Illegal aliens should not be allowed to stay in the United States
Debate Rounds (5)
Pro side: For Illegal aliens being deported.
Con side: Against illegal aliens being deported.
1st Round: Introduce
2nd and 3rd Round: Arguments/Rebuttal
4th Round: Full Rebuttal
5th Round: Closing statements.
Best of Luck :)
I am taking the Con side on this debate, and I am therefore arguing against the immediate deportation of all illegal aliens.
I will be using statistical and historical evidence, as well as the testimony of experts on this particular area, to make my case for this debate. I will do my utmost to be civil, and argue solely from fact, rather than from opinion.
I'm looking forward to your argument, and I appreciate your debating me.
Thank you, and good luck to you as well.
My first argument will be under the basis that there is no rational basis for keeping illegal aliens.
1. They don't pay most taxes.
2. Some are in the United States to traffic drugs. Only corrupting our world..
3. If we don't deport illegal aliens then other illegal aliens will come as well leading to more illegal aliens being in the country.
Why if we have a way to enter this country legally, would we allow undocumented persons to come in and stay undocumented?? They need to follow the system legally and become legal residents and get a real job that will support them and their family.
They are taking jobs that documented/legal Americans could have. If those people were deported, we could give legal unemployed americans an opportunity to get a job... Leading to lower unemployment percentages!
I would like to begin by rebutting the three subpoints you made to establish your contention that there is no rational basis for keeping illegal aliens.
1. Undocumented immigrants actually do pay the majority of the tax burden we place on them (almost all of state and local and the greater part of federal), contrary to popular misconceptions, while also receiving fewer benefits.
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy informs us that (http://www.itep.org...) undocumented immigrants already contribute a sizeable amount to state and local taxes. Furthermore, they are currently actually contributing amounts disproportionately large relative to their services from the government.
The median household income of undocumented immigrants is approximately $37,000, according to Pew (http://www.pewhispanic.org...). However, on average, the government actually contributes more directly to those with incomes under $37,000 than it collects! Because of this, those undocumented immigrants who aren't meeting their income tax burden (that number is estimated around 25%) are typically costing the government less than naturalised citizens, as they are of course not able to claim federal services while not paying federal income tax. (http://taxfoundation.org...). This is related to the fact around 46% of Americans aren't required to pay income tax as-is (http://www.washingtonpost.com...), and statistics tell us the majority of undocumented immigrants are within this 46%. Similarly, undocumented immigrants contribute many, many times more to Social Security than they take out, as they pay for Social Security through their salary while lacking the Social Security card needed to receive benefits! (http://www.nytimes.com...)
And, to bring the point home reiterating and directly attack your unsupported claim, the majority of illegal immigrants are currently meeting their tax burden, (http://www.itep.org...) thoroughly debunking your first subpoint.
To connect it to my overall argument, I contend from available data that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants make a good-faith effort to pay all taxes whilst also having to deal with the extraordinary risk they are placed under should they be 'found out' and subsequently deported.
However, were we to provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, it is very likely our overall tax receipts would rise even further. I contend that your first sub-point not only can be disproven with factual evidence, but it is logically irrelevant, as undocumented immigrants would be more able to contribute their full share of taxes (although many of them already do) if we didn't pursue a policy of deportation.
2. Undocumented immigrants (and particularly their children) have a relatively similar or in some cases lower crime rate compared to that of naturalised citizens. In fact, American citizens are as likely to traffic drugs as undocumented immigrants!
This is another popular misconception that turns out to be largely unsupported by the data at hand. Four out of five busts for drug trafficing by the Border Patrol are by US citizens (http://cironline.org...). This is hilarious, as the Border Patrol exists in large part to prevent undocumented immigration, not serve as second fiddle to the DEA.
Take a look at the incarceration rates of US vs Mexican young men without an high school diploma, as this demographic makes up the majority of serious offenders (https://img.washingtonpost.com...). Again, the incarceration rate for naturalised citizens is nearly ten times higher!
The (right-wing and nativist) Centre for Immigration Studies, whilst pointing out that there is a somewhat higher rate of incarceration in Federal facilities for undocumented immigrants than for naturalised citizens, itself points out that this shaky data includes those incarcerated for the very offence of undocumented immigration (http://www.cis.org...)! The offence of undocumented immigration is the most common among undocumented immigrants incarcerated in federal facilities, as well, which appears to be more or less entirely for the marginally higher Federal incarceration rate.
Your contention that they are here to 'corrupt our world' is unfounded and prejudicial - Emily Ryo, a sociology professor at USC, found that the majority of undocumented immigrants believe they are moral people immigrating only to benefit the US (http://www.latimes.com...). In short, the moral fibre of these people is closer to that of the settlers who made America what it is today (many of whom, I would like to remind you, were themselves literal criminals) than it is to some imaginary menace concocted by xenophobia.
To once again more directly address your claim that deporting undocumented immigrants would reduce the crime rate, two law professors at the University of Chicago and New York University found that mass deportation had literally no statistically significant effect on the crime rate (http://www.nytimes.com...). To summarise, undocumented immigrants are not necessarily more likely to commit crimes and deportation does not positively affect the crime rate.
3. Your contention that refusing to deport undocumented immigrants will lead to more undocumented immigration is logically unsound, as the majority of those who oppose mass deportation support a less restrictive immigration process.
Unfortunately, there are no solid studies or statistics that can conclusively say the effect (whether positive or negative) that deportation has on undocumented immigration. I instead contend that your entire contention is flawed, as a scenario in which we would eliminate deportation would be one in which we have a true path to citizenship and a more open immigration process.
My hunch is that there would be more immigration, however there would certainly not be more 'illegal aliens'.
Finally, your overall argument that undocumented immigrants are a) bereft of a 'real job' and b) responsible for overall US unemployment is unsupported by both evidence and elementary logic.
To address your concluding argument, we currently have no true path to citizenship (with the exception of the restrictive and marginal DREAM Act) making it functionally impossible to 'follow the system legally and become legal residents'. Your suggestion that they 'get a real job' is illogical and absurd, as you also suggest that they are simulataneously 'taking jobs that documented/legal Americans could have'.
I would like to offer a rebuttal to your overly simplistic idea that undocumented immigration causes unemployment using some relatively simple economic principles.
There are three types of unemployment:
If you don't believe me, or Adam Davidson, I direct you to this WSJ poll of 46 economists (http://online.wsj.com...). When asked the question 'Illegal immigrants often benefit businesses by filling low-wage jobs that are difficult to fill with Americans. But illegal immigrants can add to the costs of U.S. social programs. On balance, has the U.S. economy benefited more than it has been harmed by its current population of undocumented workers?', 96% responded 'It has benefited more than it has been harmed'.
My argument is that the net benefit of undocumented immigration is positive as-is. Immigration bolsters the economy & population growth rate. However, the majority of the (comparatively small) harm comes from incidentals, such as fear of government, that would be reduced were they naturalised citizens. Therefore, we should end deportation whilst providing a pathway to citizenship and less restrictive immigration laws.
Golfer16 forfeited this round.
My opponent has forfeited this round. Therefore, I contend that my opponent concedes on my broad argument, as seen in Round 2, and has no response to my thorough rebuttals.
Golfer16 forfeited this round.
My opponent has forfeited yet another round.
Golfer16 forfeited this round.
bjartur forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Pro forfeited 3 rounds, whereas Con only forfeited 1.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.