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

Controlled 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,366 times Debate No: 14381
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




i have to be pro for this for my debate and discussion class in college and i thought this would be a good idea so if you see this, even if you are for controlled immigration, please be con or against so i can actually get better at debating, it would also be great if you guys could give me advice about which sites to find information about debate topics for future reference.

SO.........................i am pro for controlled immigration due to the fact that this behavior is controlled. I am not for illegal immigration but when these people come into our country and have earned thier citizenship and worked really hard in order to be here, then it is fine with me. What is not ok with me is where these immigrants are given rights over us like they get put ahead of us in social security or when they are given free medical care and our taxes end up paying for it. this is not to be tolerated because we Americans have lived here for our entire lives but when they get the benefits over us, this action crosses over an invisible line that has been established since our country was created in 1776! When the industrial revolution was in its big boom we had thousands of immigrants coming into our country and they created hundreds of problems like disease, taking jobs and creating unemployment in the American public. It may seem harsh but i believe that hard working americans that have busted thier butts should get jobs over incoming immigrants. the only reason why owners of stores and businesses pick immigrants over americans is because they would work for less (im of course talking about the industrial revo still, not todays society) today we have thousands of mexicans who are looking for a good place to live and raise their kids so they come accross our border and make money then go back and give the money to thier fmailies, i believe they should wait in line to get a green card just like verybody else and get thier american citizenship, its not fair to the people of the united states

this is not what i actually beleive, again i have to defend this side for my class so everything i said isnt wwhat i beleive


Greetings to my opponent. In this debate I will be making a case for why controlled immigration is wrong.

In Mexico, people are poor. A few Mexicans are able to run across the border and work for low wages in America, because when that money is converted back into Peso, they are are millionaires. They have nothing to lose and everything to win under the status quo. I do not believe that this will be contended by my opponent. Similar things happen elsewhere. Indonesians try to tug boats to Australia in search of a few Australian dollars in wages, because to them that money is worth much, much more. Other people illegally immigrate in search of a better lifestyle. People from Zimbabwe are usually over-represented in illegal immigration statistics, because of the poorer quality of life there. That is why illegal immigration happens, and again, I doubt this will be contended.

What this debate is really about is whether the status quo of controlled immigration is providing an adequite solution. Let's see what my opponent thinks...

"i believe they [Mexicans] should wait in line..."

Thanks for sharing. Unfortunately that is no evidence that controlled immigration is working. So seeing as my opponent is yet to make an argument, it seems like I don't have to do any rebuttal.

So what does this side of the house stand for? We firmly believe the world would be a better place if governments all around the world, by a UN declaration, were to lift all controls on immigration within a one-week transition period. Laid off immigration staff would join air carriers for the expected surge in flights to wealthy countries. The effect will be that people can work where they like. The follow-on effect will be that money will be redistributed away from rich countries and towards poorer countries. Then, the exchange rates balance. Therefore there will never be immigration out of reasons of relative riches - ever again! Countries will also become balanced in terms of quality of life, as population shifts. While I admit tax reforms would have to be made to accommodate this system, the end result will be that the countries with the most people will get the most tax, and therefore be able to pay more social security. Of course governments would retain control over how this would work, as certain schemes would be best for certain countries.

So why do we believe this?
1. We believe that people should be free as they are born. We believe the right of freedom of movement is a fundamental human right, both sacred and irremovable. This is not just an assertion of many famous philosophers, but enshrined in the legal code of many countries. We do not consider it to be within the role of the government to regulate movement unless there is a good cause for it. There is no good cause for controlled immigration other than empty belief.
2. The status quo is not working. It only leads to injustice, the denial of essentials to those who most need it, and poverty around the globe. One good example might be the African struggle to get AIDS drugs - corporates charged millions to Africans what only cost Americans a few hundred, as they knew there was no danger of Africans getting in to America. This was not fair and challenged in courts for decades. The status quo is locking millions in to countries like Bangladesh, often ravaged by floods and with extreme poverty - but the people have nothing to do but sail away in search of a better life. Besides which, the Mexico example highlights the fact that governments cannot keep everyone out.
3. The status quo is already toppling. The advent of the internet means that national boundaries are becoming more irrelevant than ever before. Illegal immigrants are so numerous many countries are already looking to alternative solutions.

These arguments will be expanded upon in later rounds.

I wish my opponent luck for the remainder of this debate and look forward to reading his rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 1


I am impressed by your argument.

What I mean by controlled immigration is that the people coming from all over the world have a legal citizenship that allows them to be here in America. The government isn't controlling immigration at all, we have all the illegals coming in from Mexico and all other countries that we don't even know about. What I'm arguing here is that controlled immigration should be accepted and illegal immigration should not be tolerated.

Controlled immigration is a great idea for America due to the following reasons:
1) At times, immigration becomes a person's need. In case of personal reasons such as shifting a person's family, in case of a marriage with someone staying abroad and in case of family needs to move to another nation, a person is forced to move out of the country. The immigration laws that facilitate the migration of people between the two countries are of great help in such cases.

2) Immigration leads to an exchange of cultural values. It results in an exchange of knowledge and expertise between two nations. Immigration serves as an opportunity to interact with people of other countries. It gives a platform for people from diverse backgrounds to come together and share their views.

3) Immigration brings in new opportunities for the people of different countries. It exposes the people of a nation to the atmosphere of another country that may be very different from one's motherland. Immigration has resulted in gifting the knowledge of one nation to another, thus resulting in the creation of new fields of education and newer career options.

4) Immigration results in an open global market. It gives a global perspective to the social and economic growth of society, thus widening the horizons of the development. Supporters of immigration believe that immigration has the potential of bringing about a global prosperity.

To summarize these advantages of controlled immigration is that it is simply better for global economy and to put it simple, our economy. We are able to advance in our business areas and dimensions as long as our personal lives. Although there are billions of people out there in the planet that live and breathe as you and I, America needs as many people as we can get. China has a population of one billion people and then some, in America, we only have 300 million people. Although this number is significant and a large number that seems so vast, it is not enough. India for example, their population is one billion and some change. Their economies are thriving right now. Two correlations are extremely obvious if you haven't noticed, China and India both have vast populations and have a enormous, booming economy. The United States has an OK economy,but its not as good as it could be. If people from all over the world want to come here, let them when they are legal and are willing to help themselves and the United States of America.

I am looking forward to your rebuttal and dispute to my remarks.


I'd like to thank my opponent for his continuation of his case.

Overall, my opponent is saying that the government should decide who gets in to a country and who doesn't. I'm saying that the people should decide. I'm saying that if I want to go and live in Bhutan or the Vatican City, I should be allowed to without having to go through immigration. Contrary to some people's belief, immigration isn't there to help people come in - it is there to keep people out. So while I agree with my opponent that immigration is often one's need, I disagree that some government official sitting in an office (playing Solitaire) will know about this need better than the person with the need. I also agree that the world needs greater cultural exchange - but surely this would happen if we didn't keep more and more people out? I agree that knowledge needs to be spread, but this spread cannot happen when governments have immigration restrictions. Prosperity does come from immigration, like my learned opponent states, but strangely, not from government imposed immigration restrictions. Therefore, to reiterate, I oppose controlled immigration in favor of open immigration.

What I'd really like to know is why my opponent thinks that before a person comes to the states, they need to have a green card. Surely all of these great advantages my opponent propounds are not there only because not enough people can get to the United States - lack of green pieces of card is keeping them out. Which brings me, finally, to the first issue my opponent brought up - lack of immigration controls in present-day America. I contend this. According to the Collins Paperback English Dictionary, control is the power to direct something. Does the government of the United States have the power to direct immigration? Yes. They may legally make any law concerning immigration that falls within their jurisdiction. Do they have the ability to exercise these powers? Usually. Far more Mexicans are stopped at the border than run across it. Perhaps they cannot catch them all, but in general, I think it is a fair enough conclusion that there are American immigration controls. If my opponent continues to assert the opposite, maybe he should ask the American immigration service what they do all day?

Given that my opponent offers no rebuttal to my constructive case, I will build on my arguments numbers one and two.

My first argument was on the fundamental freedom of movement rights we all possess. Once again, the role of the government in a democratic state (which is pretty much every government in the world) is to ensure the rights of the electors, not restrict them. Governments, however, are placing many restrictions on immigration. In ancient times, before modern governmental structure, freedom of movement was a universal right. It can therefore only be detrimental to our development to restrict this movement in any way - we have lost something that we once had. Controls on immigration are a restriction on movement like any other. For this reason Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly, gives all the right to enter their "own country." But who decides that constitutes a person's own country? Can a government really tell a person "that is YOUR country, thus you are stuck there?" No. That should be a decision for the potential immigrant, not big brother. The really strange thing about this example is that all the nations that signed and ratified this fundamental document now have immigration departments in their governments, controlling human rights like mad. Perhaps it is because of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 12 of which adds a few caveats - national security, public order and so forth. Yet the problem is still the same - these are subjective judgements imposed by bureaucrats in ivory towers. I doubt they often recognise how much is at stake. As is written in U.N. General Comment 27, part one "Liberty of movement is an indispensable condition for the free development of a person." I believe the U.S. Constitution provides for freedom of movement also, with "reasonable limits" - but how can a test for the reasonableness of a fundamental right be determined?

And so we move on to my second argument. The system is broke. Let's fix it. In round one, I gave you a clear model of how the system could be fixed right now. The system is not working when Africans starve and people invite me to lavish banquets. The system is not working when people from central Asia need medical care but cannot get it, while my doctor tells me off if I don't see him often enough. The system is not working when people are stuck in war torn or politically unstable countries and are left with no future despite their numerous qualifications, while I enjoy peace and security with a bright future despite only being a college student. These are the times when immigration is most needed ... and, unfortunately, the most restricted. Africa, more than any other continent, has more travel restrictions by foreign countries than any other country. Why? Commercial interest, famine, resulting desease, resulting poverty. That is what happens when the power is not with the people - the system becomes vulnerable to exploitation. Look at the so-called boat people who come to Australia. They are turned away in their hundreds, despite being more needy than many of the migrants who come in, because they are less skilled. Well, of course they are, but why should your level of skill determine your civil rights? I put it to you that it should not. I put it to you that governments have no right to tell me where I can and cannot live. Therefore they have no right to control immigration. This is how it should be. This will fix the problem.

As my third argument is quite a major one, I'll wait until my last round to expand on it. Now I'll hand back to my opponent so we can hear the rest of his case.
Debate Round No. 2


I appreciate my opponents rebuttal and thoughts on this topic of Controlled Immigration.

Granted that we have many problems around the world that are causing trouble and problems globally and effecting each country differently. When you bring up your point about fundamental freedom of movement rights, the reason why our government has its holds and limitations of immigration is due to the desire for everybody to come to America. We already have a %12 unemployment rate for just Americans. Our government has this hold on immigration because our people should come first become foreigners. They have their systems in their own country and if they want to have the same things we have here, they should do something in their country that would advance them to the situation we have in America. We have to look out for our fellow Americans because they are the ones that have an impact on our decisions as a country and they have a meaning that helps our government. Now I'm not saying that foreigners don't have any importance because they do because we want them to come to America and have a good life but before they can come here we need to help out and look out for Americans who are having a hard time and give them a hand through a hard life.

I don't have any more time to rebuttal you, I am very sorry. I have to go to school now and I wont have time because by the time that i can get back to this, it will be too late and i wont be able to finish it. I am sorry my worthy opponent. I really appreciate your time and effort you put into this. I hope i put up a reasonable argument for my first time. I would like you to finish your rebuttal even though i didnt get to finish. When you are done please give me some tips on how to get better at this debating process. I am very interested and i would like to learn everything I can. I am a rookie and i am looking forward to more debates with other people.


I'd like to thank my opponent for his brief conclusion. I will give him my feedback in the comments (tomorrow, as I am quite busy today), but would like to say that his argument was certainly very reasonable. Good luck to him in future debates. Now I will do rebuttal and my third argument.

"if they want to have the same things we have here, they should do something in their country"
1) They can't. America has monopolized many markets through a system of patents and the world trade organisation. This has made them so wealthy that they have been able to buy controlling stakes in most of the R&D centers throughout the world. This makes it relatively impossible for other countries to get ahead.
2) If they could, wouldn't they have tried to do so already?
3) It doesn't fix the system - wealth and civil rights are different things.

"we need to help out and look out for Americans who are having a hard time"
1) Americans are not having a hard time or a hard life. Look at mortality rates, literacy rates, prevalence of disease... the list is endless. America is by far the wealthiest country in the world. Thus my opponent must either claim that Americans are the only people worth caring about (which is racist and not worth my time responding to), or be incredibly ignorant about the current state of the world.
2) See my argument below for additional rebuttals on this point.

Third argument
It is no longer possible to simply say one is an American. Just because one lives in America, one can act as a citizen of any country in the world, using electronic communication. Governments have lost exclusive control of their citizens, thanks to global initiatives such as the international criminal court and global policing. Political boundaries are becoming increasingly pointless, just administrative zones doing the same work as a local council, on a larger scale. Therefore the status quo of movement restrictions is falling - people can often do the same thing without movement already. The only times that they cannot are when it matters most - to escape from a dangerous situation, save their life or desperately find work. Therefore the entire purpose of the immigration system is defeated, simply a drain on taxpayer's money.

I conclude that governments have not the right or ability to control immigration. Controlled immigration is a drain on the world - a drain that is destroying lives, livelihoods and whole countries. My opponent has answered none of my points, reminding us of how hard working Americans are. Perhaps they are, perhaps they need help to. But that doesn't mean they get a monopoly on help. Everyone has a right to help when help is needed. Nothing makes Americans special. Therefore controlled immigration should be abolished. My counter model of uncontrolled immigration stands.

Please, please, please ... vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by larztheloser 7 years ago
My thought's on Pro's case:

Overall, links to sources would have been good. I'm probably the only debater here who doesn't link when his opponent doesn't.

In round one, I think you needed to make it clearer what exactly it was that you were proposing, and outline a few of your arguments that you will make (you brought up a lot in later rounds that I couldn't anticipate).

In round two, I thought your case was a bit all over the place. Stick to the point and link all your points back to the topic. A few of your points were more on my side than yours, which I capitalised on. Never, ever, give me arguments! Some more rebuttal would have been good too.

Round three generally needs a lot of rebuttal. Yours needed a lot more. Also a conclusion would have been good.

Still, I do think you did well for your first debate.

And finally ... I'm not actually for uncontrolled immigration. Controlled immigration all the way! The major reason, as Roy alluded to, is national security concerns. If the system is broke, that does not mean that it can never work. We can make it work, and still ensure relative prosperity.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
There is a case for uncontrolled immigration, but it depends upon there being no government benefits. The Supremes have ruled that all people within the US borders, legally or illegally, are entitled to all benefits offered by the Federal government. Hence, there is problem with people entering just to receive free health care, unemployment benefits, or free education. A Pro case should include a Constitutional amendment to remove the attraction.

The Con case should include the apparent need to exclude terrorists and career criminals.

Currently, the U.S. has very tight controls on the immigration of skilled labor. A Norwegian PhD isn't going to make it in. Unskilled labor is poorly controlled.

This debate was weak, but improved as it went along. Con was a little more coherent.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Capitalize your letters.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04