The State of Massachusetts should be ceded in order to create a homeland for Roma people

My opponent's first response in R3 is an ad hominem. Rather than addressing the issues, he accuses me of Nimbyism. I have never stated the Roma shouldn't have a homeland, rather that they already have one. I have pointed this out continuously. In fact, the Roma have a flag very similar to that of India, and they were recognized by Ghandi as an Indian ethnic group. http://www.romani.org... My opponent says I would have no opposition to the plan if he suggested their homeland should be in Macedonia. Again, this is ad hominem. The Massachusetts argument was simply one of many, and it is the subject of this debate. His resolution does not say simply "a homeland should be established somewhere for the Roma", rather it states very clearly "The State of Massachusetts should be ceded in order to create a homeland for Roma people". Massachusetts has been an essential part of his reasoning, as has the US Government ceding land (even if it wasn't Massachusetts, evidenced in his various arguments and comparisons, ie. Philadelphia). My opponent suggests that the Roma don't fit in anywhere else, and so a homeland should be established apart from their original homeland. He has made this argument before, he is simply rewording it. My opponent's argument is genocidal without the killing. He suggests getting them out of every other country because they suffer injustices. I have shown in my arguments that many Roma have gone on to rule the countries they have settled in (http://en.wikipedia.org...) like Juscelino Kubitschek, former President of Brazil. His argument would imply that the Aborigines, Ainu, Native Americans, Yuan Zhu Min, Hawaiians, Kurds, and "countless other ethnic groups" should be rounded up and resettled in individual new homelands, rather than fight injustices. Again, this is reminiscent of the ignorant bigotry that plagued presidents like Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe in their attempts to repatriate blacks because "Blacks . . . are inferior to Whites in the endowments of both body and mind" (The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Modern Library, New York, 1944, page 262). Jefferson went on to say "When freed, the Black is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture". All three Presidents helped establish Liberia (the capital, Monrovia is named after Monroe) which is now a failed state. My opponent's argument sounds like that of the KKK, who favor "black repatriation": "No, we are not the enemies of the black man, the brown man, the red man, or the yellow man. Rather it is those who attempt to artificially force the different races together who are the enemies of all. The stupidity of those who cry "diversity, diversity" and then turn around and cry "thou shall integrate" is becoming more evident each and every day. They themselves just can't see the obvious." (http://www.kkk.bz...) What he suggests is akin to Black or White Nationalism (http://www.stormfront.org...). The injustices against ethnic minorities should be fought, not "worked around" by segregation. My opponent suggests that rather than being intolerant towards racism, we should tolerate intolerance and do as the bigots wish. First this was about the plight of the Roma, now he has converted his argument into the plight of the oppressors who want them out. My opponent brings up examples in England where the Roma are called "Pikeys" and signs inhibit their movements. Might I remind my opponent that blacks in the US were referred to as "niggers", and signs inhibited their movement until the late 1960's, and this was the law of the land. Had we succumbed to my opponents reasoning, all blacks would have been forced to leave the land they had been on for 400 years, and racism would still be openly and legally tolerated. My opponent again attempts to invoke the Jews, and appeals to the emotions of self-determination. The Jews are not a separate ethnicity originally from another country. The Jews established their nation in Canaan thousands of years ago. Canaan, today, is geographically Palestine- or the site of the State of Israel. This would not be true for the Roma, as their homeland is India, and millions of Roma still call the Punjab region of India home. I am not suggesting we deny the Roma any rights. On the contrary- I am saying that rather than attempting to segregate them we should be concerned about their human and civil rights within the lands they have voluntarily chosen to settle in. My opponent's statement on Hitler is not only a veiled ad hominem attack, but is a perfect description of what he is suggesting- forced repatriation and segregation. My opponent makes all these claims against an Indian homeland for the ethnically Indian Roma, and suggests the King of the Gypsies in 1937 called for the creation of a Romany homeland. Indeed he did. My opponent's reference states the site of the homeland he called for was in India, the original homeland of the Roma! My opponent goes on to give reasons and compare where the best suitable homeland would be. I have not suggested the Roma be repatriated to a new homeland as he implies I suggested. I have stated THEY HAVE A HOMELAND. Having a homeland doesn't mean you live there. I have stated Massachusetts is largely Irish... they don't live in Ireland! The Roma don't need to be repatriated. Their civil rights need to be defended. Given my line of argument, it really makes the rest of my opponent's argument irrelevant as it concentrates on an "ideal" homeland. I have continuously stated they have a homeland. They don't need to be repatriated. Repatriation is veiled bigotry, and tolerance of intolerance. I have successfully compared his suggestion to that of Black and White Nationalists like the KKK and Black Hebrew Israelites. Any discussion of an ideal homeland for the Roma is irrelevant to my argument because he has not successfully defended the "need" for a new homeland. In conclusion, I leave you with a few word definitions: Segregation: 1: the act or process of segregating : the state of being segregated 2 a: the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means b: the separation for special treatment or observation of individuals or items from a larger group Separatist: : one that favors separatism: as capitalized : one of a group of 16th and 17th century English Protestants preferring to separate from rather than to reform the Church of England b: an advocate of independence or autonomy for a part of a political unit (as a nation) c: an advocate of racial or cultural separation White Nationalism (From Stormfront.org):The idea that Whites may need to create a separate nation as a means of defending themselves. The desire of White Nationalists to form their own nation has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. In fact, formation of a White nation removes any possibility of White dominance of other races, as well as the plausibility of the accusation that Whites wish to dominate others. A separate White nation would establish a policy of free trade with its new neighbors. Labor markets are global, and the formation of a White nation would not protect Whites from economic competition. Social justice should not be substituted by segregation, separatism, and nationalism. The Roma's human and civil rights should be respected- wherever they are. The Roma should not be forced to repatriate against their own wishes, and neither should the current inhabitants and land owners of Massachusetts. My opponent has presented a flawed idea. This idea promotes intolerance. It does not fight it. Thank you.