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

My opponent begins round two with an assertion- "I am not using the debate to show support for the plight of the Palestinians as my opponent claims". The context of his response disagrees with this assertion. He has yet to provide a logical reason for how or why the people of the State of Massachusetts should displace themselves voluntarily, and allow for the secession of a State of the Union which would end in Civil War- all for a nation of people who already have a homeland. He draws on comparisons between Israel and Palestine claiming that case as precedence, but I assure you there are no similarities. I will get back to the differences after I address each point. My opponent follows up his assertion with another- "I never said it wouldn't be (divisive); you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs: more than half a century of conflict in the Middle East is testament to that". This statement is in direct contradiction to paragraph one, as I have never stated the situation in Israel is ideal for any nation. He is using a straw man argument here to further his ulterior motive in this debate, which is to show solidarity with the Palestinians, and by the rest of his context now- other oppressed peoples like Native Americans. That is not what this debate is about, and I would urge the readers not to be fooled. My opponent insults the intelligence of the readers as well as that of myself by continuing this line of debate. My opponent claims that "settling the Roma in their overcrowded ethnic home in northern India is not, unfortunately, and option. etc. etc. etc". The problem is that settling the Roma is not up to anyone. The Roma are not "one" people. There are many branches of Roma that have developed culturally independent from one another as my own opponent claims in statements like "The Roma fled the region over a thousand years ago"... etc. They actually began their nomadic journey about 600 years ago, first of all, and second- they have a homeland. Who are you to claim they should be gathered up and resettled ANYWHERE? Who do you propose we should gather up? The Portuguese Roma who were sent to Brazil from Portugal, and have had descendants who have been President of the country? The Spanish Roma (Gitanos) who have deep cultural ties to Spain bringing us music and dance like the Flamenco? Or maybe the "white" descendants of Roma like (it is claimed by some) Bill Clinton who have made their homes in the US? Who will you gather up, resettle, and force to live amongst culturally unrelated peoples simply because of their ethnic origin? That is akin to plans to gather blacks after the Civil War and resettle them in places like Liberia. It is a ridiculous, divisive, and bigoted suggestion. As an ethnicity they have a homeland- India. As a nation, they are not one. Culturally they may have similar ties, but have developed independently from one another. Some are Christian, some are Muslim, some are Hindu. What will we gather up and resettle next? The Chinese? I assure you there are more Chinese in the US (3,538,407) than Roma (1,000,000 or less) in the US, and they too have an "overcrowded" homeland. Will you want to cede a State of the Union to them too as well and keep them separated from the neighborhoods, schools, employers, and daily life they have become accustomed to based on your supposedly benign assertion that they should have a separate homeland because their own is overcrowded? This sounds more bigoted than any other justification you could possibly give to your argument. There is no need to create a homeland for those who have one, and therefore there is no need to be divisive in this case, PERIOD. My opponent would have you believe there are no Roma in northern India, but I assure you there are (5,794,000) almost six times as many Roma in India as there are in the US. If they want to go back, they can. If they think it's overcrowded they have the freedom to make their home anywhere in the world, as they have in the past. And if my opponent won't have them as neighbors they can all move into my neighborhood. My opponents reasons for choosing Massachusetts do not address the questions I posed rather he ignores them and continues with the irrational reasoning. My opponent also cleverly points out that I misspelled Massachusetts a couple of times... I don't know what that has to do with the debate, but I also spelled it correctly in the same round so I apologize for the occasional typo and my lack of using spellchecker. Back to the point... My opponent says Boston would be a more fitting capital for the Roma, but provides absolutely no logical reasoning why. What are their cultural ties to Boston? How many Roma are already settled in Boston? Etc. These and other questions are never addressed. He goes on to post ridiculously chosen examples of Philadelphia- which has no connection whatsoever to this debate, and Boston as a comparison. I guess he thinks we are all dumb enough to believe there are no poor parts of Boston, and there are no wealthy parts of Philadelphia. Either way, it has nothing to do with the debate. My opponent brings up the Natives that were displaced in Massachusetts as further reasoning why the State should be ceded. If anything he makes a case for ceding the land to it's original inhabitants, an issue I have already addressed. My opponent invokes the Declaration of Independence, but ignores the Constitution which is the law of the land. How do you honor one and disregard the other? Either way, again, it has nothing to do with the debate. The Roma in the US have all of these rights, and (allegedly) have even served as President (Bill Clinton). My opponent also completely ignored the legal issues surrounding secession, civil war, and forced displacement and resettlement under modern US law. The US bought the Louisiana Territory from the FRENCH for $23,000,000. This was not French land- it was Native land... and it was 1803. Again, my opponent draws on injustices of the past to try to justify injustices in the future. This is irrational given the fact that in the past the laws of the land were followed, yet he proposes to ignore current laws because this wasn't prevented from occurring in the past. When Louisiana was incorporated as a state in 1812, it became subject to the Constitution of the US, and when it seceded in 1861 it became subject to the aggression of the Federal Government. My opponent ignores the law of the land, and asks us to "suppose" than can be broken for an irrational and divisive idea to segregate a people who have a homeland, using their past oppression and segregation as the excuse. Hardly benevolent. Now to the differences between the Roma and the Jews. 1. Palestine was first established as the Kingdom of Israel over 3,000 years ago in 1020BC by the Jews. The Roma first appeared in the US during the colonial period or the 18th century AD. Massachusetts was established in 1620 by the Pilgrims, not the Roma. 2. The Jews called Palestine home for nearly 3,000 years before they were resettled there in 1948. The Roma have never called Massachusetts home as a people. 3. The Jews have never had a homeland other than Israel/Palestine. My opponent claims they were from Iraq. It is true Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldeans (Ancient Iraq), but he was in Canaan when Isaac was born, and Israel or Jacob was born in Canaan (Palestine/Israel). The Roma claim the Punjab region of Northern India as their place of origin, not Massachusetts. 4. Since 538BC, Palestine has been occupied by both non-Jews as well as non-Arab Palestinians. The Punjab region of India has always been Indian, even when India was occupied by England. 5. Palestine was taken from the Ottomans (non-Arab Turks) in 1917. The land included Syria and parts of other countries which were ceded as sovereign republics, including Israel. See #1 for Mass. There is no reason why Mass. should be ceded. Thanks