NCFL/CatNats LD 2010 topic

Thanks, Pro, for beginning this debate. Re: Contention 1 "[Illegal immigrants] live here, they pay higher taxes than most Americans, they fill up the jobs most Americans are too lazy to take. But yet we denie them citizenship. We denie them healthcare, insurance, voting rights, etc. Thats a violation of the foundations our country is founded on." -- Pro First, I would like for Pro to prove that illegal immigrants pay higher taxes than most Americans. Until this affirmation is cited and sourced, we have no reason to accept this statement. Further, the idea that immigrants take jobs that Americans are too "lazy" to do is based on Pro's opinion and again cannot be cited with factual evidence. Finally, the idea that illegal immigrants are denied health care is blatantly not true; illegal immigrants are indeed admitted and cared for in the hospital under a 1986 statute that cannot turn people away from the ER for treatment even if they cannot afford to pay, or are not citizens [1]. Re: Contention 2 Pro's second contention is acknowledging the U.S.'s involvement in the UN, and then noting some of the rules UN members must follow such as allowing one to leave their country and return, etc. However you'll notice that absolutely nowhere in those guidelines does it say that illegal immigrants from one country should be granted the same rights and privileges as citizens in another. Acknowledging that, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" does not translate to being considered equal in terms of legal rights and privileges in every single country. For instance, should I as an American citizen be able to vote for the British Prime Minister? Should German citizens overseas receive money sent to Americans in the form of a United States stimulus packages? The answer to all of these questions is obviously "no." ---- Con's Case ---- The resolution reads, "That the United States government has a moral obligation to afford the same constitutional rights to all people on American soil." First and foremost, this resolution is not specific toward illegal immigrants but rather pertains to EVERYONE on American soil. However, we already know that people are not all treated the same even if they are legal U.S. citizens. For instance, those under 18 cannot sign a legal contract; those under 21 are prohibited from purchasing alcohol; felons in many states cannot vote; gay couples do not receive marriage benefits; former criminals cannot legally purchase firearms; convicted criminals are restricted to jail premises; etc. Thus in order for the resolution to be affirmed, Pro has the burden of proving that ALL citizens should be treated the EXACT SAME under the eyes of the law regardless of their age, criminal record, etc. So far none of Pro's contentions have taken on this burden. Next I will address Pro's presented value of morality. He notes, "Most American documents have deep roots in Morality, and if not that, Justice, which is a branch of morality." On the contrary, many historical documents drafted by the U.S. government were NOT the pillars of morality Pro presents them as. For one thing, there was the 3/5 Compromise in which every 5 slaves counted as 3 people in terms of apportionment for the House of Representatives (found in the U.S. Constitution). Further, the Constitution also used to say that if slaves of one state escaped, they must not be freed by the laws of another state [2]. As you can see, the U.S. cannot rely on a "history of morality" but rather a history of greed, or as some put it, the virtue of selfishness. But let's move on. Pro continues, "The best standard to [achieve] this value will be non-discrimination. in other words, it doesn't matter what race, nationality, sex, or sexual tendency your are. Our government has a moral obligation to provide your constitutional rights." First, you'll notice that this description is not all-inclusive. While Pro notes you should not discriminate based on race or sex, he mentions nothing about age or criminal records - again, both of which restrict rights and privileges in this country. Further, you'll notice that Pro actually says that rights and privileges granted to citizens should be extended to everyone regardless of their nationality (country of origin). I negate this premise. In this country, citizens are forced to pay into social programs such as welfare, medicaid, social security, etc. via taxes. Non-citizens are NOT required to pay into these social programs. However, if non-citizens were allowed to receive the benefits of these programs, then essentially they would be "getting something for free" in other words stealing from American citizens. Robert Rector explains, "The average illegal immigrant family receives an average of $30,000 in governmental benefits, yet they pay only about $9,000 in taxes per year. That creates a $21,000 shortfall that the American taxpayer has to make up. That's like buying each of the illegal immigrant families a brand new Mustang convertible -- each and every year!" [3]. Pro has the burden of explaining how this type of blatant theft is moral using his own presented value of morality. On the contrary, I argue that since non-citizens are not obligated to pay taxes, then the government is not obligated to include them in extending U.S. benefits. Furthermore, I also do not believe that illegal immigrants should be able to vote in American elections. Once again, should I be able to vote in English elections simply because the U.S. and England are both a part of the UN? Pro, please show me where in the UN bylaws members are required to allow non-citizens to participate in the elections of any government for which they do not 'belong.' Additionally, Pro should provide evidence that by not allowing illegal immigrants to vote, we are somehow fueling hate crimes. Indeed hate crimes unfortunately exist; however, exist independent of voting rights. A recent FBI report on hate crimes indicates that black citizens and gay citizens were attacked more via hate-crime than non-citizens [4]. Therefore, we have no reason to accept Pro's claim in SPB from C1. In conclusion, I negate the idea that every person on American soil should be afforded the same Constitutional rights as the resolution implies. I am opposed to the idea of a 5 year old being able to sign a legally binding contract, for instance. I am also opposed to the idea of a non-citizen being able to take part in U.S. elections, or U.S. citizens being able to take part in the elections of any other country. Similarly, I do not believe that illegal immigrants who are not forced to pay American taxes should be able to receive benefits from American tax payers who ARE forced to pay taxes. I feel that this is stealing - in other words, non-moral. I also feel that using the standard of non-discrimination Pro mentioned is also faulty. Clearly we discriminate in this country; those convicted of a crime are restricted from buying guns, are forced to stay in jail, etc. Therefore we discriminate based on factors like conviction all the time. Operating under the basis that only citizens are subject to American rights, privileges and responsibilities is responsible discrimination that does not hinder morality; it enforces it. That's all for now, Pro. Back to ye :) [1] http://online.wsj.com... [2] http://americanhistory.about.com... [3] http://redblueamerica.com... [4] http://infidelsarecool.com...