegally as: Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact. Why should we extend the right of citizenship in our country to a criminal who has willingly broken the law? On to my second contention, the people who crossed the border illegally should not get the benefits of citizenship. Those who entered legally should get the benefits, or at least the status quote. Those who crossed the border illegally should not be rewarded, or at most, get the status quote. They shouldn't"t get the benefit of citizenship in the US. While rights and dignity for these individuals should not be restricted, the path to citizenship is unfair to those who are legally entering and rewards the illegal behavior that enabled them to be living in the U.S. in the first place. On to my third contention, providing pathways to citizenship, especially new pathways, encourages people to migrate illegally to the United States and makes it easier for more people who earn citizenship through the new path to sponsor those who do not yet have it. More people in the US also means that there will be higher demands on social services and welfare. These increased demands on public services will fall particularly hard on state governments. Costs associated with criminal activity also strain government budgets (pay access). And since most undocumented immigrants already file tax returns there is not likely to be any significant increase in tax revenue. Any potential gains in economic activity are offset by a number of factors. First, as more workers become available wages tend to decline because there are more potential workers to hire, allowing companies to pay any interested worker less. Illegal immigrants reduce the wages of an American citizen by 1.6%, which was $90 billion in 2005. This is particularly true in the agriculture sector. Second, increased immigration arguably contributes to deflation because consumers cutback spending in fear that they will lose their jobs to immigrants. And if the lower wages argument is true, there will be even more deflation due to less money available to spend. Third, a central premise of the economy arguments is that we need to increase immigration because the US has a shortage of skilled workers, but this shortage is not significant . A new study claims that this is a myth that needs to be demolished. And, if necessary, workers could work in international waters " or simply be allowed to work in the US without becoming citizens! Conclusion: As a conclusion, immigration reform should NOT include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States because they have already broken the law and shouldn't"t get the benefit of citizenship for it, there is no justice for those who crossed the border legally, and providing pathways to citizenship encourages people to migrate illegally to the United States. So, please give a con ballot. Thank you. :)

Title: Illegal Immigrants Content: As an born bred American Citizen I believe that allowing illegal immigrants into our country then giving them citizenship just like that is beyond wrong especially for those who are currently do the process right so that they may become a legal citizen of the United States. Now I don't want to hate on the Illegal Immigrants due to the fact that being human we strive to live better lives and most of us knowing that the U.S.A even in it's current condition is still very high on the scale for new opportunities, it's just that people have to want it bad enough, I digress but to my point if illegal immigrants were to enter the country it should be only on one term and that is to work. Now people are like oh those illegal are taking our jobs away but in reality if they were to pay attention in life rather than listen down the grape vine they would know that most illegal immigrants take jobs that most Americans wouldn't such as helping farmers pick food, they also pick up trash, and so on. These jobs are looked upon very unfavorably by the tens of millions of Americans. So to end my opinion, I shall state this, Illegal Immigrants under no circumstances should be allowed sanctuary in a country they do not belong to , only and mean only if they have a working visa and are monitored very closely to where they could not just fit into the populous and just disappear. There shall be tight restrictions to what they may do. As for the illegal immigrants that are currently in the country i feel they need to be found and deported to their home countries and be encouraged to become a U.S. citizen but there shall not be any automatic citizenship. You cannot just be forgiven and be granted something that you haven't earned. Only those that follow the rules shall get access and sometimes they don't even fit the standards.

Title: Illegal Immigrants Content: I thank CON for instigating this discussion. (As I understand my requirements) I shall be playing the role of PRO, and shall be attempting to accomplish the following: I must challenge the assertions made by CON, to ensure that his Burden of Proof is being met. It is not obviously a requirement of mine to propose any counter argument, (based on the R1 instigation) although I will do so I will defend the claim that CON's overall argument (from R1) is not VALID In addition, I will argue that many of the statements made by CON in R1 are moot (already being done), or are nonsensical. I want to clearly state that one of his positions is granted at the outset: (that there should be citizenship requirements that are respected by prospective applicants.) I will not defend the position that there should be no such requirements. I have accepted this debate in order to test the statements made in R1. If subsequent statements are made that retract the R1 argument, then this should be seen as a concession to myself. If I am in error in my understanding of my requirements in this contest, then I invite CON to detail my misunderstandings in the comments section, and I will (of course) respect any agreements made there. In the meantime, I will outline CON's R1 argument, which I will scrutinize: P1: Illegal immigrants should be allowed into the US in order to work If illegal immigrants were to enter the country it should be only on one term and that is to work. P2: Illegal immigrants should not be allowed sanctuary abroad Illegal Immigrants under no circumstances should be allowed sanctuary in a country they do not belong to P2(A): Unless they have a "working Visa" [unless] they have a working visa and are monitored very closely P3: Yet the illegal immigrants allowed into the country under P1 should be rounded up the illegal immigrants that are currently in the country need to be found and deported to their home countries P4: there should be citizenship requirements (this is granted, and so will not be analyzed or challenged)The conclusion is far too disjointed and obscure for me to discern from this. I see a number of possible unstated conclusions that may be drawn from the R1 opening, and so I do not want to play ventriloquist in attempting to articulate what the exact consequence of these premises might be. My position for this debate will therefore will be to defend the assertion that the R1 argument, as presented, has severe structural problems. I look forward to R2.

Title: THW give Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants Content: Hi, My debate will be focused on a recent issue, illegal immigrant amnesty. For this debate, I will be affirming. I will be arguing why we should grant illegal immigrants amnesty. The negating will answer why we should not. A few terms- 'THW'- This House would 'Amnesty' - Amnesty for illegal immigrants is defined as a governmental pardon for violating policies related to immigration. 'Illegal Immigration' The process of migrating to another nation without any form of valid documentation, and crossing the border anyway. Each round will have 6,000 words max. We will have 4 rounds, each 24 hours to respond. At the end, there will be a 3 day voting period. Open voting is allowed. I look forward to debating with you

Title: Deporting millions of illegal immigrants from America would result in a humanitarian crisis Content: Sending millions of illegal immigrants back to their home countries would result in a humanitarian crisis, particularly in Mexico. The best response, therefore, is to better integrate them into the fabric of society. Providing them with driver's licenses fits into this moral course of action.

Title: Illegal Immigrants Content: Sadly, I seem to be speaking to an empty room. I will argue that the R1 argument by CON cannot be sustained as presented, and must be modified. This is a breakdown of the argument: P1: Illegal immigrants should be allowed into the US in order to work If illegal immigrants were to enter the country it should be only on one term and that is to work.Here, the key error is the inclusion of the word “illegal.” CON seems to consider any immigrant to be “illegal,” which presumably includes those legal immigrants who come into the US on a work or student visa. P2: Illegal immigrants should not be allowed sanctuary abroad Illegal Immigrants under no circumstances should be allowed sanctuary in a country they do not belong to It is difficult to understand how immigrants could be allowed sanctuary in their home country. The statement is paradoxical, and may not be true. P2(A): Unless they have a "working Visa" [unless] they have a working visa and are monitored very closely If they are in the US on a work Visa, then the person is not here illegally. P3: Yet the illegal immigrants allowed into the country under P1 should be rounded up the illegal immigrants that are currently in the country need to be found and deported to their home countries This conflicts with P1, where CON states that ‘illegal’ immigrants should be allowed into the country in order to work. P4: there should be citizenship requirements (this is granted, and so will not be analyzed or challenged) Concluding analysis: CON makes an error when he groups all immigrants into the category of ‘illegal immigrants.’ The argument that was presented cannot be reconciled with itself; immigrants cannot be simultaneously allowed into the US in order to work, and still be rounded up and deported. Additionally, those with valid, legal clearance to enter and visit the United States can no longer be considered ‘illegal.’ Moreover, many of the positions in the R1 argument are already law, or represent only the opinion of CON.

Title: Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship Content: 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.

Title: Path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the US Content: Statements against path to citizenship for illegal immigrants

Title: Illegal Immigration Is Bad Content: However, I never mentioned taking Illegal Immigrants out of the U.S. I was simply talking that we should stop letting them in. If you do want a solution to removing all Illegal Immigrants from the U.S., then the best solution is to just make them legit citizens.

Title: Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants Content: Citizenship is something that should be earned.

Title: Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants Content: Birthright citizenship exacerbates dilemmas around illegal immigration.

Title: Effort to regulate our countrys borders Content: These people are just as hardworking as the rest of us, more in some cases. That they should be denied citizenship and entrance to our country IS unfair but they would be willing to pay taxes for the security of citizenship. Sure they come for economic reasons, but the opportunity here allows them to earn the money they need. It is reasonable for these reasons, and it is no less safe than the drug lords who can afford to get here legally.

Title: The United States should not grant citizenship to immigrants if they cannot speak English Content: My opponent says that potential new citizens should learn english for their own sakes. He also concedes that the English requirement would be waived for children and for deaf people who know sign language. Perhaps then it would be enough to just encourage immigrants to learn English? Perhaps free lessons or volunteers could run conversation classes. There's no need for a language test on citizenship.

Title: illegal immigrants should have paths of citizenship Content: It should be pretty short. Pro says that these people are just as important as us, however he fails to say why. I will await his explanation in round two. Pro says they should have a clear path of citizenship, yet does not explain exactly what that means. A major flaw in his argument is the statement "They work in horrible condi(ti)ons for very cheap labors and still have to pay high taxes. " That makes no since. Lots of Illegals don't pay all the taxes they would have to pay if they were legal. Also, just because someone is legal does not mean they don't have to work in these same environments. I fail to see how this helps Pro. I ask my opponent to elaborate before we go any further. I'd like to see if this debate is worth it before writing an in depth response. Thank you.

Title: Effort to regulate our countrys borders Content: The problem here is not in border regulation, which would only increase our taxes which are high enough already. What needs to happen here is for it to become easier to become a citizen of the United States. Immigration is the process of people coming to live in another country, and if they want to live here why shouldn't they? What makes someone who has immigrated here from another country different from those born here? These people do want to be citizens, they just can't be due to current immigration policy. If they were granted citizenship they would not be "stealing" jobs, they would just be the capitalist work force, since capitalism is a system in which he who offers the best product for the lowest price (in this case labor) wins. With more citizens and less immigration regulation, we have less government jobs which means lower taxes and more people to pay those taxes, which means even lower taxes than before.

Title: Immigration into the UK should be reduced. Content: Immigration into the UK should be regulated. That is what you are getting at. The regulation of immigration will help the country. However, there is no reason why people should be not allowed to enter the country. It is a great country and depriving people of that ability would be unfair.

Title: the system Content: illegal immigrants should not be allowed the same benefits as persons that are legal

Title: In the US, illegal immigrants should not be deported. Content: ac1. They came into this country Illegally, so my opponent, pro, wants them to be rewarded citizenship, because they broke the law. Jobs are lost by American-born citizens to the illegal immigrants, since they do not have to be payed minimum wage (because they are not legal in the first place). ac2. The cost to the citizens, taxpayers, and the government to keep them is extravagant and not worth it. No economic benefits are gained from keeping illegal immigrants. (Reasoning right below) #1 57 percent of all households that are led by an immigrant (legal or illegal) are enrolled in at least one welfare program. Taking money (if illegal then without paying taxes) from the government and the taxpayers, for an extended period of time, which could eventually cost more than deportation. #2 According to one study, the cost to U.S. taxpayers of legalizing current illegal immigrants would be approximately 6.3 trillion dollars over the next 50 years. (even more money stolen from taxpayers.) #3 The Obama administration has distributed flyers that tell illegal immigrants that their immigration status will not be checked when they apply for food stamps. #4 The Department of Homeland Security says that it has lost track of a million people that have entered this country but that appear never to have left. #5 One out of every five children living in Los Angeles County has a parent that is in the country illegally. #6 In one recent year, taxpayers in Los Angeles County spent 600 million dollars on welfare for children of illegal immigrants. #7 Thanks to illegal immigration, California"s overstretched health care system is on the verge of collapse. Dozens of California hospitals and emergency rooms have shut down over the past decade because they could not afford to stay open after being endlessly swamped by illegal immigrants who were simply not able to pay for the services that they were receiving. As a result, the remainder of the health care system in the state of California is now beyond overloaded. This had led to brutally long waits, diverted ambulances and even unnecessary patient deaths. At this point, the state of California now ranks dead last out of all 50 states in the number of emergency rooms per million people. #8 It has been estimated that U.S. taxpayers spend $12,000,000,000 a year on primary and secondary school education for the children of illegal immigrants. (even more money than deportation) #9 It is estimated that illegal aliens make up approximately 30 percent of the population in federal, state and local prisons and that the total cost of incarcerating them is more than $1.6 billion annually. #10 The federal government actually has a website that teaches immigrants how to sign up for welfare programs once they arrive in the United States. #11 The Obama administration recently introduced the very first "unmanned" border station along the Texas-Mexico border. #12 The Obama administration has sued individual states such as Arizona that have tried to crack down on illegal immigration. #13 According to the FBI, there are approximately 1.4 million gang members living in our cities. Illegal immigration has been one of the primary factors that has fueled the growth of these gangs. #14 As I have written about previously, there are only about 200 police officers assigned to Chicago"s Gang Enforcement Unit to handle the estimated 100,000 gang members living in the city. #15 Mexican drug cartels make approximately 6.6 billion dollars a year"exporting" illegal drugs to the United States. #16 It is an open secret that Mexican drug cartels are openly conducting military operations inside the United States. The handful of border patrol agents that we have guarding the border are massively outgunned and outmanned. #17 According to the Justice Department"s National Drug Intelligence Center, Mexican drug cartels were actively operating in 50 different U.S. cities in 2006. By 2010, that number had skyrocketed to 1,286. #18 Overall, more than 55,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico since 2006. That same level of violence will eventually show up in major U.S. cities unless something dramatic is done about illegal immigration. #19 It is being projected that the Senate immigration bill will bring 33 million more people to the United States over the next decade. http://www.infowars.com... c1. My opponent is obviously speaking only of legal immigrants. Illegal immigrants rarely pay taxes. Should we broadcast a message to the rest of the world that anyone that can find a way to enter this country and somehow get to a "sanctuary city" can sign up for a plethora of welfare benefits and live a life of leisure at the expense of hard working American citizens? Yes, those questions sound absurd, but what I have just described will essentially be official U.S. government policy if the immigration bill going through Congress becomes law. And unfortunately, Democrats now say that they have the Republican votes that they need to get "immigration reform" through the House of Representatives. If this amnesty bill becomes law, it will encourage even more illegal immigration and it will be one more step toward making the U.S. border essentially meaningless. c2. BoP is still on pro.

Title: english should be our official language Content: ok.. first of all: were not debating on illegal immigrants, were debating on whether or not the us should have English be our official language. so, i'm my argument i'm perfectly correct. in your first argument you said : "The first step to reverse the evil of inclusivity is to establish the language by which we exclude people. Voting Pro on this topic allows the government to start excluding people from society." well your actually hurting your argument because why would we want to stop people from coming into the USA? i get the over-populazation bit, but really? "evil"? your second argument says that immigrants will not want to come to the us because they would feel excluded... thats exactly what i'm saying! if we have our official language people would feel excluded and not want to support the united states, therefor our allies like spain, germany, france, would all feel excluded and we don't want that kind of tension with in the united nations. Also, if illegal immigrants want to become legal they a required to learn english anyway so theres not point. so, in your response please try and stick to the subject.

Title: Illegal Immigration Content: Make an argument... Illegal immigrants should be allowed in America and legalized because then they will still be working and paying taxes. On top of that, to buy a house without an American social security number forces you to commit social security fraud to buy a house. These are hard working people who deserve a good life and to escpe from what they had to sffer through in their theird world country. - Illegal immigration can be summed up very simply... it's ILLEGAL! + So was a black man marrying a white woman, harboring a Japanese person, etc. Something illegal is not something bad all the time. - You wouldn't know first hand the type of effect that illegal immigration has on our economy. You may say that Georgia has tons of illegals, but I've been there and have seen that you're illegal immigrant problem is on a small scale as opposed to being from Texas and especially West Texas where illegal immigrants are seen everyday, everywhere. + Who cares who has more illegals? Georgia has a significant number and if I lived in Australia I would be abke to debate this debate still. - I completely agree that everyone should have an opportunity to work and to provide for their family. I also would say that it's a privilege to be an American citizen and not a God-given right. You're idea of legalizing illegal immigrants is immature and very selfish. + Can you please make arguments iunstead of insults? - What do you say to those that have followed our laws and our statutes to try to become a U.S. citizen? In some cases it takes years to become a U.S. citizen and for someone to enter our nation illegally and reap the benefits of our nation is wrong. I'm proud for those that work their hardest to become a U.S. citizen. They have to learn our culture, customs, and traditions and because of that they know that the American life is a life of integrity, honor, and value. Illegal immigrants enter into our nation to benefit themselves. + We have to think logically. Some things are not fair. And things always modernize. What about the slaves who were not freed? Should we enslave all blacks because the formers had to endure hardship? - I believe that to be a "true" American you must contribute something to this nation. + Tell that to the welfare line. - That's not what they have on their minds. + Illegals are typically very hardworking people. - Illegals do not pay taxes. + If we legalise them, they will pay taxes by law. - They freeload off of hardworking Americans. + This is just a rude stereotype and not a fact. Most illegals work very hartd for their families. - When you turn 16 you might understand this. + Im not insulting you. I wish you would grant the same thing to me. - I'm ready to hear your argument about how they do work that Americans won't do. It's not true. + How are illegals not starving? If all illegals dont work and are inelligible for welfare how are they not all dead? PLEASE MAKE AN ARGUMENT AND GET SOME PROOF FOR YOUR STEREOTYPICAL ARGUMENTS IF ILLEGALS ARE LEGALIZED THEY WILL PAY TAXES AND LOWER SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD. ALSO THESE PEOPLE DESERVE TO LIVE IN A PLACE WHERE THEIR KIDS CAN HAVE OPPURTUNITES AND TEY CAN EAT EVERYDAY. THESE ARE HARDWORKING AMERICANS.

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

Title: Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship to the undocumented currently living in US Content: DO NOT GIVE A REBUTTAL YET. I would love to have a full debate so only accept if you will participate in each rounds. Comments are welcome and much appreciated. This was also Public Forum topic in December. Pro As the inscription on the statue of liberty reads, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. " Because I believe in the words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty we must stand in affirmation of today's resolution. Resolved: Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United States. I support this stance with the following contentions. 1) A path to citizenship yields many benefits A) Potential for major GDP growth In August of this year the White House released a study reporting that providing a path to citizenship to the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States would create a 1.4 trillion dollar GDP boost if the undocumented acquire legal status in a one year period while working towards acquiring citizenship. This is through the undocumented paying federal taxes that they are currently not paying. . http://www.whitehouse.gov... B) Job creation In a separate study done by Robert Lynch, a professor and chairman of the Department of Economics at Washington University, a path to citizenship will lead to the creation of over 200,000 US jobs in the United States annually. We will see these jobs being created because helping these people acquire citizenship will allow them to start up their own businesses. . http://www.americanprogress.org... C) A path to citizenship reduces identity theft According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 75 percent of working-age of the undocumented use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment. The study also showed that illegal immigration and high levels of identity theft go hand-in-hand. Eight of the 10 states with the highest percentage of undocumented in their respective total population are among the top 10 states in identity theft (Arizona, California, Florida, Texas, Nevada, New York, Georgia, and Colorado). As this evidence shows, the undocumented, when unable to obtain their unique identity, will resort to taking other peoples identity. 2) Often times the living conditions in the U. S. are much better than immigrants home countries A) Human Rights Seyla Benhabib, Chair of Political Sciences at Yale University, wrote in her book "The Rights of Others" that "if conditions are so bad in a person"s native country that they become willing to risk their legality in order to survive their right to survival, in moral terms, holds as much weight as a country's right to secure its borders against migrants. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as signed into law in 1948 upholds that basic principle, that Benhabib highlights, in Article 14 stating "All persons have the right to seek asylum in another state. " Benhabib, "The Rights of Others" 2007 B) Providing opportunity for undocumented children Current laws do allow for undocumented children to attend school grades K-12 however most undocumented children do not receive a secondary education unlike their classmates who (75%) go on to attend college. By creating a path to citizenship we are allowing these children, who mind you were brought to this country at a young age, to live to their full potential thus creating future potential business innovations and future jobs. . http://p.washingtontimes.com... 3) A path to citizenship provides solvency to illegal immigration A) A path to citizenship is the most effective way of fighting illegal immigration. Short of removing all border restrictions completely it is impossible to eliminate the presence of all undocumented people from living in our country. However a path to citizenship does offer some temporary solvency while still having long term economic benefits. About 1.3 million undocumented immigrants began their process to a path to citizenship by 1989, just three years after the reform. This is roughly 41% of the undocumented immigrants where living in the United States at the time. . http://www.immigrationpolicy.org... B) The undocumented want citizenship In a survey done by the Pew Hispanic Research center 87% of illegal immigrants said they would like to become US citizens. The overwhelming majority not only shows a want to assimilate but a desire to become part of the country and progress our economy as well. . http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org... It is for these reasons we must stand in affirmation of the resolution resolved and I urge a Pro ballot in today's debate. Thank You.

Title: Open Borders for Living/Travelling Content: If we open our borders, then terrorists can go in and terrorize our citizens. Illegal Immigrants will come in here with no intent of becoming citizens and live off welfare and food stamps. You say that we should be able to go wherever we want. You are proposing that we allow drug dealers to come into this country and trade drugs. National Security will be threanted because Terrorists and spies will come in here and kill innocent children and take military secrets. In our Bill of rights, no where does it say that we can go wherever we want. I will wait for your response. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Governments of resource-rich nations should impose high taxes on mining and extraction Content: Government's Obligation to Benefit Citizens

Title: Everyone living in the US should have the right to vote, not just citizens. Content: No because again, if they do not like the current outcome of the election they can go back to their own countries. The outcome of the presidential elections or even small elections like who will be the county sheriff should be left up to those who are the citizens of this country. If you want to vote in this country you should make the commitment of becoming a citizen. Until then you can enjoy the country but not make desicions.Not only that but the susceptibility of fraud and turning the tables could be very present. Those from different countries could come to this country to vote. By the way we need to stop encouraging immigration. This country needs to become an isolationist nation with little immigration because these people, specifically from latin america, are taking our jobs and sucking up on welfare benefits. Having things like the ability to vote whenever they want will increase this problem

Title: The United States Federal Government should implement an open door policy. Content: *note: For some reason I thought I had one more day on the time limit of last round, so here is the argument that would have been posted there. First off, you began your argument with, "I never said that the taxation of these immigrants would have high returns. " To that I would have to say that you simply just nullified your own argument regarding that immigrants would contribute a significant amount of income to the nation. Also, you seemed to put a heavy emphasis on how the government would make more money, such as when you said, "Increased Government Revenue. Now this is a rather simple concept to grasp, more citizens means more tax revenue, simple yes? Now you may be wondering "Why should I care if the government is making more money? ". You should care. One, it gives the government more leverage on taxing, for example, lets say in the next 30 years there is a high influx of immigrants (50 million), the government can lower taxes on everyone for it will still be able to keep the revenue it already has, meaning less taxes for everyone, which for most people, is a good thing. Or if the government decides its time to start paying back that debt, if we had more citizens this would allow a higher tax revenue, this new found money can be used to pay of debt. Not only that but depending on the number of immigrants we could increase the budgets of some government agencies. So in summary, more immigrants=more citizens which equals to a higher tax revenue. " So what I get out of this is that you admit that my points regarding immigrants not directly contributing to a larger treasury are all valid, and you concede to them. Now referring to the story that you told about your family, with you as a primary source, all I have to say to that is that this is anecdotal information, and therefore holds no ground. If I were to find one immigrant that I knew of that was a murderer, and generalized that because they were a murderer all other immigrants are murderers as well, you would rightly say that this is wildly inaccurate, so therefore I make the same claim against your anecdote. I don"t deny that your family works hard, or that there are other immigrants that have made a good life for themselves, but your generalization of immigrants based upon your own family simply cannot be taken in as fact. Regarding my opponent stating that my argument towards the different cultures didn"t fit with the topics of government and economy, I would simply disagree. Because these people are not of similar cultures, things become much more expensive. They will have a much harder time finding work, as well, there will be increased expenses for government in order to help and protect these people, by doing things such as adding translations, special regulations, and increased diversity training and rules. As well there are many hidden costs in the form of police discrimination and misrepresentation of these minorities. Along with the carrying capacity argument that I made, all I have to say is that it was misinterpreted. I"m not referring to the carrying capacity of the United States economy, I was referring to the carrying capacity of the welfare system. How much more money can the United States really spend in order to support a massive influx of people? Now onto what my opponent was saying about social security being a time bomb. This bomb is going to explode eventually, of that there is no doubt, so we are left with a choice, do we let it go off naturally with minimal problems, or do we prolong this dangerous ponzi scheme until we simply cannot continue it, in which case it collapses anyways, but this explosion will lead to a crash bigger than any other crash any nation has ever seen. This is something that no one wants to see, so let"s end this Ponzi Scheme now, before it gets too big, and it becomes too late. Then you attempted to refute my economic argument regarding how immigrants would have adverse effects on the economy. First off let me say that the type of economics you describe in your argument tend to sound particularly Keynesian, a school of economic thought that one could argue has caused a multitude of problems with modern economies, such as massive government spending and never before seen levels of debt. Keynesianism puts an extreme emphasis on spending as a means to grow the economy, but it ignores other, just as important, aspects of the economy, such as savings. Spending isn"t all that matters in an economy, as well with recent trade unions such as NAFTA, money is much more liquid across borders. The individuals that would come to America can still buy American goods within their own nation, free trade has allowed for this to happen. Now we must also take into account your statement about jobs not being static, which is true, however government regulation has made it much harder to create new employment opportunities. Regulation such as the minimum wage makes it increasingly difficult to enter into the job force, which puts an increasing amount of stress on the welfare system. To sum up, we have to deal with this low birthrate problem in a different way than simply letting even more people in, which would just lead to an inevitable crash when the new block reaches retirement age. The incoming individuals will incur a net loss of the nation's economic welfare due to their inability to be used as a significant source of tax revenue, their inevitable use of the nation"s scarce resources through an inefficient welfare system, and the increased costs of the immigrants adapting to already established systems that are held dear by the inhabitant population. Overall an Open-Door Policy would be detrimental due to the existence of the welfare system. *Fixed links and new sources . http://www.reuters.com... . http://ec.europa.eu... . http://www.nationaljournal.com... . http://www.theatlantic.com... . http://openborders.info... . http://www.forbes.com... . http://www.themoneyillusion.com... . http://www.economist.com... . http://www.rense.com...

Title: It is not feasible to deport millions of illegal immigrants from the United States Content: It is not possible to deport between 10 and 12 million illegal immigrants. Therefore, integration is the best option. Offering illegal immigrants driver's licenses is in line with this course of action.

Title: Rescind the Automatic Granting of US Citizenship to Anyone Born in the US of Non Citizen Parents. Content: Cons objections to my proposal are based upon a situation in which the U . S. government is taken over by racist politicians appointing corrupt judges who strip the citizenship and deport those who fail to meet their ethnic preferences. Should that situation come to pass, this entire debate would be moot. In such a dystopian nation all laws and constitutional protections would lose their force. I'm assuming a more likely governing climate, similar to the past 50+ years. I would distinguish between the child of a parent who comes to the US for the express purpose of birthing here so as to gain citizenship before returning to their home country; and that of a child whose mother births here after seeking asylum from horrendous conditions. Those are very different situations and should be treated differently. The more undeserved citizenships we grant the less that will ultimately be available for the truly needy.

Title: Allowing Illegal Immigrations To Still Get Benefits Content: Fair warning: I wrote this at 3am, so expect some incoherency. C1) Incoherent Pro's plan does not make any sense. How is it possible for the *government* to directly hand out benefits to *illegal* immigrants while they're still classified as illegally residing in the US? The government, as the upholder of the law, would be obligated to round up and deport every single illegal immigrant that showed up to its administrative offices to collect benefits. Pro's plan is impossible to implement, and thus it doesn't even warrant consideration. C2) Cost One exhaustive study by the Heritage foundation finds that if all illegal immigrants were to be given amnesty, it would cost the state an additional $106 billion dollars per year [1] due to the discrepancy between how much the now-legal immigrants will pay in taxes and how much money in benefits they eat up. However, the key difference between Pro's plan and amnesty is that under Pro's plan, immigrants remain illegal and thus do not have to pay any taxes; this means that the true cost of providing illegal immigrants with benefits is even higher than $106 billion, perhaps closer to $200 billion. Now further consider the fact that the very act of providing benefits to illegal immigrants attracts even *more* illegal immigrants in even *greater* numbers. America has better work conditions, higher wages, and greater job availability than almost every country in the Western Hemisphere; that itself is already plenty of motivation to try surmounting the obstacles blocking entry into the US. By going even further and paying the illegal immigrants federal benefits, the US would basically become a guaranteed ticket to financial security for the average lower-class Mexican worker. We can look to academic analyses of the effects of amnesty to see that generous immigration policies such as Pro's plan do, indeed, lead to substantial increases in illegal immigration [2]. The point of all this is that providing illegal immigrants benefits, all things taken together, could easily cost close to half a trillion dollars. Considering that the current amount of money spent on such benefits is about $900 billion [1], this is an *enormous* increase in government expenditures, which will inevitably translate to a higher tax burden on the American populace, more federal debt, and funds being diverted from important areas like education to make ends meet. The monetary costs of providing benefits to illegal immigrants would be hugely detrimental. C3) Unjust By giving illegal immigrants governmental benefits, the state is basically rewarding them for breaking the law, and at the considerable expense of all the state's legal residents. In other words, the policy Pro is advocating is completely and utterly unjust -- a travesty against the American population, whose well-being is supposed to be the government's *priority*. For that reason alone, we should reject the policy proposed in the resolution I'll leave it at that for now. The resolution is negated. Back to Pro. [1] . http://www.heritage.org... [2] . http://www.nationalreview.com...

Title: Rescind the Automatic Granting of US Citizenship to Anyone Born in the US of Non Citizen Parents. Content: I have no objection to a liberal policy that grants U.S. citizenship to every deserving applicant. My objection is to the automatic nature of the current system. It has led to, among other things, businesses offering tour packages to pregnant foreigners for the express purpose of giving birth on US soil. See http://articles.latimes.com.... It has also led to the practice of undocumented people coming into the US in order to have children who eventually, using compassion based applications, bring the rest of their family members into the country. I"m not totally opposed to that either, only that every nation needs to have some measure of control of whom it allows into the country to receive the benefits of citizenship as well as the responsibilities. Otherwise we run the risk of eventually repeating the current Greek experience where a government is totally overwhelmed by a flood of refugees. As to the examples you provided, I would support laws offering citizenship to every high school graduate who has not been convicted of major crimes. I want a system that welcomes people but, that should be a system, not an open unguarded door.

Title: why shouldnt immigrants be able to go to collages or universitys?! Content: citizen ship is stupid in my views...we shouldnt stand as a country (id be proud to do tho)we should stand as citizens of the world not countrys but my point is that illegal immigrants shouldnt have to be citizens.....dou peopl feel threatin by our bothers and neighboors or something?these people have the abiliy to find cures for illness we havnt fond yet,they hve the ability to reach the stars to not only serve our country but our world.....but our goverment stands in their way

Title: why shouldnt immigrants be able to go to collages or universitys?! Content: i agree with you on citizenship. but until citizenship is abolished, everyone has to follow the rules. that includes immigrants.

Title: Immigration Issue Content: Opposition would like to submit 'immigration' as point which cannot be ignored in the present context of the debate as foreign nationals who come without legal work permit and stay in the country and work there, hamoer the interest of the citizens of the country in terms of job employment. And then they want voting rights to have a better say in the community! Clearly if we follow the proposition's proposal, the already increasing problem of immigration which has literally plagued the developed and semi-developed countries would then become a full fledged problem. If we grant them a path to citizenship and hence ensuring that right to vote is also guaranteed, following problems are bound to arise: a) it grants amnesty to criminals b) it disrespects all the legal immigrants who are still waiting for a legitimate citizenship c) legalized aliens are unlikely to be patriotic Therefore giving right to vote whether it be local election or national elections to foreign nationals specially in case of immigrants is disrespect to all the citizens of that particular country who have actually earned their citizenship rather than illegal immigrants who seek a short cut to land of opportunity. By providing them right to vote it will hamper national interest as they will misuse their votes and create a state of political turmoil in the country.

Title: Should Trump Support "Dreamers" Content: First off I would like to say there are probably a lot of illegals that are hardworking good people that are here trying to make a better life, but we should not negate the fact that illegals are lawbreakers, why should we as a nation of laws give privileges to criminals. Trump should prohibit the dreamer act because it encourages illegals to enter are country knowing that they have an opportunity to seize citizenship, America already has an immigration problem we don't to add fuel to the fire. To your point that deporting these illegals is futile and expensive the truth is if they are deported for breaking the law they have a chance to enter the country the legal way, many of these illegals are not here on good merit but take the opportunity to take advantage of social security and the welfare system, illegals themselves cost the U.S billions of dollars, we even have to pay for refugees that have entered the country. We already allow 10,000 refugees into America where do we say enough is enough, We shouldn't award those who break the law, if their serious about assimilating into are society then they should take the necessary steps to become a citizen. Finally how can you determine what illegals are good and those who are bad, many illegals might have not been caught for other crimes unrelated to entering illegally. You can't just build bridges you have to secure the country and the natural born citizens should benefit not those who break the law.

Title: Denying illegal immigrants driver's licenses does not address the problem of illegal immigration Content: - The illegal immigrant problem in the United States cannot be resolved by mass deportation. The only other course of action is to integrate these populations. Offering them driver's licenses is an important part in this step.

Title: Border Defence Content: I will now respond to them. < . http://www.immigralaw.com...... there are not unlimited opportunities to immigrate to the United States. Knowing that not all of them will be accepted, these people illegally immigrate. >> That is why people illegally immigrate. However, for reasons posted above and below this, that is not right. < > I believe in your value of criterion but not in how you're tying it to illegal immigrants. All people are not equal. I merely said that people should all have equal chances. Then I said "I will go into more points over this later". After that I said "However by letting people into the U. S. illegally they do gain more rights than others. " This by default means that the immigrants gain more rights and your value of criterion is not met. Also your statement about what I have to do in this case is correct. As I already mentioned above, law-abiding and tax paying citizens deserve better treatment than those who don't. A felon does not deserve the same treatment with certain things as an ordinary citizen who doesn't break the law. < > I merely said that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes and if you support them then you support them not paying taxes. As in Q (you) is to P (illegal immigrants) which is to X (non-tax paying). Because Q affects P which affects X you are affecting X through P. Illegal immigrants do not pay taxes, it's great that you think they should, but that's not what happens. < > You're still conceding to my point. Hypothetically, let's say that what you said is true. It doesn't matter, as long as some illegal immigrants have jobs, then some legal U. S. citizens won't have them. As in Q (illegal immigrants with jobs) affects P (jobs available) which affects X (number of jobs available). So as stated before, Q affects X through P. < . http://www.progressiveu.org......). I refute the validity of this site. It is extremely biased, has no evidence at all, and last but mot certainly not least: is a blog. It is a thoroughly invalid source in basically every possible manner. My point, "a lack of illegal immigrants would devastate the US economy," still stands. >> The site is biased. It is card-stacked information but true. However, my main reason was to use that site to sum up my opinion on illegal immigrants and the economy. My opinion doesn't have any back-up source and neither does my opponent's point (illegal immigrants leaving would devestate the economy) because neither of our scenario's has ever happened. For me it is basic math. The economy gives money to workers in paychecks and the workers put the money back into the economy by buying stocks, food, housing, etc. It also makes money off of taxing incomes. First, illegal immigrants do not pay income tax. This right there takes money away from the U. S. economy. Second, illegal immigrants will often send their money back home to their families in a different country. As in money from our economy goes to the illegal immigrants, and then to their families which then put it into their own economy's. This does not help our economy, it actually hurts it. As in P (illegal immigrants) send Q (money from U. S. economy) to X (family) who use the money in Y (their own economy). No where in this does our economy benefit, our economy actually gets hurt. Above I mentioned "You are correct in saying no people deserve to have more rights than others. However by letting people into the U. S. illegally they do gain more rights than others. They don't have to pay income taxes and all public services like garbage collection and education are paid for them with legal U. S. citizen tax dollars. I consider not paying taxes a privelege. So I ask my opponent why it's fair for someone to come here illegally and pay no taxes, while being supported by the taxes of legal citizens. " You did nothing to refute this argument, thereby forfeiting it for that round. Now to elaborate on my points that I had mentioned. I just meant them to sum up what I had already mentioned in the previous round. However as my opponent asked I will elaborate. 1) Higher unemployment As I have already stated above this is simple math. Jobs do not just pop out of thin air. If we let 5 million people into the country, we have to have the number of jobs that is enough to support those people. Do 5 million jobs just pop up out of thin air? No. There are some jobs they can get that will be open but in other circumstances they will take the jobs of legal tax-paying citizens. This is not right or should it ever be. 2) Economy weakens If our economy gives money to illegal immigrants who don't pay taxes (one way economy makes money off of us) and then sends more of that money to family back home in a different economy we lose money. The other economy gains money and we lose it. 3) Government protecting it's own people A government's job is to protect it's own people first. This argument is simply a matter of fairness. If you're starving and cold on the streets it's not right that your government should be helping people in other countries with the same problems before you. Whose government are you if you protect other people over your own? I lookw forward to my opponent's next response as I'm sure it will be a well-planned and organized one.

Title: Immigration and Amesty Content: It is unfair that immigrants get to stay in the United States because their children were born here. Although their children are technically citizens, illegal immigrants should not be able to stay in the Nation and send their kids to public school paid for by the taxes of citizens. "Although almost three-quarters of the children of illegal immigrants were born in the United States and are therefore citizens, had their parents not entered the U.S. illegally these children likely wouldn't be in U.S. public schools and wouldn't require taxpayer funding. Thus, it's fair to say that their education cost stems from their parents' illegal entry into this country" (Izumi). A lot of the tax problems in the school system stem from the fact that parents are not paying for their children's' education and rely on citizens to pay for them. The costs for schools to function and to maintain is increasing. Many new schools need to be built and there is no money in the system. "Capital costs for school construction may have increased at a higher rate because of the influx of children of illegal immigrants" (Izumi). The need for new schools is because there are illegal immigrants coming to the nation and there is not room for them, and there is a shortage of money because these immigrants are not paying money to support the schools that they are sending their children to. Izumi, Lance T. "Educating Illegal Immigrants Costly." Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 18 Aug 2010: A.13. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 28 Oct 2013.

Title: Should citizens be involved in law enforcements Content: Citizens should be involved in law enforcements. It unites the country and allows them to achieve things that would be unachieveable alone

Title: Illegal Immigrants should be deported, anchor babies or not. Content: "Illegal immigrants have not immigrated legally, usually don't acquire citizenship, and live in the shadows. If an illegal immigrant gets in a car crash, they will be driving away and you have to pay for it." I showed a study that showed that immigrants if anything reduced the crime rate, do you have a source that shows what you claim? "Illegal immigrants of some kinds are not used to paying taxes. If they didn't pay taxes in Mexico, will they pay them here? Illegals, as I said, live in the shadows, and pay much less, if any taxes." My point was that much tax is unavoidable so it's meaningless if they choose to pay it or not and much of that money they don't pay goes to fuel the economy anyway and so will end up as tax. "False, if we have open borders (Which we pretty much do right now), they can come across with no consequences and continue their crimes in America." No this debate was over the migrants not the larger consequences of having an insecure border with a developing nation. Therefore this is irrelevant. "Sure, we do have that obligation. And yes, we should accept legal immigrants. However, ILLEGAL immigrants entering the country is unacceptable. They need to go through the process and become legal. Otherwise, you're basically asking for criminals to be in our country." The legal process is exceptionally difficult, I suggest you look at what it actually takes to get a US visa [1] let alone a permanent one. Most people have no choice but to live in mexico in poverty or violate US law in order to seek a better life. "Illegal immigrants generally don't learn English. This means that we have millions of new people who speak Spanish and not English, meaning they cannot communicate with a lot of the population. Illegals (and some legals, but that's beside the point) don't bother learning English. This could lead to American culture being damaged as a whole, since they choose not to assimilate into our culture." Culture is not a static entity to be protected but rather it is a fluid entity that takes in new circumstances and adapts to them. However I would point out that the US integrated large numbers of Spanish speakers before. In the 1840s the US annexed most of northern Mexico (basically what now makes up the south west US) in the Mexican American war. Today the descendants of those who lived in the annexed land are fully integrated with american culture and I would be shocked if any still spoke Spanish fluently. In fact most were integrated by the end of the civil war just 20 years later and I doubt this has had a negative (or even significant) impact on US culture. [1] http://london.usembassy.gov...

Title: Those currently residing in the United States illegally ought to be granted amnesty. Content: Ok I'll make this short as it's my last round. If we just granted illegal imagrints amnesty there would be no point to a law against people entering this country. In fact, anyone could just walk into the country because then there would be no rule against them entering. And that is where the problem of terroists will get HUGE. And yes, our society is very messed up and our laws need polishing but the solution is not just excusing all the law-breakers. It may be easier but it's not right! That will just encourage more law-breaking which will not help at all. Would you excuse a murderer just because it is easier and cheaper? Well, in todays world that is what happens sometimes but that is besides the point. Releasing a bunch of murderers from punishment will not teach them a lesson so they are much more likely to commit the crime again. And though a murderer and a person entering a country illegally are very different crimes it does not escape the fact that they broke the law, and therefore, need to be punished. If these people want to live in a new country they need to learn the laws that not only bind them but also protect them. Also, they would then need to change the law which will cost tax-payers thousands as the government debates over it. Which I'm pretty sure would NOT please a lot of people. In fact, the only people that would be for anmestry are the illegally living people because I don't think society will appreciate watching other people break the law then get off scot-free. And though we will never come close to catching all the people that illegally enter, the cops do catch some. And changing the law will not help matters at all. So, laws are laws and there should be no exceptions to this. :D