The Instigator
1Historygenius
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
ScarletGhost4396
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

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 3 votes the winner is...
1Historygenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,327 times Debate No: 19903
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

1Historygenius

Con

This is a debate between illegal immigration. I am against it, my opponent will be for it. Round 1 is just an opener.
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Alright, why not? Sounds fun. I'll await your argument.
Debate Round No. 1
1Historygenius

Con

OK to open this debate, I would like to start with a quote:

"We've been inundated with criminal activity. It's just - it's been outrageous." - Arizona Governor Jan Brewer

The said let's start with illegal immigration and criminal activity. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 2011 report, American prisons hold 351,000 illegal immigrants because of crimes that have occurred and criminal aliens actually have an average of seven arrests. This costs the US taxpayers $1.1 billion (http://www.gao.gov...).

The United States of America should not take lawbreakers in as citizens and that is exactly what they are doing by being illegal immigrants. Currently, an average of three border patrol guards are attacked everyday along America's southern border with Mexico. The Justice Department has reported that assaults on US border patrol guards has increased 46% (http://cnsnews.com...).

Not to mention that Al Qaeda has maybe infiltrating our southern borders already (http://www.washingtontimes.com...).

Now not all immigrants are criminals, still we must enforce our laws. We cannot hold all the immigrants of the world. One immigrant, Carlos Montano, an illegal immigrant, was driving drunk in Virginia and killed a 66-year-old nun, Sister Denise Moiser, and wounded two others (http://www.cbsnews.com...).

Now let's turn to illegal immigrants in school. First off, illegal immigrant obviously take up space in school for students who should really be there and thus make classrooms bigger. Also, US taxpayers pay $52 billion annually to educate illegals and that was reported by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) (http://www.fairus.org...).

Illegal immigrants cause huge financial strains on the government. 70% of Texas' illegal immigrant families are on welfare? That is already to high compared to the too high 39% of native-born American who receive welfare (http://blog.chron.com...). The total cost of for Los Angeles to handle illegal immigrants is $1.6 billion which is not including the $600 million they pay for illegals' education (http://www.foxnews.com...). Also, due to illegal immigration, the nation's average wages have lowered 7.4% for America's 10 million native-born people who do not have a high school diploma (http://www.fairus.org...).

So my opponent, if he/she pays taxes as well as the people will be voting should remember that they pay some of that $5.2 billion in education + $1.1 billion crime + the taxes you pay for 70% of illegal immigrants on welfare if you live in Texas + 1.6 billion it pays to handle illegal immigrants if you live in LA County if you live there.
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Rebuttal 1: I will begin my argument by addressing my opponent's statement about crime in the United States as a result of illegal immigration. He talks about the amount of illegal immigrants that are currently in American prisons as a result of crimes, but the problem with his case is that he does not compare this to the amount of illegal immigrants that are in the country. According to the recent news, including this article http://www.breitbart.com... among others show that an estimated amount of 12 million illegal immigrants currently live in the United States. Compare this to the amount of illegal immigrants in prisons and you will realize that it is a drop in the bucket. As for the average of seven arrests statistic, I was looking through the source that my opponent has posted and nowhere does it show the methodology of gathering the statistic nor the actual data used in order to come to this conclusion. It only reported the average, as far as I know. We won't know for sure, then, if it was an outlier because averages are not resistant to changes in data. I believe that it was Newt Gingrich, the current frontrunner of the GOP candidacy for 2012, that made a plan where illegal immigrants can go through a screening process in order to take out the illegal immigrants that have been considered to be threats to the security of the nation and place them into the deportation process. The actual condition of having illegal immigrants, according to the PRO, isn't inherently bad if it can be done correctly, and in the long run, it can be beneficial for the country. This will come in the economics question, which I will address later.

Rebuttal 2: Firms in the country require resources in order to be functional, and this includes the input by human capital. This human capital can come in the form of not only illegal immigrants working in the jobs that no one wants to work in, but it can also come in the form of intellectual capital if more illegal immigrants can enter into the American education system, acquire diplomas and other required pieces of education, and they can become functional inputs in the private sector, increasing the revenue of firms and allowing them to expand to more labor. What my opponent doesn't seem to understand is that economics is a careful game, and if played correctly, everyone in the American citizenry can be able to prosper, illegal or otherwise. With an expansion in the amount of human capital, coupled along possibly with a reduction of regulation on businesses in order to reduce the amount of costs that firms have, not only will illegal immigrants be able to occupy jobs, but it will leave space for more labor to be able to enter into the private sector. Firms have more labor in the end, the people have more jobs, and the economy will be able to expand. The question is by what margin individual taxes for an American will go up in the end, and regardless the answer, illegal immigrants can be benificial for the economy in the long run because they provide resources that firms are able to use, especially if more of them enter into the education system and become our country's next doctors, lawyers, and engineers.

Rebuttal 3: As for the Al Queada suspicision, we already have regulations in place, including the PATRIOT Act in order to deal with terrorist activity as well as more regulations in order to keep terrorism at bay in the country. Even if this activity occurs, the United States has been more prepared for such attacks after 9/11.
Debate Round No. 2
1Historygenius

Con

Rebuttal 1:
"He talks about the amount of illegal immigrants that are currently in American prisons as a result of crimes, but the problem with his case is that he does not compare this to the amount of illegal immigrants that are in the country."

The point I was making on American prisons has nothing to do with the number of illegals living in the country, it has to due with the fact that are illegals in American prisons that WE the registered citizens of this country are paying for when they should not be here in the first place. That fact that WE pay for them to be in our prisons is bad and that they should be deported. So my opponent's first rebuttal falls right there. Then my opponent turns to Newt Gingrich and his plan to get rid of illegal immigrants living in the country that provide a threat to our nation. Despite his plan, Newt is not the president, Obama is.

Rebuttal 2:
First off, I would like to say that my opponent has placed no links in the rebuttal he/she made. Thus, there is no evidence for her to backup on that what she is saying is actually true.

"This human capital can come in the form of not only illegal immigrants working in the jobs that no one wants to work in,...."

I am sure the 9% unemployed really want to work in jobs right now to get money to live.

"....acquire diplomas and other required pieces of education, and they can become functional inputs in the private sector, increasing the revenue of firms and allowing them to expand to more labor."

This would take the opportunities citizens in the country who wants to go school and get education. One problem with my opponent's statement is that he/she first states that the illegal immigrants could work for jobs no one wants. I would assume that these are low income jobs. Then my opponent states that illegal immigrants have the opportunity to go to acquire diplomas and so on. So if an illegal immigrant is on a low income job how do they afford college? Not many illegal immigrants have enough money and are educated enough for these jobs, unless they are doing good in the country they live in which makes no sense for them to leave it. From my opponent's argument you can conclude one way that illegals can afford college and that is welfare. As I have already stated before *with evidence* 70% of Texas' illegal immigrant are on the welfare system. Now my opponent has provided no evidence (as I have stated before) so we do not even know the demographics of illegals going to colleges and getting educations that provide them go to into the business, law, and medical sectors. Also, in an economic depression you cut back and can only hire so few and if illegal immigrants are taking job that are needed by actual citizens as well as downsizing wages for those lower class jobs then that means they are not providing a benefit to the nation. My arguments still stand that Americans also lose money for paying a whopping $52 billion on illegals in the education system.

Rebuttal 3:
While the PATRIOT Act is in place, the lack of a fence on our southern border still allows them to infiltrate the country as well as the cartels. We need to stop them from getting in our country by cutting off this route and making locations where people can cross from border to border if they have the certain things needed to.
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1Historygenius

Con

My arguments are extended. I also suggest that I get good conduct on the fact that my opponent has forfeited a round.
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Christmas shopping can be such a hassle, especially when it deviates me from debate rounds. I sincerely apologize to my opponent and the judges for my forfeit of a round, and I understand if my opponent takes the conduct vote. However, if I may, I'll still explain to the judges my counters for my opponent's rebuttals and the reasons why they should vote for me as victor in this debate.
Rebuttal 1: Compare the amount of revenue that the American economy can receive by having independent, private firms hire them and give wages, priceless resources that illegal immigrants can become once placed into the education system in order to attain educations and become human capital, and the plan suggested that Newt Gingrich has in order to reduce the amount of illegal offenders in the United States, and we can see that not only any amount of money spent through taxes on illegal immigrants will be worthwhile, but in the long run, we can reduce our costs while private firms can increase their revenues and expand in order to benefit commerce. My opponent talks about how Newt Gingrich is not president, but that doesn't detract from the fact that this plan could definately work. In this debate, we are inherently working in a theoretical perspective on the issue of illegal immigration where my opponent and I are contrasting ideals and giving suggestions on how this problem should be resolved. Whether it's Gingrich, Obama, Bachmann, Biden, Palin, or Bieber in the oval office, the simple idea is that this plan that Gingrich offered makes sense economically when implemented. My opponent speaks in no way about how this plan doesn't work, by the way. This rebuttal kind of continues into the next one..
Rebuttal 2: I find it laughable that my opponent is actually looking for evidence for this. Being required to provide evidence that industry requires resources in order to function is like being required to provide evidence that 2+2=4. If my opponent REALLY requires evidence for this, it'll be provided at the bottom of this rebuttal. The 9% unemployed is definately a problem that should be resolved, but while it is a problem that should be resolved, it is no excuse to throw away perfectly good resources that American firms could have in order to increase their revenue as well as provide stable jobs for those illegals that not only want to make an American dream crossing the border, but also the ones that have had trouble with the law in the past. Poverty is one of the major causes of criminality in America because people will need to turn toward criminality in order to make livings, and with the provision of more jobs into these regions of the country, criminality can be reduced, thus solving the problem of $1.1 billion in taxpayer dollars (not to mention that my opponent also doesn't answer the question as to how much individual taxes for Americans will go up by. He could've in his last rebuttal, but didn't).
Rebuttal 3: For all the *evidence* that my opponent posts, he somehow doesn't know about federal grants that the government gives out. For all the *evidence* that my opponent posts, he somehow doesn't know about churches and independent charities that provide scholarships for people that have problems entering into colleges with their payrolls. Even some higher-up people in society with high-paying salaries have to attain grants and scholarships in order to fully pay the price tag that universities come with. Illegals have the opportunities necessary in order to be able to enter into college if they have the drive to enter into college and become dutiful Americans that contribute to the economy. My opponent talks only in a scenario of an economic depression when the economy rises and falls in America. He also doesn't explain in any way about how having more illegals in the country that want to go to school is in any way going to take the opportunities of others away nor why this would matter. Business is business and all people are resources and potential ways for the economy to grow and expand, and when this does happen, illegals can add to the supply of the labor market when demand increases for other jobs that need to be filled. Maybe it will be a citizen that can hold expectations. Maybe it will be an illegal. All of them are resources at the end of the day, and to just kick them out when they can add to the labor market is just wasteful. Firms feel the exact same way after the passages of anti-immigration legislations in Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama. These policies are kicking out their resources, especially their resources for low-income jobs that even the 9% don't want to fill.
Reasons for voting PRO: The reasons for voting PRO are basically that the PRO makes economic sense as far as an economics debate is concerned. Illegals add to the resource market, costs can be reduced with the plan that Newt Gingrich suggested (which my opponent does not directly argue against), and even if costs are high, it will be worthwhile in the long-run and considering my opponent doesn't answer to the question about how much individual tax costs for American citizens will rise, his talk about how it costs Americans $1.1 billion could just be an emotional appeal. Illegals come into the nation for one reason: to make better lives for themselves through the occupation of jobs and being part of a better education system. If they're hungry, why not offer them cake? Why not offer them coffee? Why not offer them the opportunity to be able to make a good living while at the same time substantiating the economy? That's what I'm asking. The CON argument would only be a short-run resolution for a long-term problem. It'll be a good way to reduce costs now, but once firms require labor for low-income jobs and more labor for the more high-income ones when our citizens have occupied them, the CON world won't be able to deal with those problems. If you want solutions NOW that firms will regret in the future, vote CON, but if you want long-term solutions with plans to fix the kinks in the middle that my opponent doesn't respond to, your vote will be for the PRO.

References:
Edmonson, Brad. "Life without Illegal Immigrants | American Demographics | Find Articles." Find Articles | News Articles, Magazine Back Issues & Reference Articles on All Topics. May 1996. Web. 21 Dec. 2011. <http://findarticles.com...;.
Hanson, Gordon H. "The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration." (2007). Council on Foreign Relations, 26 Apr. 2007. Web.
Lynch, David J., and Chris Woodyard. "USATODAY.com - Immigrants Claim Pivotal Role in Economy." News, Travel, Weather, Entertainment, Sports, Technology, U.S. & World - USATODAY.com. 11 Apr. 2006. Web. 21 Dec. 2011. <http://www.usatoday.com...;.



Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
Ok
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
Posting to remind myself to read this after Christmas.
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
Make sure to vote Con!
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
Good ahead, in the meantime I will have an early victory party!
Posted by ScarletGhost4396 4 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
Don't count your chickens before they hatch 1Historygenius. I haven't forgotten about our debate. I'll be over in just a minute.
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
hmmmmm.....looks I am going to win this round with only 4 hours left!
Posted by OldIronGuts 4 years ago
OldIronGuts
I'm feeling particularly brave...
Posted by Oldfrith 4 years ago
Oldfrith
So... you want to have the easiest one-sided debate ever, weighed towards you?
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
It's a brave person who'll argue in favor of ILLEGAL immigration
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
It's a brave person who'll argue in favor of ILLEGAL immigration
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
1HistorygeniusScarletGhost4396Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct for the FF, arguments even.
Vote Placed by Crayzman2297 4 years ago
Crayzman2297
1HistorygeniusScarletGhost4396Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: A good debate! I say it's fairly even... I only give Con conduct points because of Pro's forfeit.
Vote Placed by kyro90 4 years ago
kyro90
1HistorygeniusScarletGhost4396Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow all of the arguments were really good, I cant seem to pick one that is better....