The Instigator
jordyz
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points

Illegal immigration

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 4/21/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,277 times Debate No: 3732
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (11)

 

jordyz

Con

Illegal immigration is wrong. If it was ok it would not be illegal. These people are robbing our country blind, and I refuse to pay a chunk of the 9 billion dollars to support these people.
Yraelz

Pro

"Illegal immigration is wrong. If it was ok it would not be illegal. These people are robbing our country blind, and I refuse to pay a chunk of the 9 billion dollars to support these people."

First off, my opponent assumes that the 9 billion dollars (not sure where he is pulling this number) is his to spend. Sadly this is not true and is an irrelevant point on his case.

Next the point that illegal immigration is bad because it is illegal is also a moot point. This is a great example of circular reasoning, if such reasoning were true then slavery would have been a good thing because it was legal. Blacks voting would have been a bad thing because it was illegal. Obviously not true, something being illegal or not does not necessarily determine whether it is good or not.

Next my opponent attempts to point out that they are robbing our country blind. I would ask that my opponent show some way that this is true. Last time I checked these people are predominantly taking low income jobs that are easy to achieve and that make it equally easy for them to stay under this radar. This in turn promotes our economy through allowing small businesses to purchase employees at low cost. This in fact helps my opponent through the fact that the companies products will then be cheap to attain for my opponent. Reduction in labor costs = reduction in product cost + profit.

Finally, my opponent seems to feel that these people do not somehow deserve an equal opportunity. I would like to remind my opponent that each and every person on the face of this earth was born randomly and had no choice to where they were born. The fact that an immigrant was born into a poverty stricken nation is not a justifiable reason for them to stay in that situation. These people should be allowed to attain just as much opportunity as any other person. Thus I offer a counter advocacy:

Legalize immigration and destroy the border wall thereby saving our country 2.2 billion dollars. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
jordyz

Con

Mt opponent said that he does not know where i am getting the 9 billion dollars. I live in California, and in a speech given by Arnold Swartzsheneger
he said "a 9 billion dollar deficit". Also he asks how they take away money from America. Hmmm lets think about this mabey WELFARE! I might agree with him in the fact that these people fill the lower jobs of society, but with the millions of them here alot of them have to be on welfare. And on your point on its no my 9 billion to spend. Part of its my money! I am a tax payer! The money lost by these people is alot more than the small amount gained. Oh and you also have to consider the crime factor. I am not saying all orr even most of these people commit crimes, but some do and that takes away from the police force, and cost lives.
Yraelz

Pro

=)

The deficit my opponent speaks of is actually an 8 billion to 12 billion dollar deficit (depending on the source) that can be solved for in one of two ways.

Either A. Schwarzenegger can remove his staunch policies on the education system which will allow for cuts in unneeded areas and could free up a great deal of money or B. "Schwarzenegger needs to review the costs and benefits all of the regulations on the books in California, and terminate those that hinder business and job creation." - http://www.freedomworks.org...

Job creation of course could be helped by making immigration legal.

Furthermore this is a deficit we are speaking of here, thus it is a lack of money, and has absolutely nothing to do with my opponent. Or for that matter illegal immigration.

Next my opponent states that illegal immigrants steal our welfare. I would like him to prove how illegal immigrants, people who are not citizens of the United States, can possibly apply for welfare. Despite popular belief (?) one does not walk up and simply state, "I need welfare." You actually do have to prove you are a United States citizen which is typically done using a drivers license and social security card or birth certificate. Three items that illegal immigrants generally do not have....

And even if illegal immigrants could be on welfare my opponent is still going to have to respond to my equal opportunity argument. Something which he has not yet done.

Finally my opponent states that the crime rate brought by these people must be considered. Unfortunately this has nothing to do with the resolution, if it was true that illegal immigrants had a direct link to criminals then yes it would however this is not true. The fact that a person is an illegal immigrant does not make them a criminal. An illegal immigrant is just as likely to be a criminal as anyone else, therefor we should not persecute illegal immigrants because of this. Instead we need to persecute criminals.

Having said all this I can only see how my counter plan still stands in this round and actually helps the economy of the United States.
Debate Round No. 2
jordyz

Con

Ok I may have miss used the word deficit, and for that i apologize. I think that if illegal immigrants are in a bad enough state to have to leave their "poverty stricken nation" illegal then they obviously don't have enough money to afford an education. My opponent also states that everyone deserves an equal opportunity. They do ave an equal opportunity, they can apply for citizenship.
In America there is with out a doubt a homeless/jobless population. My oppenet seems to think that adding an extra 2 million illegal aliens will solve this problem. i also realize I may have been wrong about welfare. But what about hospitals? Out of the millions illegal immigrants here it is likely that some of them will be injured seriously enough to have to go to the hospital. Even if just 1% of the people were hurt bad enough to go to the hospital that would be 10,000 out of every one million people. Do you think they will be able to pay there bills? They don't have insurance to pay for it, because to get insurance you have to go through a process similar as to when getting welfare. They will not be able to pay for it, because they are working low pay jobs. Even my opponent admits it in his first argument "...to purchase employees at low cost." This will put them in debt and on the street when they can not pay their bills.
Finally my oppentents second to last paragraph is quite comical in my opinion. He first says "...if it was true that illegal immigrants had a direct link to criminals then yes it would however this is not true. The fact that a person is an illegal immigrant does not make them a criminal." Hello yes it does! They came here ILLEGALLY, meaning that they broke the law making them criminals. Also i relilize that they may not commit future crimes. But my opponent says that they are just as likely to commit crimes as anyone else. If there were a million illegal aliens and 5% committed crimes that would mean that 50,000 criminals would be out there. That could mean 50,000 murders. 50,000 people dead, because of illegal immigrants.
Yraelz

Pro

Alright lets begin this final round with a little bit of clarification.

Starting with the education point, this specifically was something Arnold can do to solve for the deficit in his state. In no way does this have anything to do with illegal immigrants.

Next my opponent states that everyone should have an equal opportunity and they do, everyone can apply for citizenship. I would totally agree with my opponent on this point except for two things.

1. Everyone who applies for citizenship is not granted such.
2. Natural born citizens don't have to apply, therefor the very process of applying is a difference in opportunity.

From here my opponent goes on to point out that America without a doubt has a jobless and homeless population. This is true, but it is without a doubt not caused from a lack of jobs rather than a lack of people who desire to do certain jobs. I gaurantee I can go to any city in the United States and find at least a few 100 extra jobs that are available because no one wants to do them.

Furthermore my opponent states that this people will be payed so little in the United States that they will not be able to support themselves and thereby will become homeless and jobless. I will grant him it is a possibility, but the chances of them being such remain less likely than those in Mexico where they will get payed even less. Furthermore the sanitation in the United States is better so just by them being here they have a lower chance of getting sick. Finally I would like to remind everybody that being homeless and jobless has no impact on society as a whole. There are a couple homeless people in my town but they do not have an effect on anyone else. The same is true of immigrants. If they become homeless and jobless that is too bad for them, but it won't hurt us. Furthermore being homeless and jobless in the United States is far safer than being the equivalent in Mexico. Also there is a higher chance not to be homeless and jobless in the United States.

Next we have the hospital scenario. I'm going to ignore the fact that doctors are already payed atrocious amounts of money and having to care for a patient for free wouldn't hurt them. I'm ignoring this because in our capitalist system it doesn't happen, if you don't have insurance, if you don't have money then a hospital is probably not going to bother treating you. Yes my friends, it is in a hospitals rights to reject you on your death bed. Que Triste!

In fact I will submit the idea that these people will be hurt less than the normal citizen because they have a greater motivation not to be hurt, this will of course make them a great asset to our lower end labor force.

Finally we go for the criminal argument. My opponent pointed out the irony in my last statement and I must agree that the statement was rather ironic. However the point still stands. Under my alternative universe we are speaking of legalizing immigration thereby these people would not inherently be criminals. My opponent puts forth the idea that perhaps 5% of these people would be criminals thus we should reject the whole population. However this is not a paradigm in which to reject people on, as the same can be true of any population. I could look at America today and say that 2% of white middle class males are criminals (see rockin the suburbs - Ben folds) , therefor we should we should not allow them in this country.

Obviously this line of thinking is rather fallacious, we should not group criminals as a population but rather we should group criminals as individuals. To say that a whole population has the potential to harm our nation would be the same sort of logic that was used by Hitler to promote the Holocaust. This is a type of logic that not only should but literally needs to be rejected. Criminals need to be evaluated on a case by case basis not a population basis.

Finally I must once again push the equally opportunity argument. It was by no fault of the immigrant that he/she was born into a third world country where he/she has to scrape for food every day. On the flip side of the coin it was by no fault of ourselves that we were born into this country, therefor birth should not be a reason to disallow people opportunity.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Yeah... that would be a hoot. I would have to laugh a great deal....
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
It would be really funny if you forfeited.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Hehe, I didn't even see the irony in that statement. =) I will clarify in a little bit.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by silntwaves 7 years ago
silntwaves
jordyzYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
jordyzYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by attrition 8 years ago
attrition
jordyzYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jordyz 8 years ago
jordyz
jordyzYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by thefrancefunk 8 years ago
thefrancefunk
jordyzYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
jordyzYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by stropheum 8 years ago
stropheum
jordyzYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Issa 8 years ago
Issa
jordyzYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
jordyzYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
jordyzYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03