Negating Debate- Birthright Citizenship
A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteedOrder Now
Sub Point A: We’re dependent on illegal immigrants, because according to a 2006 study by the Texas State Comptroller estimated that the 1.4 million undocumented illegal immigrants in Texas alone add $18 billion dollars to the states economic output, and more than paid for the $1.2 billion in state services they used by generating $1.6 billion in new state revenues If we were to erase birthright citizenship then there would be no motive for the illegal immigrants to cross over and thus would be the downfall of many states economic output, such as California, Texas, Florida, New Mexico and some of the northern states as well with immigration from Canada such as Montana. Immigrants pay more than $90 billion in taxes every year and receive only $5 billion in welfare. Without their contributions to the public treasury, the economy would suffer enormous losses. Sub Point B: Immigrants aren’t just a weapon against inflation. The tens of thousands of illegal nannies in the Los Angeles area, for example, lower the cost of child care, freeing mothers to return to work. This in turn increases families’ incomes, which encourages spending and fuels the economy.
Sub Point A: If we were to get rid of birthright citizenship it would only result in more illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes and live off our money. If we were to erase birthright citizenship they would have less of a motive, but they would also have less of a way of being found if they had a child. Sub Point B: Experts note that immigrants are blamed for unemployment because Americans can see the jobs immigrants fill but not the jobs they create through productivity, capital formation and demand for goods and services.
Either one of these futures would happen if we were to abolish birthright citizenship, and coincidentally they both result in disaster. It’s unconditional. For this reason you should vote con in this debate as theres no way pro could win.
Contention 3: Immigrants to the U.S. assimilate very quickly. Speaking of America’s openness to immigrants, former President Ronald Reagan stated, “An immigrant can live in France but not become a Frenchman; he can live in Germany but not become a German; he can live in Japan but not become Japanese, but anyone from any part of the world can come to America and become an American.” Americans, immigrants, and their descendants become Americans. Our system of birthright citizenship makes “Americanization” even easier. Sub Point A: America is all about well lets admit America. We’re not claiming that America should go hand out rights to people left and right but rather that we should allow more people to enjoy the joys and advantages of being an American. That is of course if they contribute to society, the only way these immigrants will contribute to American Society is if we make them Americans, by making their children Americans were allowing more people to live the American dream and contribute to our society.
Thus enhancing financial growth and the economy. Sub Point B: How do we know if some of these children were refusing to grant citizenship aren’t the next Albert Einstein or Amelia Earhart?? America is always trying to get ahead of the game in all areas, we never know if we’re passing up a brilliant nuclear physiciast who because his family wasn’t granted American citizenship instead goes to Iran and grows up to create the most powerful bomb in the world and use it on us! Of course these are all hypothetical situations but theyre all likely to happen! You can also say that we’re bringing in “drug lords” of the lower class but these people will exist illegal immigrant or not. They will come as legal immigrants just as well so I dont think that counter argument can stand if presented.
The U.S. rule of birthright citizenship offers a stark contrast to policies pursued in Germany and Japan, where the children of immigrants were denied citizenship. The German guest-worker program of the 1950s through the 1970s admitted large numbers of Turks, Tunisians, Portuguese, and others to work in the growing economy. Originally, the Germans had no intention of letting the workers and their families stay permanently, but many, especially the Turks, did stay. Their German-born children were not allowed to become citizens.
The same was true in Japan where the Korean minority, called zainichi, was barred from citizenship for generations despite being born in Japan. In both countries, the results were tragic. The lack of birthright citizenship created a legal underclass of resentful and displaced young people who were officially discriminated against in the government-run education system and had tenuous allegiance to the nation in which they were born. After four generations in Japan, ethnic Koreans still self-identify as foreign. In both countries, these noncitizen youths are more prone to crime and extreme political ideologies like communism. — we do not want this to happen in the united states.
Kids born to noncitizen immigrants in nations without birthright citizenship have little legal stake in the nations they were born in but also have no place to go. Many might gain citizenship through the ethnicity of their parents in Korea or Turkey, but with no connections to those nations, citizenship there is meaningless. In the U.S., by contrast, children of immigrants are legally on the same playing field as children born to American citizens. Both can serve in the military, purchase firearms, serve on juries, and be treated the same by the legal system. That is one reason why 89 percent of second-generation Hispanics and 96 percent of third-generation Hispanics have described themselves as American only.
“Hispanic-American” or “Mexican-American” is still popular among some after several generations, just as “Italian-American” still survives, but these Americans do not view themselves as foreigners. The likelihood of amending the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause is small, but it should be defended because of how well it has helped jump-start immigrant assimilation in the U.S. Remembering the 14th Amendment as a correction to previous racist policies is essential, but that history should not blind us to its pro-assimilation impact.
Contention 6 (if needed):
First, a little bit of history. The 14th Amendment, enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War, included the citizenship clause to overrule the 1857 Supreme Court Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that in part stated that black Americans could never become citizens. The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” You are being racist to claim that this amendment was only applied to slaves it was applied to african americans and not all african americans were slaves therefore it can still be applied today. The founding fathers founded the land we live in today it would be wrong for us to deny them something they believed strongly in. All men are entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What if someofne from Latin America’s dream is to be an American citizen would we be going against our own constitution to deny them that right??