The Instigator
Daktoria
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
wizza_x
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

American Liberals Are on the Wrong Side of Mexican Illegal Immigration

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Daktoria
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 602 times Debate No: 74836
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Daktoria

Pro

If American liberals understood Mexican politics, there's no way they would support illegal immigration.

Mexico is a country with three major political parties:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...(Mexico)
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The IRP is the historical party which has controlled Mexico's social programs, public goods, and welfare programs for the past century. Those programs have been run into ruin due to corruption and a lack of accountability, so many Mexicans seek asylum in the United States to escape how these social programs have been run. This is especially after the Peso crisis and the mishandling of Mexico's oil windfall:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

On the other hand, the PDR which seeks to maintain social programs has opposed the IRP's pursuit of technocracy. That is it prefers a folk community common sense approach to democracy rather than allowing independently educated scientific minds to run things. The irony of this is how the IRP has often been accused of playing favorites, so technocracy was an internal reform movement.

The alternative to the IRP and PDR is the conservative NAM that seeks to liquidate and privatize these social programs altogether, but it often gets squished between the two parties, and that squishing results in continued negligence of social programs where the people suffer from poor administration.

In turn, those who suffer seek opportunity in America to get away from the failed social program model. If liberals really knew what was going on, they would oppose illegal immigration because they would want Mexicans to deal with their problems and figure out how to make social programs work. Instead, they're allowing Mexicans to run away from problems that liberals believe can and should be solved.
wizza_x

Con

What does Mexican political party have to do with Liberal philosophies? We believe in Freedom! If anyone feels that they are truly oppressed by the U.S. government they should have the right to leave this country. Likewise, if any Mexicans feel like they are oppressed by the Mexican politicians they should have the right to leave their country. OOOOHHHH right... they are illegal immigrants!!! Well, it is very hypocritical of us to define who are the "illegals" in this country. We came here unannounced, killed, raped, and murdered, thousands of natives and stole land from Mexico and then we call the them the immigrants?
Debate Round No. 1
Daktoria

Pro

Liberals do not merely believe in freedom. They also believe in social programs as a way to balance out capitalist inequality, and the oppression which happens in Mexico is due to those social programs failing. By tolerating illegal immigration, liberals are compromising on their position towards social programs.

If you want to talk about history, you should understand that liberals believe in the same ideology that was used to oppress Mexico in the first place as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

From the beginning, slaveholders inhabited Mexican Texas while believing in the Protestant Work Ethic. This was the excuse used to rationalize slavery - that Africans and Native Americans obviously hadn't performed sufficient good works to represent a predestined calling, so it was our entitlement to treat them as chattel.

Catholic Mexico, in contrast, has illegalized slavery because Catholics believe that humanity is universally graceful ever since Jesus died for our sins, and that when grace is accepted, it leads to the mysterious performance of good works such that nobody's entitled to judge anyone else's performance thereof. Texan independence was rationalized by this ideological conflict.

Furthermore, the pursuit of "manifest destiny" that rationalized the Mexican-American war came about from this ideological conflict. When individuals didn't prove they had performed sufficient good works to represent a predestined calling in their local communities, they became outcast. In turn, they still needed somewhere to live, so they would pioneer westward.

One way or another, liberals shouldn't support illegal immigration. It contradicts their deeper ideological commitment. They should primarily care about liberal beliefs being upheld in Mexico, not allowing non-liberals to escape liberal governments.
wizza_x

Con

wizza_x forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Daktoria

Pro

To finish, liberals should consider the Mexican Revolution which happened when Mexican immigration to the United States started:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The revolution concluded with the IRP (that now corrupts social programs) taking power by manipulating the political situation at hand. Before the Revolution, foreign investment on a multiculturalist basis usurped local authorities which is similar to how modern liberalism opposes anti-intellectual and small town conservatism. It created a free society with a burgeoning urban working class. At the same time, land reforms were inverted because it was understood that the pursuit of equality before was leading to the enabling of oppressive folk community common sense. In fact, agrarian workers were being constantly oppressed, so a change in policy was needed to liberate the people. On top of this, Progressive Presidents Taft and Wilson supported the liberal establishment against the revolutionaries.

The revolution took on a very nationalist and conservative character because of this political backdrop, subverting the original radical intentions (although some might say that radicalism innately contains conservative elements due to how its socially democratic, egalitarian, working class focus is only semantically different from anti-elitist folk community common sense that believes in work ethic). Regardless, we should remember that liberalism and radicalism are not the same ideology. Liberals do not oppose the existence of capitalism, but rather merely seek to regulate it.

The bottomline here is the origin of Mexican immigration into the U.S. took place at the same time that the corrupt IRP came into power which usurped the liberal political establishment. From beginning to end, liberals should oppose illegal immigration this corruption of social programs should be reformed, not appeased.
wizza_x

Con

wizza_x forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
if you want you can challenge me to this. Just make the characters 8-10k.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Daktoriawizza_xTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited and failed to refute Pro's case.
Vote Placed by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
Daktoriawizza_xTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - pro. Con forfeited two rounds of the debate, which is rarely ever allowed | Spelling & Grammar - Though con did make spelling and grammar mistakes, they did not hurt my understanding of his case | Args = Pro was the only side to actually give a reason why or why not american liberals are on the wrong side of immigration. All that con did was say that Americans raped thousands of people, which is not enough for him to get the points. Con says that liberals believe in freedom, but pro sufficiently proved that this assertion (and main contention of con) is false. The reasoning in pro's argument convinced me. | Sources - Pro had the only sources, and they are from pretty reliable places. Wikipedia is pretty reviewed by people that understand a topic, so I will say that the wikipedia articles that I read are reliable. I am always glad to clarify this RFD if you need me to.