The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Allowing Illegal Immigrations To Still Get Benefits

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 643 times Debate No: 73816
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)




Debate Outline
This is a debate about whether or not illegal immigrants should receive the same benefits legal immigrants and citizens would receive in a country. For example: insurance, employment, housing, Welfare, Social Security, foodstamps.

The debate will consist of four rounds:
  1. Acceptance
  2. Thesis and Opening Argument
  3. Rebuttals and Arguments
  4. Rebuttals and Conclusions [no new arguments should be made]

General rules: Throughout the debate, a set of rules are to abided by, by both contenders. Each time a rule is broken it shall be considered by all voting parties preceding the conclusion of the debate.

Standard debate rules apply: no insulting, keep it appropriate, keep bias minimal.

And with that said, I wish luck to the person that accepts this debate. Hopefully this will be more fun and insightful!



I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank you, con, for accepting my debate challenge and I am glad that we could have this debate just in general. I will now present my argument.

[1] Causes of Illegal Immigration: Often time immigrants emigrate to other countries in search of cheap jobs, housing and better living conditions. A prime example would be the reasoning behind increase in immigration from Central to North American between the Cold War and now. Many immigrants the Central American area immigration to the U.S in search of better living conditions away from high-crime, economic inflation and sometimes more oppressive governments. In fact the Cold War was played a major rule in influencing American immigration policies. As imagineable, this was caused by issues preceding the Second World War in which refugees immigrated to the United States to find shelter and conditions more suitable for surivival. The majority of this European immigrants were Jews.

To reiterate, illegal immigration is often caused by the need to find more afforable housinng, work and generally better living conditions.

So in order to understand why immigrations come to foreign lands whether legally or illegaly, one must first step into the shoes of said immigrant. While stories may vary, it is generally the same concept. As much of the world today is under political pressure. Ukraine and Russia are having their problems, Palestine and Israel, Central America has an incredibly high crime rate in general, in Africa genocides and Civil Wars are still occuring.

And here is evidence that such a thing can exist. A young student from a high school in Chelsea, MA in the United States moved from South Sudan in Africa to the U.S to find a better life, and to get a second chance at an education.

The young man is willing to work hard if he must to get by, and will not fail himself and become homeless.


Another part of the argument that comes into play dates back to the time of European countries colonizing other nations. Be it the British, French, Flemish, Portugese and Germans teaming up on the continent of Africa, or the Spanish conquering most of Central and South America, there is no denying that Europe pillaged a lot of land that belonged to foreign ethnicities and civilizations. It is pretty well-known throughout the world today that Europeans did not simple kid the natives of these foreign and newly-explored territories into giving resources and into enslavement, the colonists forcefully invaded their land, raping citizens and enslaving the stronger men. As well as forcing religion, language and general components of European culture down the throats of the native citizens.

But the Puritans that emigrated to the unfamiliar U.S territory committed mass genocide against American Indian / Native Americans and were responsible for a massive reduction in the general populace of them.

Another point to touch upon is the American "holiday" of Columbus Day. In which American citizens have days off to sit around and do absolutely nothing productive. So who is this Christopher Columbus whose name is tossed around the country quite often? He is a sex slaver, a murderer, a sociopathic imperialist, in accordance to the article found on, which describes it perfectly. But several other articles also support the concept, and the majority of American educatioonal facilities have taught their students at some point or another about the true atrocities Columbus had committed against natives of foreign lands.

Several other sources can be found by reading up on books at the local library or a quick search on Google.

Ever since the independence of these once-colonized countries from all around the world, chaos ensued. And that is not because those countries were meant to stay under the control and influence of their owners, but because the governments of the dominant nations never taught the vassalized people how to run an economy, government or how to, at all, be self-sufficient. In fact that was the main issue with European powers releasing African countries in the 1960s, the only successful citizens were the elite collaborators who willingly let the Europeans run their lives and eventually got brought to Europe itself.

In the Second World War, many Africans were forcefully drafted into the military under segragated regiments in which they would go to European soil and fight. The Africans were absolutely shocked to see the Europeans being destroyed, as they were always portrayed as perfect and rich to them.

[2] Immigrants Work Hard: Many people who advocate against giving benefits to illegal immigrants and who generally fight against letting immigrants flow past the United States' borders will claim that immigrants steal the jobs of citizens already within the U.S border. However, this is untrue. And according to the U.S Bureau of Labour Statistics, American unemployment has gone down to 5.5%, reducing slowly since Barack Obama's attainment of presidency in the elections of 2008.

Barack Obama is a president who is a major player with foreign policy and a person who can truly understand what most people who immigrant illegally go through in daily life. And ever since Obama's presidency, it is undeniable that the rate of illegal immigrants has increased immensely. But with that there is an unexpected fact; the unemployment rate continues to shrink because the immigrations take the cheap labour jobs, expanding the businesses that employ them, and causes more and more corporations to pop up throughout the country, which are more expansive and are wealthy enough to afford a larger number of employees than the local corner store. But Obama also works with reducing the power and influence of the private sector and tries to help out poorer businesses with getting more of a floodgate for employment.

And though President Obama's plans to increase job growth have succeeded, one negative drawback happened as a result of the plans to accomodate the availability of jobs in the country: wages became smaller. With more and more jobs needing to be established and the industry expanding at the rapid rate to satisfy population growth, wages decreased by 23%.

However, since recession, the unemployment rate in the United States is below 6% for the first time. If immigrants come to the other lands to work and pay taxes, regardless of whether or not their immigration was with or without the legal process, they should be granted the permission to receive benefits.

U.S citizens who often complain about employment tend to suck up Social Security and Welfare checks to pay for their food, bills and to support their families (or selves) by other means through the Social Democratic, federally funded programs Obama released to the public in the nature of being a liberal. But in the nature of needing a helping hand because they actually need it, immigrants (both legally and illegally) collectively use more Welfare and social programs than do native citizens. But that is more logical than not.

Article after article, statistic after statistic, it only becomes more and more evident that immigrants make a very clear contribution to the success of the community of the U.S, and the same principle can most certainly be applied to a majority of other countries in the world. The U.S just happens to be the most common and simple real world example to use because it makes the most sense to use it. American politics often involve foreign policy, unemployment rate and social programs, but this packages all in one.



Thank you, Pro.
Fair warning: I wrote this at 3am, so expect some incoherency.

C1) Incoherent

Pro's plan does not make any sense. How is it possible for the *government* to directly hand out benefits to *illegal* immigrants while they're still classified as illegally residing in the US? The government, as the upholder of the law, would be obligated to round up and deport every single illegal immigrant that showed up to its administrative offices to collect benefits. Pro's plan is impossible to implement, and thus it doesn't even warrant consideration.

C2) Cost

One exhaustive study by the Heritage foundation finds that if all illegal immigrants were to be given amnesty, it would cost the state an additional $106 billion dollars per year [1] due to the discrepancy between how much the now-legal immigrants will pay in taxes and how much money in benefits they eat up. However, the key difference between Pro's plan and amnesty is that under Pro's plan, immigrants remain illegal and thus do not have to pay any taxes; this means that the true cost of providing illegal immigrants with benefits is even higher than $106 billion, perhaps closer to $200 billion.

Now further consider the fact that the very act of providing benefits to illegal immigrants attracts even *more* illegal immigrants in even *greater* numbers. America has better work conditions, higher wages, and greater job availability than almost every country in the Western Hemisphere; that itself is already plenty of motivation to try surmounting the obstacles blocking entry into the US. By going even further and paying the illegal immigrants federal benefits, the US would basically become a guaranteed ticket to financial security for the average lower-class Mexican worker. We can look to academic analyses of the effects of amnesty to see that generous immigration policies such as Pro's plan do, indeed, lead to substantial increases in illegal immigration [2].

The point of all this is that providing illegal immigrants benefits, all things taken together, could easily cost close to half a trillion dollars. Considering that the current amount of money spent on such benefits is about $900 billion [1], this is an *enormous* increase in government expenditures, which will inevitably translate to a higher tax burden on the American populace, more federal debt, and funds being diverted from important areas like education to make ends meet. The monetary costs of providing benefits to illegal immigrants would be hugely detrimental.

C3) Unjust

By giving illegal immigrants governmental benefits, the state is basically rewarding them for breaking the law, and at the considerable expense of all the state's legal residents. In other words, the policy Pro is advocating is completely and utterly unjust -- a travesty against the American population, whose well-being is supposed to be the government's *priority*. For that reason alone, we should reject the policy proposed in the resolution

I'll leave it at that for now. The resolution is negated.
Back to Pro.

Debate Round No. 2


Before I begin, your argument was fine. And thank you for posting, I thought you disappeared, ha ha.

[1] The counter-argument Con is making that the plan established is incoherent was expected, and is relatively rinsed and repeated by the Right-Wingers. Thus, a generous rebuttal will be supplied to refute the points made:

1a) Illegal immigrants coming into the country do not have to remain illegal immigrants. They can always gain citizenship. Barack Obama has become, as previously stated, more of a Social Democratic president and many of his foreign policies let free-flowing immigration occur, which has increased the amount of illegal immigrants significantly. However, the federal benefits in question that would be hypothetically given to "illegals" are already being given to "legal" immigrants and citizens. Yes, adding a couple thousand or even million more people into the country with these benefits would logically make the government spend more to be able to supply the higher demand for them. But this is a strawmen argument that is found easily debunkable by most:
  • The benefits being given to people more since Obama's election into office are not even scratching the surface of the debt bucket the U.S now owns. In fact it doesn't even hit the top six causes of the U.S's debt. Bush Tax Cuts in 2003 and 2001 were the main source at around that time of deficit, adding an approximation of $1.6 trillion to the already built-up debt. And the other five reasons the economy is so trashy and in the negatives are; health care, medicare, war, economic stimulus [Obama's fault], Great Recession. All of these problems are nowhere near giving people who cross the U.S border "illegally" benefits. And the debt ceiling was rising even without that. While yes, it would wildly increase the amount of debt raining in to terrify the administration, it's not the only thing that would, and it has a minimal effect. And the numbers Con has supplied to state so are wildly over the top. []

Yes, what Con is saying about it adding to the debt ceiling is logical, but it would have the least impact. Taxes would have to be raised to keep up with the debt that would become added to the already horrible deficit staining the success of the American economy, but it would not add anymore than the current wars being faught in Iraq and Afghanistan are already costing the U.S. Well after reading quite a few articles, it has been retrieved that these numbers were much higher than most expected. Well, the government does have to sell war bonds, raise taxes and still pay for supplies such as food, armaments, water, rations, armour and vehicles that would be given to soldiers fighting on the front, so it is only logical to assume that the amount of money these wars since 9/11 have costed the U.S a lot of money.

1b) It was described that the State is responsible for rounding up and deporting illegal immigrants back to their home land. Well, this logical does seem sensible. People coming across the borders to come into a country in order to save their lives from the tyrant rule and horrible, unbearable crime rates down south? Undermining the legality of those waiting to get their paperwork done? Hmm..Seems like a problem. Well that is, until it is examined closer.

  • To go back to a point previously used, every American in the U.S with the exception of an extremely small minority (actually just 2%), is an illegal immigrant in one respect or another. European colonists (as mentioned in the first round) did come to the land and pillage it, killing people, raping them and exploiting natural resources and the weak technologies the Natives had to try and fend off the newly self-proclaimed enemy with. So if the U.S really wanted to eliminate the problem of illegal immigration, everyone would be kicked out and the Natives would be left to remake their civilization but now with these better technologies. Yes, this argument is almost viewed as irrelevant now, but all sides of the story must be considered when the word 'immigration' comes up.

And again, a driving motive for many illegal immigrants to come to the U.S is to find conditions of better living. At one point, immigration should, yes, be trafficked better so over-population does not become an issue, but it's not the U.S needs to be surrounded by electric fences. And the U.S is nowhere near its maximum population. And on top of that, if illegals going to the U.S eventually found there was no space, there would be one more country they could turn to. A country that gets swept under the rug and labeled irrelevant to most new world events...Canada. Canada has a massive amount of land and an extremely limited national population. So, for what it's worth, immigrants coming to the country could literally be passing through to go to Canada because there is space. Work is more affordable there and in most provinces the weather is reasonable. In fact, just going to Nova Scotia, one could easily find available commercial jobs. The U.S is not the only country to be considered with Western immigrants travelling upwards, be it legal or illegal means of travel.

[2] The point that providing illegal immigrants benefits would attract more in more significant numbers is actually quite laughable. Because the exact same thing could be said with normal citizens. Implemented Social systems like Welfare and S.S.I could easily draw more citizens to the programs. So the argument is applicable to even legal citizens, not just illegal immigrants.

2a) Illegal immigrants could become legal if they are given the time. Not everyone can afford to waste time waiting in line for a couple of papers to be stamped and approved of by the federal government and U.S border patrol, so sometimes urgency kicks in, and the people will do whatever they have to do to get across the border. Some empathy is needed here. Illegal immigrants should be given a considerable amount of time to get on their feet, then should be provided paperwork, fill it out, and be able to attain citizenship. And another thing, it was never stated that all illegal immigrants should be given these benefits. It would have to be monitored in the same respect that giving these social benefits to legal citizens works. It would just be different in the aspect of legality, because the citizens would not have citizenship for a certain period of time, because again, it is expensive to move between countries, and desperate times call for desperate measures. It would only be ethical to allow illegal immigrants some space at the table. And economically speaking, it's not the worst thing the U.S has gone through to just simply give some of them benefits, granted they are willing to go through the process.

2b) Illegal immigrants can work just as legals can and that was something considered in round one, but it was not necessarily touched upon to a very hard extent. All that was said was that the unemployment rate dropped below 6% for the first time since recession, and that should be able to speak for itself, because it happened upon immigration being made more a free-flowing thing by President Obama, but there's more to the work ethic these illegals provide that is beneficial to the U.S: Military service. Not only are the immigrants in so much of a hurry that they need to pass through the border unseen and without paperwork, but they are literally willing to die for the U.S, a country that would once turn them away. So going back to the point Con made about it being the federal obligation of the U.S government to deport these immigrants, that is false. Obama and the administration of the Pentagon are both allowing illegal immigrants to enlist in the military. Wars often raise taxes but also make countries richer because of that. Not to say that the U.S should constantly go to war until it's out of debt, but this certainly does help the economy push towards the positives. And the military soldiers would also be leaving the country overseas to fight in the Middle East, and it would not be until they had made it out alive that they would receive benefits such as checking into VA hospitals and checks for their service to the country (which those kinds of benefits have been cut anyways lately, which is unfortunate).

[3] All immigrants to the U.S, even illegals, are more than capable of making a contribution to the success of the country. Contributions that legal citizens are no more capable of doing than their illegal counter-parts. Being completely honest, immigrants should not have to prove their worthiness to the 'holier-than-thou' U.S anyways, or any country for that matter. Humans should naturally have the right to free exploration, in which they may travel between countries without having to pay ridiculously expensive amounts of money, or proving their legality or anything of the sort, because it's marginalizing and demonizing. It's about as insulting as being referred to as a number tagged onto your chest in a prison.



Thanks, Pro.

== PRO CASE ==

R1) Causes

1. This is just a moral case for allowing illegal immigration; that is not what this debate is about. In fact, Pro is actually hurting his case by showing that the US has such superior living conditions that simply allowing them to be here is a substantial improvement on its own, regardless of whether or not they are receiving benefits. I could agree with every word Pro has said here and it still would not prove Pro's position. Reject this argument because it is inapplicable to the resolution at hand.

2. Regardless of how much strife illegal immigrants may have to go through, the state is first and foremost obligated to serve the best interests of its own citizens, and I have shown with my C2 that giving benefits to illegal immigrants puts a significant strain on the government budget and, by extension, the citizens. Moreover, the majority of academic studies on immigration conclude that the presence of illegal immigrants is harmful to the well-being of America's poorest citizens by competing with them for the same jobs. Therefore, the government shouldn't do anything that makes it easier for illegal immigrants -- including the provision of federal benefits -- and instead take action to reduce their numbers.

3. I have no idea what point Pro was trying to make with his tirade about European colonization and Columbus Day. He's going to have to explain how that connects to the resolution for it to even be considered an argument.

R2) Work

1. The part where Pro actually connects "immigration is beneficial" to the resolution is extremely ill-warranted. He provides absolutely no evidence that illegal immigrants "need" benefits more than native citizens do. Considering Pro's claims that immigrants benefit the economy by filling in high-demand jobs, we would expect that they would be making ample money to be financially self-sufficient.

2. I have provided actual academic studies demonstrating that illegal immigrants hurt the job security and wages of America's poorest. Pro has just noted a decrease in unemployment rate without making any attempt at linking it to immigration. Unemployment rate is affected by thousands of variables, so to just arbitrarily attribute it to increased illegal immigration is absurd. Prefer my evidence, obviously.

== CON CASE ==

C1) Incoherent

Pro's only response is that illegal immigrants can become citizens, and thus the government doesn't have to deport them. But that is NOT within the parameters of the resolution. If that is what Pro wanted to debate, he should have made the resolution something like "The USFG should grant all illegal immigrants amnesty". The resolution we are debating specifically states that *illegal* immigrants should be given benefits, implying that they would still be "illegal" when they are receiving benefits. Thus, my criticism stands -- Pro's plan cannot be implemented because of its paradoxical nature. Also, cross-apply (in advance) this counter to all other mentions Pro makes of making illegal immigrants citizens; the resolution is not about ammesty.

C2) Cost

1. Pro essentially says that our debt is already so high that even 500 billion extra dollars makes little difference. That's nonsensical. We have to start paying off our debt eventually, and Pro's plan just makes it harder to do that any time soon. Pro's response is akin to a smoker who refuses to stop smoking because his lungs already seem to be beyond repair. It simply isn't tenable in the long run.

2. Pro is blatantly false in his claim that most Americans are illegal immigrants. Even the first settlers could not have been considered "illegal immigrants" because there was no state to "immigrate" into; Native Americans did not have the bureaucratic governments, citizens, or official immigration processes necessary for such classifications to exist. Pro's rebuttal fails.

3. Pro dismisses the notion of giving benefits attracting more illegal immigrants as being "laughable". However, I provided academic analyses demonstrating that it *does* happen. If anything, Pro's flippant dismissal of empirical evidence is "laughable". Pro says that if that were the case, having a welfare state would attract more legal immigrants... and he's right. It does. So, again, he has just hurt his own case. It is rather intuitive, really -- people respond to incentives. Providing benefits *does* attract illegal immigrants en masse.

C3) Unjust

Again, cross--apply the point that this debate is not about amnesty -- it's about providing federal benefits to immigrants who are currently classified as being here illegally. It is unfortunate that Pro has spent so much space on amnesty, because it is completely non-topical.


I don't feel like writing one. It's 3am again.
Resolution negated.
Debate Round No. 3


TheSatiricalAnarchist forfeited this round.


Genghis_Khan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheSatiricalAnarchist 1 year ago
I apologize for having had to forfeit, this week I became to busy to continue the debate. Please vote Con.
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
No, they are not steal....oh my gosh there's so much wrong with that comment, lol. But I don't want to derail the comments section and I already have answers for all those objections written down in my debate, so you should just read it first at least.
Posted by TheSatiricalAnarchist 1 year ago
What do you mean Genghis?
Posted by Genghis_Khan 1 year ago
what does any of that even have to do with this topic lol
Posted by TheSatiricalAnarchist 1 year ago
@Varrack You can feel how you want to. But when one group of people goes and forcefully colonizes another area, pillages its resources, rapes the occupants, forces education on them and brings them into a slave trade I have problems with it that will not rest. They occupied it and even though it was not the mos sentient of societies, that does not mean they didn't have their most basic human rights to land they occupied. So, for instance, if I am in an apartment [so the landlord owns the property, I occupy it], and someone comes along and steals the stuff from the inside of it and kicks me out, are they not stealing from me?
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
"But the Puritans that emigrated to the unfamiliar U.S territory committed mass genocide against American Indian / Native Americans and were responsible for a massive reduction in the general populace of them."

LOL that is so wrong. I've already debunked that myth in this debate:
Posted by GainWisdom 1 year ago
Watching Fox News makes everyone mad. I would prefer every one to watch CNN even though it is a bunch of left wing liberals.
Posted by TheSatiricalAnarchist 1 year ago
Fine, the rules have been changed.
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
You realize that every media news outlet has some form of bias, correct? If I cited CNN, how would I know you wouldn't try to call me out for that? That rule is up for question, and you can't just say "nothing biased" because that would erase most Internet sources.
Posted by TheSatiricalAnarchist 1 year ago
@16kadams Thank you for voicing your opinion on the rules of this debate. But your opinion will not be echoed into an edit of the rules because it is seen as unnecessary by none other than myself. Do you understand what bias is defined as? If no, let me show you the definition:

unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something.

So how is it that my argument is inherently biased if I am not unfairly for or against it? I am simply making a third person argument that overrules my personal views on it and instead speaks words through statistics and facts that come from several credible media sources. The rule banning biased sources would inherently include anything rated worse than Fox, because that news network is horribly riddled with bias and was caught on several occasions in lies.

As for the third person rule, that is just a principle of formal writing. This is a debate, not an editorial. I would like to keep it strictly formal and third person. Adding charged, biased language and putting 'I', 'we', 'you', etc. ruins the concept of getting rid of bias. Thank you for the feedback but it will not be implemented.
No votes have been placed for this debate.