I. Burden of Proof and Framework
As the side advocating a contested and unimplemented policy, I have the burden of proof. Therefore, if I prove that the US should allow illegal immigrants to become naturalized citizens, then I win the debate. My opponent wins if he proves the converse, or refutes all my arguments.
II. Definitions (taken from Oxford and Merriam-Webster)
Should: used to say or suggest that something is the proper, reasonable, or best thing to do
US: United States
Allow: to give an opportunity; permit
Illegal immigrant: a foreign person who is living in a country without having official permission to live there
Naturalize: to confer the rights of a national on
Citizen: a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it
Note: “Illegal immigrants” and “undocumented immigrants” mean the same thing. I will use them interchangeably in my arguments.
III. Constructive Arguments
I will keep this short and sweet, since my opponent has forfeited the first round. Dumping a huge amount of arguments on him, blocking his own arguments, would be a viable strategy, but rather unsporting.
C1: Allowing undocumented immigrants to become citizens would benefit the US economically and socially.
According to the Center for American Progress, a nonprofit think tank, giving undocumented immigrants citizenship would boost US GDP by $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years, and create 438,000 new jobs in total. [1] Increasing the state of our overall economy, as well as creating new jobs, can only help everyone.
Furthermore, implementing citizenship for undocumented immigrants also brings social benefits.
6.1 million children in the US, all with legal citizenship rights, have an undocumented immigrant as a direct family member. The constant threat (often followed through) of deportation reduces family income and takes a toll on the mental state of the children. [2]
C2: Illegal immigrants play a significant and important role in the US, and deserve protection.
Nearly 3 in 4 undocumented immigrants in the workforce are considered “essential workers” during the pandemic, meaning that they are necessary for critical infrastructure and operations. [3]
Despite facing some of the most serious risks of the pandemic, undocumented immigrants have contributed an incredible amount, and without them, the economic and social damage of the pandemic would have far greater. [2]
Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, undocumented immigrants do pay taxes – moreover, they pay taxes while getting few benefits in return.
Undocumented immigrants pay over $120 billion in taxes each year – despite this, they receive no stimulus checks, no unemployment benefits, no food stamps, and limited healthcare.
With all this in mind, it’s clear that undocumented immigrants greatly benefit our country – in return, they deserve citizenship and protection.
IV. Conclusion
In my opening speech, I have fulfilled my side of the burden of proof. In particular, I have shown:
- How citizenship for undocumented immigrants would benefit the US economically
- How citizenship for undocumented immigrants would also benefit the US socially
- Why illegal immigrants are essential workers
- How they have contributed to the US’s pandemic response
- How they have contributed taxes while receiving little in return
- Why they deserve citizenship in return for their contributions to the US
I look forward to my opponent’s response.
V. Sources
Would appreciate a vote, CON full forfeited the debate
Bump
Bump, full forfeit
"Should we allow illegal immigration?" or smth like that.
That would assume the US never loosen up immigration laws on this topic.
I'm curious, what was the previous title?
No one is going to take a debate over such an indefensible topic. I recommend you change it to something debatable, such as "Should the US allow illegal immigrants to become naturalized citizens?"
Thanks for the helpful comment. I changed my topic. This is the first time I am using debateArt.
Yes. Could you elaborate. I would be more than happy to accept with more elaboration about the definitions and what the argument is about.
What is the debate even about? Your title is a subject, not a resolution.