Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants

I trust that debating such a provocative topic will hold the attention of the audience. ==== COUNTER-ARGUMENTS AND CLARIFICATIONS ==== My opponent begins his argument by mentioning the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution that provides the pretext for citizenship. He claims that because illegal immigrants come across the border and have children, that it must therefore nullify the 14th Amendment. He seeks to repeal it on that basis. 1. CON alleges that illegal aliens are offensive to those who came to America legally. CON neglects to evaluate the historical context, so it is therefore incumbent upon me to do so to highlight inconsistencies in his rationale. With the exception of Native Americans, all citizens of the United States are the beneficiaries of illegal immigration. All of the colonial world would have been deemed as illegal immigrants had Native Americans ("native," being the operative word) codified a nation of their own with specified borders. Even supposing, however, we dismiss this rather obvious instance of illegal immigration, that presumably CON is willing to overlook, I wonder what his familial roots are. I wonder if he can trace his roots to France, Spain, Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, etc, which would most assuredly, and poignantly, highlight the unintended hypocrisy of his current position in the debate. The wave of Irish, German, Dutch, Italian, Chinese, etc, immigration brought with it the same hysteria we see today, but at various times in American history. The Know-Nothing Party of the United States, who vehemently protested "the scourge of the Irish Race" were commonplace. Violence, which is chronicled in the infamous Martin Scorcese film, "The Gangs of New York," were historically accurate, right down to the movie's protagonists. [1] The same arguments were made, respectively, concerning the Italians as well. In fact, it really wasn't until the 1970's that Italians went from being Latin to being considered Caucasian. What was able to allay these fears? Successful assimilation in to the American culture, where color, creed, and beliefs no longer mattered, such as we see today. 2. CON states that current legislation incentivizes illegal immigrants to come here illegally, versus legally. But this overlooks the heart of the problem. The reason why people come here illegally is because of massive bureaucratic red tape that otherwise prevents people from ever being here on legal visa's. Not that this even matters when analyzing CON's debate. CON stated, in no uncertain terms, that he wants the 14th Amendment to be ended. This would mean that even children born to parents on legal work/school visa's would not be legal citizens of the United States, never mind the one's who come here illegally. I, for one, would like to hear a proposal from CON rectifying this discrepancy. More to the point, what of those which are illegal? Anti-immigration pundits inflate the argument far beyond its merits, as if the country is being overrun by a hoard of illegals. According to the Pew Research Center, 8% of all newborns, 5.4% of the total workforce, and 4% of the total US population are attributed to illegal immigrants. [2] Juxtaposing this figure by 1830 Irish immigrants (and not any other nationality) comprised 8.5 million, so that today 41 million Americans identifies with having Irish ancestry. [3] That was only the first wave of Irish immigration. Did America collapse under the weight of sheer numbers from a strange and foreign culture? No. And what are the effects felt today by such a large diaspora? The outcome has been overwhelmingly positive, both socially and economically. 3. CON alleges that a disproportionate amount of births of an unnamed people were born in Los Angeles public hospitals, 10% purportedly coming from illegal immigrants. I suspect the real debate is the amount of Hispanic migration versus "illegal immigration. " These xenophobic sentiments have been expressed by a number of anti-immigration fringe groups throughout the history of the United States. [4] The real question is why this would be troubling to CON at all. He neglects to explain the supposed pitfalls of this incursion, and I think in the interest of the debate, my opponent needs to identify exactly why a disproportionate amount of births from the phantom people is problematic. ==== ARGUMENTS ==== The real issue at the heart of the debate, besides the latent racist and xenophobic arguments hidden in a sea of fallacious arguments typical of the anti-immigration crowd, is directly attributed to the entitlement programs of the United States. Entitlement programs are simply, for lack of a better term, socialist programs that indiscriminately give to those who have not contributed. Why not simply get rid of the entitlement programs, but keep the people who have just come here to provide their family the best opportunity possible? Immigrants to the US in the past had to be self-reliant, learned to be self-reliant, and were some of the most enterprising individuals on the face of the earth. The welfare state, with the promise of instant subsistence, is the real enemy, not immigration itself. That distinction cannot be overstated. Medicaid, Section 8 housing, food stamps, public education, etc, are the tools of dependence. You get rid of that and immigrants, nor natives, can exploit the system. [5] Secondly, the United States is very selective with whom they'll turn a bind eye too, versus who they will allow to come in. As a native of Miami, Florida, and a law enforcement officer in the US Coast Guard, the immigration issue is one that I have more experience with than the average American who cries foul ball from a far distance. The amount of Cuban immigrants allowed to stay versus the amount of Haitians is atrocious. And why? Because Cuban immigrants are some of the most enterprising immigrants. Their level of economic success in the US and their level of assimilative adaptability are clearly evident. The economic success of South Florida can directly be attributed to Cuban migration. Because of this, the US tends to turn a blind eye. Moreover, it is a fact that the majority of Cuban-Americans typically vote for conservative Republicans. This is not at all lost on the GOP; and who is it that has the greatest anti-immigration stance? The Republican Party. Contrast this with Haitians who tend to vote Democrat, and which whom statistically do economically measure up to Cubans, and it is evident why the anti-immigration crowd pushes them aside. When we pick up Haitians, it's to bring them back to Port-Au-Prince, not to bring them to the shores of the Southeast United States. [6] I await my opponents reply. ==== SOURCES ==== 1. . http://www.understandingrace.com... 2. . http://pewhispanic.org... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. . http://www.rasmussenreports.com... 6. . http://humanrights.change.org...?