Personal tools

Argument: Ending birthright citizenship distracts from real immigration reform

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

"A futile effort to strip birthright citizenship." The Denver Post Editorial. August 13th, 2010: "We've argued for a serious-minded debate that leads to the vastly difficult job of securing the border, sanctioning employers who hire illegals and creating just and workable remedies for the 11 million illegal immigrants already here. Given that those goals have evaded our national representatives and led to the dispute between the Obama administration and the state of Arizona, we would hope Congress would refocus its efforts. Many other states are lining up to follow Arizona's lead, so it would seem the pressure already exists to spur Congress to action. Should such action emerge, we can't see how also taking on the 14th Amendment could possibly be a productive use of lawmakers' time."

John Derbyshire. "Birthright Citizenship." National Review Online. August 10th, 2010: "Best of all, of course, would be not to let illegals settle here in the first place. For that, we don’t even need new laws: illegal immigration is already illegal. Just enforce the people’s laws."

Jon Feere, legal policy analyst for the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that backs stricter immigration policies: "We don't think that it is worth the political capital to initiate a debate on this issue. The energy spent on ending birthright citizenship might be better spent reducing illegal immigration through a commitment to immigration law enforcement generally. If illegal immigration is ended, the problem of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens disappears."[1]

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits