Instigator / Pro
0
1589
rating
18
debates
69.44%
won
Topic
#3840

RESOLVED: The United States Federal Government should repeal birthright citizenship

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1700
rating
544
debates
68.01%
won
Description

STANCES:
PRO shall only argue that The United States Federal Government should repeal birthright citizenship

CON shall only argue that The United States Federal Government should NOT repeal birthright citizenship

* * *

DEFINITIONS:

All definitions shall first come from the U.S. Code available here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

And when the U.S. Code does not supply a definition, then West's Encyclopedia Of American Law, available here, shall be used:
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/

And if neither can supply a definition, then Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary shall be used.

* * *

RULES:
1. Burden of Proof is shared.
2. No Kritiks
3. No trolls
4. Forfeiting two rounds = auto-loss.

Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you to RationalMadman for accepting this debate.

America is in crisis. More than 1 in 3 Americans do not accept the outcome of the 2020 election, [1] and roughly 53% of Americans believe the Steele Dossier, despite being debunked by the FBI, is a completely factual collection of documents. [2] Moreover, 40-60% of Americans do not vote for President on any given election year [3]. 

This lack of political engagement stems from the deep problem of constitutional illiteracy and general apathy among natural-born citizens. The National Assessment of Educational Progress found that 77% of 8th-graders were not proficient in civics. [4] And this does not fare much better by adulthood, where 80% of Americans cannot name all three branches of government. [4]

And a large body of research has found this political apathy is more common in natural-born citizens than naturalized citizens, who are required to take a citizenship test to become a citizen of America. For instance, naturalized citizens and their children are more likely to run for public office than U.S. born citizens. [5] [6] In California, more than 1 in 4 elected officials are naturalized citizens. [5]

Moreover, naturalized citizens are more likely to become politically active in their community than natural-born citizens. In a sample of voters analyzed by the Phelan United States Center, 74% of naturalized Asian-American citizens were politically active in the 2020 election. [7] Moreover, the new naturalized citizen population of Arizona is set to swing the popular vote in the state in 2022. [8] Moreover, Latino naturalized citizens outperform their natural-born counterparts in voter participation. [10]

Moreover, naturalized citizens are far less likely to commit crimes than the native-born population, [9] and are also less likely to be in debt and more likely to serve the community via entrepreneurship, with 40% of Fortune 500 companies either owned by an immigrant or the child of an immigrant. [11] So even if naturalized citizens do not start the business themselves, they teach their children to be a productive member of society and encourage them to go into business at significantly higher rates than natural-born citizens.

The question we must ask ourselves concerning this is: why?

Why are naturalized citizens more likely to be involved in politics?
Why are they more likely to run for public office?

Why do they commit far fewer crimes and encourage their children to start businesses and help them succeed?

Well, as naturalized citizens themselves have stated, it is a feeling of accomplishment from becoming an American citizen and a recognition of achieving and becoming something that is bigger than themselves

For instance, naturalized citizens are more likely to believe America is better than most other countries. [12] They are also more likely to be very proud to be an American compared to native-born Americans. [12] They are also significantly less likely to agree with the statement "I am often less proud of America than I would like to be." [12] Additionally, naturalized citizens are significantly less likely to be ashamed of some aspects of America than natural-born citizens. [12]

Overall, natural-born citizens are significantly more patriotic than natural-born citizens, and therefore, are more likely to become the entrepreneurs, politicians, and voters who shape policy for the America of tomorrow.

This is expressed clearly in an article in the Guardian where 11 naturalized citizens from diverse backgrounds all expressed the day they became an American was a day of national pride, opportunity, and a day they became patriotic toward America, a country that welcomed them as one of their own. [13] These sentiments are also echoed in an op-ed by a naturalized citizen in USA Today. [14] 

The action of becoming part of the American community is what made the difference. It was not handed to them on a platter at birth. They had to earn it. They had to learn what makes America great. They learned about the rich political tradition that separates America from the rest of the world. And it left their mark by producing citizens who became the entrepreneurs, politicians, voters, and political activists of the country

If natural-born citizenship is repealed and replaced with the same method required for naturalized citizens, it would produce the same pride, joy, and benefits to society that naturalized citizens provide.

All Americans, from every creed, culture, and society, would be united under the banner of American.

All Americans would all learn what being American means for them, how the process works, and what can be achieved in the land of opportunity.

Rather than breeding political apathy and shame for their country, leading to higher crime rates and less participation in the America's political and economic institutions, repealing birthright citizenship would create ideal citizens who would make a difference.

SOURCES in comments.
Con
#2
The issue of the non-nationality individual

Pro seems to entirely miss the fact that a child who has both parents from the US (and citizens) that themselves is born in the US has a severe issue in this version of US; they are incapable of being a citizen of any nation and can't even escape as they cannot possess a passport. Pro's offering of any sort of workaround is grappling at nonexistent and totally unfeasible straws because even if the US invented some kind of inferior, secondary passport or arranged for a special visa for such individuals to one-way emigrate out, other nations and the UN itself would be incapable of letting them operate internationally. This is also a severe problem for tribal members of random islands and is part of the reason why we, as a UN, named such islands so that those individuals have a citizenship they aren't even aware of yet, if they eventually interact with other nations.

I am not sure what to link to here to prove it because it seems to utterly internally consistent and self-proven. Even the worst pedophile, terrorist, serial killer etc in a nation is a citizen either of the nation they are imprisoned in or another.We cannot just disqualify even one individual from it because they quite literally cannot operate in the world today, it won't work and is unfair to even the worst of them to trap them in the nation due to that.

==

The basis for citizenship is not morally concerned

Pro seems to be basing over 75% of his case on the premise that some Americans are not loyal, patriotic, trusting etc enough for his taste in what an American should feel and be towards their own nation. The only relevant word is 'loyal' and that is actually all that citizenship barriers are ultimately about, unless a nation is particularly ethnocentric and even racist. The concept of naturalisation was invented, in my interpretation, to be fair to those entering a nation that are actually loyal enough to it to operate as citizens. That is often why the minimum requirements all revolve around how long one has shown dedication to the nation and contributed to tax, worked there etc.

The quiz some nations offer for said naturalisation can be argued perhaps to go beyond loyalty but it is actually designed to show that the citizen has put in effort to display loyalty. The time and effort taken to study the information that even a decent amount of natural-born citizens don't necessarily know or would score high in is the actual subtle thing that all nations are testing there.

So, citizenship is all about loyalty and dedication to a nation's wellbeing and not about morality whatsoever, I challenge Pro to prove otherwise especially considering the fact that as I said in the previous contention here:

Even the worst pedophile, terrorist, serial killer etc in a nation is a citizen either of the nation they are imprisoned in or another.
==

More than 1 in 3 Americans do not accept the outcome of the 2020 election [1]
That source's graph says that 3/4 Republicans are the massive reason for the 1/3 Americans. If we go through Pro's logic in the rest of the Round and look back at this, we will notice a glaring problem with Pro's understanding of what makes a loyal and worthwhile citizen.

Republicans are clearly less trusting in that election but let's go on, before I make my point.

and roughly 53% of Americans believe the Steele Dossier, despite being debunked by the FBI, is a completely factual collection of documents. [2]
We don't even need the breakdown to know that clearly it's going to be primarily Democrats in the 53% and Republicans in the 47% (that Dossier is about Trump being involved with Russian and colluding).

40-60% of Americans do not vote for President on any given election year [3]
It actually seems to be 34% in 2020 but the range is actually huge even from 40%-60%, which is leading me into my point:

There is absolutely no clear-cut way to determine what a good vs bad citizen's mentality or attitude is.

Pro is going all over the damn place, criticising Republicans, Democrats and independents all in the very first paragraph for being bad and unworthy citizens in his eyes.

Pro even furthermore scatterbrains his case. For instance, sometimes saying knowledge of civics and government are why we should suddenly leave all natural born US citizens absent of a nationality if they can't be citizens elsewhere fast yet at other times says:

Rather than breeding political apathy and shame for their country, leading to higher crime rates and less participation in the America's political and economic institutions, repealing birthright citizenship would create ideal citizens who would make a difference.
What difference would be made by citizens who had been screened to blindly trust authority and display (regardless of what they feel) passionate loyalty and interest in the US?

In fact, one could argue people would gain the citizenship just to get a passport and emigrate out.
Round 2
Pro
#3
R1:

they are incapable of being a citizen of any nation and can't even escape as they cannot possess a passport.
CON would likely prefer readers of this debate forget about the Dreamers, who came to this country illegally and were underage, yet were able to live stable, productive lives in America and eventually obtained a path toward citizenship. [1] 

Additionally, CON would likely prefer readers forget about the estimated 12 million noncitizens living in America who can obtain drivers licenses, housing, and even hold jobs depending on their state. Furthermore, noncitizens in America have access to due process and and can even join labor unions. [2]

The American legal system and numerous state legal systems provide noncitizens with numerous rights and opportunities, especially for minors such as the Dreamers previously mentioned.

I am not sure what to link to here to prove it because it seems to utterly internally consistent and self-proven
Despite the fact that American Law and the collective experience of the Dreamers runs counter to CON's claims, CON also is unable to prove his supposed "self-evident" statements. Therefore, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

* * *

R2:

Pro seems to be basing over 75% of his case on the premise that some Americans are not loyal, patriotic, trusting etc enough for his taste in what an American should feel and be towards their own nation.
This is a gross mischaracterization of both the objective, collected data in the numerous sources I've provided and the conclusion that such data asserts. 

Objectively, according to the data, naturalized citizens are more productive, less criminal, more patriotic, and more active in politics and society than their native-born counterparts. This is not subjective opinions of naturalized citizens but objective data collected through numerous studies.

The founding of America's entire political tradition was based on the idea that good, productive citizens who take an active interest in advancing their communities is the ultimate form of government. This is explained in Federalist 51:

But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. [3]
Therefore, the utopaic form of government, according to the American political tradition, is good people governing themselves. A government is merely the result of people failing to be good citizens.

In the spirit of this, advancing policy that helps mold citizens into productive, engaged, and societally conscious members of their community ought to be the ultimate goal of the American governmental system.

It is also beneficial to note that CON, himself, also agrees with this view, in his first rebuttal, CON stated:

Even the worst pedophile, terrorist, serial killer etc in a nation is a citizen either of the nation they are imprisoned in or another.
Here in this sentence, CON echoes Madison's (and my) sentiments that there are certain actions, mainly those that cause harm to others, that are telltale signs of bad citizens. Stating these beliefs effectively overturns his point that the standards for a good citizen are subjective, because even CON agrees there are actions people can take which are considered negative toward their society.

This brings us back to the hard data. The class of citizens who are known to commit crimes are natural-born citizens. Immigrants, even illegal immigrants, as I previously showed, are less likely to engage in crimes. And naturalized citizens, in particular, are the least likely, as per the data.

So, for CON to be consistent in this debate, he must agree that, at basis, replacing natural-born citizenship with naturalized citizenship would yield fewer of the people he, himself, claims are bad for society.

Moreover, CON would be joining Madison and many other founders in agreeing that the ultimate form of government, the reason for the Constitution itself, is to produce good citizens and, ultimately, a citizenry that is conscious of political events, actively engaged in their community and politics, commits far fewer crimes, and brings up their children to hold these same traits themselves. This will lead us closer to creating the angels who do not need government, and the angels who would govern the country effectively. Thus rearing the ultimate political society that is the aim and goal of the American political tradition.

SOURCES in comments.
Con
#4
Forfeited
Round 3
Pro
#5
To summarize:

According to the data, naturalized citizens commit far fewer crimes, are more politically active, and more productive than natural-born citizens.

This is because naturalized citizens feel pride in becoming American and want to pass off the values they hold dear to their children.

The Dreamers are evidence of this, where millions who came to this country as minors lived happy, productive lives in America and called America their true home, and became naturalized as adults.

The American political tradition holds that the best form of government should be one that is a citizenry of angels. CON also agrees that certain actions are not good for society and that such people who commit said actions are the "worst" citizens.

Naturalized citizens are significantly less likely to commit crimes than natural-born citizens and they also try to instill the values of hard work, integrity, and being active in their community and nation into their children.

Therefore, revoking natural-born citizenship and replacing it with naturalized citizenship would bring America one step closer to realizing the ultimate utopia of men being angels, and fix what PRO and CON both realize are bad traits in citizenship.
Con
#6
I sincerely apologise for forfeiting that Round, I overestimated my ability to cope with very little sleep and a busy schedule and a mafia game pissed me off the day before here.

I believe I deserve the chance to win this still in the eyes of a fair voter because sourcing aside, my Round 1 is that powerful. What I wish to do here is what I would have done in Round 2 and essentially just hit home the Round 1 again, which even addresses a little (enough) of Pro's case. I will do my earnest to only add evidence and extensions and 0 new points as I am aware what that would mean to do in the last Round.

==

The feasibility issue of the citizenless/nationalityless individual

Citizenship of the United States[2][3] is a legal status that entails Americans with specific rightsduties, protections, and benefits in the United States. It serves as a foundation of fundamental rights derived from and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, such as freedom of expressiondue process, the rights to vote (however, not all citizens have the right to vote in all federal elections, for example, those living in Puerto Rico), live and work in the United States, and to receive federal assistance.[4][5]

10 things you literally cannot do anywhere near to its functional privilege and functionality without a citizenship in the US:

#1 Vote

#2 U.S. passport

#3 Bring your family to the U.S

#4 Not be deported

#5 Citizenship for your children

#6 Scholarships and grants

#7 Run for public office

#8 Travel unlimited

To deprive people of this is severe, it means you effectively are a North Korea-esque dictatorship towards them as they can't even vote you out of power and can't leave the place either, even if they could afford to.

Furthermore, a huge problem happens if they break the law as they can't be deported and can't be arrested as a US prisoner so they become an unidentified detainee without rights essentially. The point is they have less rights provided in the Constitution and extended law as it treats non-citizens fundamentally differently.

To deprive them of this based on the idea they have to prove they are proud to be American, knowledgable of America etc means actually that firstly nobody could ever take their children on holiday until they passed the Citizenship test because no visa can work with non-citizens of any nation at all.

I don't think Pro remotely grasped how serious an issue this is and how utterly unfair this would be. The US would instantly become one of the most tyrannical nations on Earth because it has created a de facto prison for those who haven't sucked up enough to the 'proud' and been 'proud' of the very nation stripping them of rights and status as a true American citizen. This is just wrong and unfeasible.

==

The basis for citizenship is not morally concerned

All Pro keeps trying to do is to prove that naturalised citizens are happy to be American and likely to participate actively in the US right to vote etc. That doesn't explain the root idea of citizenship. All nations on Earth have people 'entitled' to citizenship, it's a root tenet.

The only variation is that some don't let you be American just for being born there as in you need a parent born there as well, others are outright racist and you need to have actual native ancestors. Citizenship has nothing to do with morality at all, that is precisely why a pedophile, terrorist and serial killer even at the apex of their type of criminal cannot be stripped of citizenship, it is a raw necessity. People need to be regarded as citizens of a place, it is impossible to even function on an international database as a non-citizen pretty much. Pro never explained how it can work.

Name: John Doe
Age: 12
Nationality: Sorry this punk didn't earn his right to be American yet, he belongs to Earth but can't go anywhere outside US because he has no passport

This is utterly ridiculous.