Change the National Anthem to Despacito

Reasons why I think this is a bad idea: 1: Having Hispanophone Despacito as our national anthem essentially discourages assilimination into the anglophone United States. It could help promote 2 official languages in the United States, Which is dangerous for the United States because that is how some countries break up. I did 2 debates on this, And their links are here, You should check them out: http://www. Debate. Org/debates/Should-Latinos-be-allowed-to-keep-their-culture/1/ http://www. Debate. Org/debates/Should-Latinos-be-allowed-to-speak-their-language-recreationally-within-the-USA/1/ (I forfeit this one because my WIFI broke) 2: Despacito is about love and romance, Whereas the star spangled banner celebrates those who died in a war. What deserves to represent the nation with the biggest military in the world? A song about winning a war and about maintaining freedom, Ending with " in the land of the free and home of the brave" or a song about moving slowly and about being romantic? America, While reproduction is necessary for the future of the country, Is not about love and romantic songs. It is about defending worldwide freedom, Something that it continues to this day in Korea and Japan, In Europe through NATO and it stands for truly basic human rights, Including the capitalist economy. The current star spangled banner represents this much better than Despacito. Counter arguments: "The Star Spangled Banner does not emphasize our love for our country anymore. " The reason why most people don"t love the USA anymore is because of people on the liberal media claiming that they hate America, Even though they don"t move out of the country that they hate. "Despacito can widely express the citizen's absolute love for the United States. " No. It represents how much they love a song. This isn't about the pledge of allegiance, Although that should stay pretty much the same. It"s about the national anthem. "We will officially also change the pledge to "I pledge allegiance to the Despacito, Of the United Despacitos of Despacito. And to the Despacito, For which it Despacitos, One Despacito, Under Despacito, Despacito 2, For Despacito and Despacito for all. " " Changing many of the words to Despacito is not a good way to spread national pride, Especially if people are pledging allegiance to a song, Instead of a country. Despacito is the new Gangnam style, Eventually the song will lose it"s popularity. However, The star spangled banner has not lost much of its popularity. "Anyone who says Despacito should not be the National Anthem will be thrown out of the country for 30 days and up. " This belief limits freedom of peaceful political expression, Which this country was based off of. There also will be a majority of the population opposed to the idea, Which would mean deporting everyone for at least 30 days would be outrageously expensive, Even if they are deported to the nearest country. Where would you get the funding for this idea? It also would make the neighboring countries extremely populated with American refugees while the US becomes extremely unpopulated. This would make the US extremely susceptible to invasion by countries like Mexico, Canada, Russia, And China. The US probably would get partitioned and when the US dies, So does capitalism and economic freedom. Sending them back also would be extremely expensive. This idea in a more or less summary: -Infringes on freedom of peaceful political expression, Which I think should have no limits. -Would be extremely expensive sending the residents out of the country and back into it. And could make the US debt much bigger than it already is. -Would overpopulate the neighboring countries, Which probably would handle the brunt of refugees. These countries would need new land and would therefore want to invade the US to get land since Mexico and Canada probably can"t afford to buy huge pieces of land and an invasion would be cheaper. -Would bring an end to the United States, And freedom along with it.