BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Castration would not end public anxiety.

The proposition has admitted that witch hunts take place over sexual offenders, and these are by definition not motivated by rational considerations. Just as declaring a mass murderer rehabilitated would not put his neighbours at ease. Also, the prison violence, and indeed other violence, is not so much motivated by a fear of re-offence as by the desire to punish further for the original crime. Castration would not help under these circumstances. It is an unproven and unsubtle method that deserves no place in a modern penal system.
Castrating sex offenders gives false sense of security on rape.

"Thoughts on Castration for Sex Offenders." The Curvature. March 12th, 2009: "the idea that it would stop the castrated rapists from raping again, as a general rule? I can believe that. But it won’t stop rape. Not even close. And in the process of stopping a few rapes while failing to stop the vast majority of them, a false sense of what rape is about is heavily stitched onto the public’s consciousness."
Castration puts rights of victims over sex offenders

Hynek Blasko, the father of Jakub Simanek, a 9-year old boy raped and killed in 2009 in the Czech Republic expressed indignation that human rights groups were putting the rights of criminals ahead of those of victims: "My personal tragedy is that my son is in heaven and he is never coming back, and all I have left of him is 1.5 kilograms of ashes. No one wants to touch the rights of the pedophiles, but what about the rights of a 9-year-old boy with his life ahead of him?"[9]
Not castrating sex offenders is barbaric to victims.

Larry Don McQuay (Convicted sex offender). "The case for castration." Washington Monthly. May 1994: "some good and decent citizens claim that castration itself is barbaric. What is barbaric is what I have done to so many children; refusing to castrate me is barbaric to the children I will molest. Mandatory castration of sex offenders, whether for their first, second, or third conviction of a sex offense, is currently a violation of the United States Constitution because it is considered 'cruel and unusual punishment.' But no punishment is crueler or more unusual than the pain I have caused my victims. Voluntary castration is not unconstitutional, but no state allows it."
Ending birthright citizenship distracts from real immigration reform

"A futile effort to strip birthright citizenship." The Denver Post Editorial. August 13th, 2010: "We've argued for a serious-minded debate that leads to the vastly difficult job of securing the border, sanctioning employers who hire illegals and creating just and workable remedies for the 11 million illegal immigrants already here. Given that those goals have evaded our national representatives and led to the dispute between the Obama administration and the state of Arizona, we would hope Congress would refocus its efforts. Many other states are lining up to follow Arizona's lead, so it would seem the pressure already exists to spur Congress to action. Should such action emerge, we can't see how also taking on the 14th Amendment could possibly be a productive use of lawmakers' time."
Ending birthright requires amending 14th, not just reinterpreting it

"EDITORIAL: Born in the USA: The flawed case against birthright citizenship." Poten and Partners. August 15th, 2010: "[Given the Supreme Court's past inclusive rulings on birthright citizenship,] it's not impossible that the court, in light of the unprecedented volume of illegal immigration, could change its mind. But it's a long shot. Any effort to repeal birthright citizenship probably has to aim at amending the Constitution, not reinterpreting it." This is a general knock against attempting to end birthright citizenship, because it would mean taking the dramatic and highly unlikely step of amending the constitution, which requires two-thirds majority support in Congress and three-forths support from states.
Birthright part of American tradition of inclusiveness and assimilation

"Go back where you didn't come from." Economist.com. Aug 12th 2010: "Americans tend to boast too often about aspects of American society that aren't really exceptional or admirable, but the American model of immigrant assimilation is truly something to boast of. Few countries in the world assimilate immigrants as well as we do. (Canada and Australia come to mind.) There's no reason to tamper with a machine that works. We need to address the problem of undocumented aliens in this country by offering a pathway to legal residency, by reducing economic disparities with our southern neighbours, and by doing more to control our southern border. But denying citizenship to children born in the United States shouldn't be part of that solution, especially not when there are so darn many of them."
Ending birthright citizenship will not lower opposition to immigration

"Go back where you didn't come from." Economist.com. Aug 12th 2010: "A while back Will Wilkinson proposed that denying citizenship to American-born children of illegal immigrants might reduce public opposition to a guest-worker programme and thus increase legal, temporary immigration and help integrate the North American labour market. I'm afraid I find that argument a bit of a libertarian hothouse flower. Like Timothy B. Lee, I doubt that denying birthright citizenship would do anything to lessen opposition to legal temporary immigration from Mexico; rather, I think it would chiefly serve to deny citizenship to a lot of kids."
Birthright citizenship incentivizes "anchor babies" for families

Howard Sutherland. "Citizen Hamdi: The Case Against Birthright Citizenship." Minnesotans for Sustainability. September 27, 2004: "Birthright citizenship lures illegal aliens, who know a U.S.-born child is, thanks to American immigration law’s family-reunification bias, an anchor baby who will be able to sponsor his relatives for residence and citizenship. They also know that anchor babies’ mothers are not deported. In 1993, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors reported that two-thirds of births in L.A. County hospitals were to illegal aliens, mostly Mexicans. Conservative estimates of illegal-alien births here, assuming an illegal alien population of between 8.7 and 11 million, run from 287,000 to 363,000 per year."
Supreme Court ruled 14th amendment protects birthright citizenship

"EDITORIAL: Born in the USA: The flawed case against birthright citizenship." Chicago Tribune Editorial. August 15th, 2010: "The Supreme Court has given the clause an inclusive reading. In an 1898 case involving the U.S-born son of Chinese parents who were not citizens, it ruled that since his parents were not diplomats, he was an American citizen. In 1982, the court considered the claim that illegal immigrants are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and responded: 'We reject this argument.'"
Birthright citizenship can be conditioned on "genuine connection" to US

Peter Schuck. "Birthright of a nation." New York Times. August 13, 2010: "Fortunately, these strongly competing values [in the debate over birthright citizenship], combined with the notion of mutual-consent citizenship, suggest a solution: condition the citizenship of such children on having what international law terms a “genuine connection” to American society. This is already a practice in some European countries, where laws requiring blood ties to existing citizens have been relaxed to give birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who have lived in the country for some time — Britain, for example, requires 10 years and no long absences from the country. Congress should do likewise, perhaps conditioning birthright citizenship on a certain number of years of education in American schools; such children could apply for citizenship at, say, age 10. The children would become citizens retroactively, regardless of their parents’ status. Other aspects of the larger immigration debate would continue, of course. But such a principled yet pragmatic solution to the birthright citizenship question could point the way toward common ground on immigration reform."
Republicans want to end birthright citz. to tap anti-immigrant vote

Alvaro Huerta of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles said his organization opposes Deal’s proposal and is girding for a battle for public opinion: "This is red meat for conservatives. They throw out these issues they know aren’t winning issues, and they create an environment of anti-immigrant sentiment. We need to do better job of educating people why it’s wrong."[6]
Ending birthright citizenship would make millions of children nation-less

If a child is born in the United States and then goes back to another country, it may be one thing. But, the vast majority are born in the United States and remain, in effect relinquishing their relationship with - and any prospect for citizenship with - the nation of their parents. Their only national affiliation on earth is to the soil upon which they were born: the United States. Denying them this claim would make them into citizenshipless nomads.
Birthright citizenship is long-standing common law doctrine

James C. Ho. "Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship and the Original Understanding of the 14th Amendment." Immigration Policy Center: "The Citizenship Clause was no legal innovation. It simply restored the longstanding English common law doctrine of jus soli, or citizenship by place of birth. Although the doctrine was initially embraced in early American jurisprudence, the U.S. Supreme Court abrogated jus soli in its infamous Dred Scott decision, denying birthright citizen ship to the descendents of slaves. Congress approved the Citizenship Clause to overrule Dred Scott and elevate jus soli to the status of constitutional law."
14th amendment need not be amended, just reinterpreted

"George F. Will: Citizenship a birthright?" The Commercial Appeal. March 28th, 2010: "To end the practice of "birthright citizenship," all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment's first sentence: '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.' From these words has flowed the practice of conferring citizenship on children born here to illegal immigrants. [...] The Civil Rights Act of 1866 begins with language from which the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause is derived: 'All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.' (Emphasis added.) The explicit exclusion of Indians from birthright citizenship was not repeated in the 14th Amendment because it was considered unnecessary. Although Indians were at least partially subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they owed allegiance to their tribes, not the United States. This reasoning -- divided allegiance -- applies equally to exclude the children of resident aliens, legal as well as illegal, from birthright citizenship. Indeed, today's regulations issued by the departments of Homeland Security and Justice stipulate."
Past efforts to end birthright citizenship relied on xenophobia

Greg Robinson. "Repealing Birthright Citizenship Wasn't a Good Idea Back in the Forties Either." History News Network. August 16th, 2010: "during 1942-43 California nativists sought to use wartime anti-Japanese public sentiment to abolish universal birthright citizenship. Their arguments revealed a fundamental motivation of white supremacy, and the ACLU and NAACP recognized the implications. While today racial equality is widely accepted, and public anxieties about immigration no longer center on Asians, it is worth remembering why the principle of birthright citizenship is valuable and the consequences of abolishing it unpredictable."
Ending birthright citizenship creates an underclass in America

Timothy Lee. "Birthright Citizenship and Symbolism." Bottom-up Blog of Timothy Lee. August 10th, 2010: "There’s nothing symbolic about birthright citizenship. Each year, thousands of Americans are born to undocumented immigrants. Birthright citizenship guarantees that when they grow up, they’ll enjoy the same freedoms that the children of American citizens do. Ending birthright citizenship means that, instead, they’ll be forced to live underground in the country they call home. This isn’t an 'act of symbolic violence against hard-won American ideals of equality.' It’s a sacrifice of the actual freedom and equality of actual human beings who will be born on American soil over the coming decade."
"Jurisdiction clause" in 14th applies to children of undocumented

James C. Ho. "Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship and the Original Understanding of the 14th Amendment." Immigration Policy Center: "when we speak of a person who is subject to our jurisdiction, we do not limit ourselves to only those who have sworn allegiance to the U.S. [...] aliens cannot immunize themselves from U.S. law by entering our country in violation of Title 8. Indeed, illegal aliens are such because they are subject to U.S. law. Accordingly, the text of the Citizen ship Clause plainly guarantees birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of all persons subject to U.S. sovereign authority and laws. The clause thus covers the vast majority of lawful and unlawful aliens."
Writers of 14th amendment did not want birthright citizenship for illegals

"George F. Will: Citizenship a birthright?" Washington Post. March 28th, 2010: "If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not."
Undocumented come to US for opportunities, not for birthright citizenship

"Go back where you didn't come from." Economist.com. Aug 12th 2010: "Denying American citizenship to the American-born children of illegal immigrants may have a slight dissuasive effect on illegal immigration, but the effect will be small compared to the overwhelming incentive for illegal immigration, which is the far greater economic opportunities available in the United States compared to Mexico or Central America."
Without birthright citizenship, countries foster underclass

"A futile effort to strip birthright citizenship." The Denver Post Editorial. August 13th, 2010: "in countries like Japan, which for decades didn't recognize as citizens Korean immigrants who toiled there, children of immigrants struggled with second-class status in school and society in ways that led to significant problems. It's easy to see why. A child born into a land that then refuses to accept or recognize him as one of its own is a child without a country. And when a child's home country won't accept his right to be there, it undermines that individual's loyalty to its laws and mores."
Birthright citizenship outdated; came from period of less migration

Eric Zorn. "Amendment dreamin' and the issue of birthright citizenship." Chicago Tribune. August 12th, 2010: "The guarantee of birthright citizenship (to all but the children of foreign diplomats) in the 14th Amendment came about in an era when our borders were wide open and international travel was considerably more difficult. When a family came here, it was a reasonable assumption that they intended to throw down roots and stay."
Without citizenship, a generation will grow without respect for laws

"A futile effort to strip birthright citizenship." The Denver Post Editorial. August 13th, 2010: "in countries like Japan, which for decades didn't recognize as citizens Korean immigrants who toiled there, children of immigrants struggled with second-class status in school and society in ways that led to significant problems. It's easy to see why. A child born into a land that then refuses to accept or recognize him as one of its own is a child without a country. And when a child's home country won't accept his right to be there, it undermines that individual's loyalty to its laws and mores."
Illegals have incentive to have babies w/o birthright citizenship

"Go back where you didn't come from." Economist.com. Aug 12th 2010: "Denying American citizenship to the American-born children of illegal immigrants may have a slight dissuasive effect [...] on births to illegal immigrants already in the United States, but that effect, too, will be slight compared to the overwhelming incentive for having babies, which is pretty much hard-wired into our systems, for good or ill. I'd be surprised if revoking birthright citizenship led the number of babies born to illegal immigrants in the United States to fall from 8% to 7% of total births. That leaves you with a whole lot of American-born non-citizens."
Not many countries in the world have birthright citizenship

Eric Zorn. "Amendment dreamin' and the issue of birthright citizenship." Chicago Tribune. August 12th, 2010: "The birthright citizenship question, for instance, asks us to consider not only the practical implications of the policy, but also what our country stands for in the world. We are, after all, as proponents of an amendment point out, one of just a handful of industrialized nations (Canada is another) that confer automatic citizenship at birth, regardless of the naturalization or even legal status of the parents."
Birthright citizenship lacks critical government consent

"George F. Will: Citizenship a birthright?" The Commercial Appeal. March 28th, 2010: "in 1884 the Supreme Court held that children born to Indian parents were not born "subject to" U.S. jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the person so born could not change his status by his "own will without the action or assent of the United States." And "no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent." Graglia says this decision "seemed to establish" that U.S. citizenship is "a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States." So: "This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person's citizenship than to make the source of that person's presence in the nation illegal."
Opponents of birthright citizenship alienate important Hispanic vote

Linda Chavez. "The Case For Birthright Citizenship." Wall Street Journal. August 11th, 2010: "Repealing birthright citizenship is a terrible idea. It will unquestionably jeopardize the electoral future of the GOP by alienating Hispanics—the largest minority and fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population. More importantly, ending birthright citizenship would fundamentally change what it means to be an American."
Ultrasounds help women make informed decisions on abortion

Lisa Billy, R member of Oklahoma House of Reps. "New Law Empowers Women." USA Today. May 9th, 2010: "For women facing an unplanned pregnancy, there is often a sense of panic, distress and fear that can lead to hasty decisions. That is why I authored House Bill 2780, which requires that women be given information obtained from an ultrasound before an abortion is performed. Many clinics already perform ultrasounds before abortions — something they have acknowledged in legal filings — but women have told me over the past 20 years that they have not had access to that information. Women should have the choice to see that image. I have personally visited with women who obtained an abortion in a panic and were devastated years later to see a friend's ultrasound and realize: That child is the same age as my baby when ... It is a devastating moment of intense sorrow and regret. I filed this bill to empower women, no matter what their circumstance, to have as much information as possible before making a life-altering decision. Individuals who argue women are too fragile to face the reality of abortion and make an informed decision do not respect women. The image of a baby on an ultrasound provides amazing clarity of thought. What was seen as a closed door suddenly becomes a world of endless possibilities. Critics say the state should stay out of this issue, but I believe turning a blind eye to women in need is inexcusable, and preventing them from receiving accurate medical information is true cruelty. It appears the pro-choice movement believes it is a tragedy only if a woman exercises her informed right to not have an abortion, but they have no problem maintaining barriers to informed consent that will leave women emotionally shattered for the rest of their lives once they learn the truth."
Ultrasounds fit well with pro-choice concepts.

Zack Krajacic. "Serious about reducing abortion? Make women see an ultrasound of the procedure." Christian Science Monitor. January 7th, 2010: "If pro-choice advocates are sincere with their words, wouldn’t they be happy to see fewer women choosing to have abortions as a result of technology’s ability to help ensure a fully-informed conscience? Since pro-choice advocates want to reduce the number of abortions as long as a woman’s right to choose remains intact, they should support a law that required women to watch a video of an abortion. In fact, proponents of choice would have the best of both worlds: more information for women on which to make a personal choice and fewer abortions."
Money should be spent on contraception etc, not ultrasounds.

"Ultrasound before abortion: A wasteful bullying tactic." RH Reality Check. February 11th, 2011: "Eleven states are considering bills that would make ultrasounds mandatory for women seeking abortions. So instead of spending money on the development and distribution of contraception, on education, and on the support of women who choose to go through with unplanned pregnancies, someone is going to be spending money on ultrasounds."
Women review cancer ultrasounds; should for abortions too.

Frank Zoz. "Requiring ultrasound before abortion makes sense." USA Today. May 12th, 2010: "Ultrasounds Every woman reviews with her doctor an ultrasound or X-ray of an anomaly that has been found during a breast or uterus examination. A doctor should also review with the woman an ultrasound of a living child within her body. The idea of 'if I don't see it, I don't have to deal with it' doesn't work for a cancerous cyst. It shouldn't be allowed for women seeking abortions. An ultrasound shows her the reality of a child who is living inside her womb."
Patients can avert eyes, but can't avoid descriptions.

Kevin Sack. "In Ultrasound, Abortion Fight Has New Front." New York Times. May 27th, 2010: "During the six days the law was in effect [in Arizona in 2010], all of the patients at the Reproductive Services abortion clinic in Tulsa averted their eyes from the ultrasound screen, said Linda S. Meek, the clinic’s director. But they could not avoid hearing descriptions of fetal length and heart activity, she said. Many left in tears, but none changed course. 'It’s very intrusive, and very cruel,' Ms. Meek said."
Abortion patients generally want to see ultrasound.

Kevin Sack. "In Ultrasound, Abortion Fight Has New Front." New York Times. May 27th, 2010: "In one of the few studies of the issue — there have been none in the United States — two abortion in British Columbia found that 73 percent of patients wanted to see an image if offered the chance. Eighty-four percent of the 254 women who viewed sonograms said it did not make the experience more difficult, and none reversed her decision."