Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants

==== COUNTER-POINTS ==== P1. My opponent has clarified his position more clearly in this round. The crux of his argument is that he would like to focus specifically on the children of illegal immigrants versus illegal immigrants themselves. I will attempt to argue against that position, but it must be noted that CON places the cart before the horse, as we have a chicken/egg problem (which came first, the illegal alien or their offspring?) If my opponent says that the progeny of illegal aliens are also illegal aliens, then what exactly is the difference? "I argue that these people are not American citizens and they realize it. They do not deserve to live in our extremely tolerant land when they themselves are not true citizens" CON gives a self-refuting proposition when he asserts that illegal immigrants do not deserve to live in our tolerant land by citing just how intolerant he would like America to be. He claims that their children do not belong here, but gives no basis for why the 14th Amendment should be repealed. P2. "So what's so problematic with legal children citizens of illegal immigrants becoming illegal citizens? All they need to do is become legal citizens, which is what true immigrants to the United States and other countries do." Remember what my opponent clarified at the beginning of Round 2. He has stated that his focus is with the children of illegal immigrants, rather than the all-encompassing debate over illegal immigration. In lieu of his clarification, in tandem with his recent question, I ask CON how he proposes infants, babies, toddlers, and children apply for citizenship...? The bottom line is that the 14th Amendment states that people born in the United States are therefore citizens of the United States. Since no actual basis for repealing has thus far been given, it is imperative that CON give a detailed analysis for WHY it should be repealed. Anything less, in my estimation, is grounds for forfeiture. P3. CON alleges that based on the disproportionate number of births places "exacerbate the concerns of immigrants that feel they are being put at a disadvantage." Here CON does not give any description of the "concerns" immigrants would have, and then completely neglects a criticial point in this debate. Those born in the United States ARE citizens, and so he ironically (and quite possibly, hypocritically) places the concern of immigrants over citizens of the United States. He forgets that people born in the United States ARE citizens and does not address why it is supposedly such a bad thing. And so, as we can see, CON still neglects to give an actual reason for repealing the 14th Amendment. Secondly, who is disproportionate? I already cited a statistic that show 8% of all births in the US are attributed to illegal aliens. P4. "We are not "getting rid" of or deporting the people who have birthright citizenship, but simply forcing them to obtain true citizenship instead of automatic citizenship of no charge." Again, CON brings up the clear distinction between illegal immigrants (adults who cross the borders illegally) with their children. How exactly can newborn infants apply for citizenship? If you don't want to deport them, but also not give them a legal status which they are entitled to under the Constitution of the United States, and they are too young to comprehend what citizneship evens means, what else would you have them do? ==== REFUTING ARGUMENTS ==== P1. CON states that had the Framers dealt with our current situation, they would not want citizenship for the offsrping of illegal immigrants. Historically, he is wrong. The Alien and Seditions Act of 1798 [1] made similar arguments until Thomas Jefferson strenusously fought against the unconstitutionality of it, citing the abridging of the 10th Amendment. [2] It wasn't until later, during the ratification of the 14th Amendment, that a more comprehensive and clear amendment be made. That immigration debates have been a long part of American history is irrefutable, which means that the basis for the 14th Amendment has been given considerable thought. P2. CON argues that "birthright citizenship" is outdated during a time of less immigration. This is simply not true. Per capita and percentage-wise, there was far more immigration in the past than there is currently. According to the Washington-based thinktank, the CATO Institute, the foreign-born population of the United States is 8.5 percent of the total population (as of 1990). The proportions in the United States during the period from before 1850 to 1940 were higher--always above 13 percent during the entire period from 1860 to 1930 -- and the proportions since the 1940s were lower. [3] P3. Here, CON posits that birthright citizenship is unfair to immigrants who come here legally. I say it is decidely more unfair, not to mention impractical, for infants who did not choose to born in the United States or anywhere else. Secondly, how exactly it is supposedly "unfair" has still not been addressed by my opponent. He continues to mention how it is unfair for infants to be citizens in the country they were born in, but has thus far not offered one iota for why it is so. P4. CON makes the admission that " While it is true that denying the child of an illegal immigrant birthright citizenship is harmful to the child, it is also true that giving them birthright citizenship rewards a mother for having willfully broken US law." So here we see that, even though CON specifically wants to make the argument about birthright citizenship, his argument is geared towards the parents. Well, which is it? Would my opponent like to talk about illegal immigration, or how the 14th Amendment should be repealed? Secondly, on Point 4, CON admits that uprooting infants, who have no choice in where they are born, is harmful to them. Knowing this would be harmful, I seek clarification for where these children would go, especially since they have a Constitutional right to be citizens who are treated with the same dignity and respect as he enjoys. P6. CON states that a poll indicates that the majority of Americans oppose birthright citizenship. This is an immaterial non-sequitur, and an Argumentum ad Populum [4]. It's a logical fallacy geared towards an appeal to majority opinion, in hopes that we will all jump on the bandwagon via peer pressure. ==== ARGUMENTS ==== Some opponents to Birthright Citizenship argue that the Jurisdiction Clause invalidates the children of illegal aliens the legality of citizenship. But this is simply not true, because everyone who is in the United States, either legally or illegally, is subject to the laws and ordinances of the United States. So whether visiting the US, and giving birth while on vacation, or coming here with the intent to better the existence of their children, children born in the United States are in fact legal citizens without exception. Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled, both in 1898 and in 1982, that the 14th amendment should be read inclusively to confer birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. In fact, over 100 years ago, the Supreme Court case of U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, determined that a man of Chinese descent, but who was born in San Fransisco, was in fact an American -- this decision was rendered even at the height of the anti-Chinese immigration movement. [5] ==== CLOSING ==== My opponent has failed to substantiate or legitimize any reason to overturn in the 14th Amendment, and all of his points have soundly been refuted with logic. I await my opponents reply. ==== SOURCES ==== [1] http://avalon.law.yale.edu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.cato.org... [4] http://philosophy.lander.edu... [5] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...