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

Many thanks to my opponent for his impassioned and eloquent reply. First of all, I should like to make it clear that I am not using this debate to show support for the plight of the Palestinians as my opponent claims – it is actually all about the Roma people. The reason I drew a parallel between my proposal for a Roma homeland and the creation of a Jewish state on Palestinian land was to demonstrate that this type of scheme is not unprecedented in recent times. I certainly agree, however, that my plan to turn Massachusetts over to the Gypsies would be divisive - I never said it wouldn't be – but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs: more than half a century of conflict in the Middle East is testament to that. But that's not to say my scheme shouldn't be implemented. Settling the Roma in their overcrowded ethnic home in northern India is not, unfortunately, an option. The Roma fled the region over a thousand years ago to escape oppression from Muslims, the decedents of who still live in the area. Furthermore, in addition to the chronic overcrowding that my opponent doesn't seem to think would be a problem, the Roma now only have the most tenuous of cultural links even with the Hindus of the area. Surely to create a homeland in this part of the world would be more divisive still? My opponent enquired why I chose Massachusetts as the proposed site for the Roma homeland. Well, there were other candidates. For example, Pennsylvania also has a productive hinterland; direct access to the sea and Pennsylvania is almost as difficult to spell as Massachusetts (or "Massachusettes" as my oppenent wrote!) However, I felt that, as a city, Boston would be a more fitting Roma capital and a more appealing place for Gypsies to settle, as the pictures below illustrate. Boston http://blog.flashforwardconference.com... Philadelphia http://farm1.static.flickr.com... Boston http://i.cnn.net... Philadelphia http://jim-frizzell.com... Boston http://www.nationalgeographic.com... Philadelphia http://www.epa.gov... Perhaps my opponent has a point when he says that Palestine wasn't Britain's land to give away? After all, it was occupied territory. Good point. Similarly, the Algonquian tribes that used to live in what is now Massachusetts didn't exactly invite the early European colonists to come and occupy their land, did they? Indeed, the tensions between the indigenous people and the foreign settlers led to the Pequot War of 1636 and King Philips' war of 1675-76, the latter of which resulted in the deaths of 3,000 Native Americans. http://en.wikipedia.org... Still, that is history, we are where we are now and have to face today's realities on the ground. Does not the American Declaration of Independence state: "That all men are created equal"? Surely that must include men whose ancestors fled the Asian subcontinent in the 9th Century? If so, then they must be entitled to the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as those men who arrived in North America from Europe a few hundred years ago. Since the Early colonists displaced the indigenous people of America in order to create a new homeland for themselves, the Roma must have the right to do the same, albeit on a much more modest scale. Finally, I do not regard the legal objections relating to the transfer of Massachusetts to the Roma people that my opponent referred to as insurmountable. Since the United States expanded its territory through the purchase of land, for example the 828,800 sq. miles she acquired for the nominal amount of $28 per square mile in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, it follows that she must be able to dispose of land in the same way and there is no reason why the Roma may not assume ownership of the state for a token payment, say a sprig of lucky heather, with monetary payments to follow over time. For these excellent reasons, I maintain that Massachusetts should be ceded to the Roma people. Thank you.