The Instigator
raptor356934
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Illigal 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,625 times Debate No: 26276
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

raptor356934

Pro

we should not deport illegal immigrants after they have already arrived here.
16kadams

Con

My opponent falsely assumes we have to deport illegal immigrants in order to be against immigration. However, other solutions exist that classify as against immigration, and these other solutions will be disused.

First, the question is why is immigration bad? If it is beneficial then there is no reason to be against something. Correlations exist that higher illegal immigrant counts in the workforce lead to lower employment for those native here. For example, as immigrant jobs increase in number native born workers are seeing a decline. Also note the majority of immigrants don't pay taxes. Some do"most don't"and due to the act they use governmental services they are, in turn, costing billions of dollars. The cost of illegal immigration costs our wallets 113 BILLION dollars. But, let me digress into how it harms legal American workers. For example, its been demonstrated time and time again that higher minimum wages harm the economy, liberals have to cherry pick their studies in order to make a case. Higher minimum wage hurts the poor. Why? Simple. Poor, unskilled, and uneducated workers are not worth 8 dollars an hour, due to the fact the give little benefit. They might be worth 7, or 4, but not high minimum wages. Higher wages always hurt the poor [1]. Now, look at it this way. Currently, illegal immigrants don't need to follow these minimum wage laws! This easily harms the poor workers. If you have two equivalent people, one is illegal and is offering 4 dollars an hour, or a native born binded to the minimum wage and can only offer as low as 7, you will choose the illegal because that is what he is work. As we can see, illegal immigration harms the poor due to the fact it harms their competitiveness, meaning the overall unemployment for people born here (and are legal"not breaking the law"rises). The costs of immigration are extremely high, and should not be tolerated [2][3].

But I would like to focus on the fact that illegal immigration hurts the poor. The center for immigration studies notes, "After reviewing the literature in the field, the NRC study concluded that the negative effect of immigrants primarily takes the form of wage losses for workers who lack a high school degree. This is the only educational group adversely effected by immigration because such a large percentage of recent immigrants lack a high school education - about 40 percent. And it is only in this skill category that the proportion of immigrants is large enough, 25 percent by the mid-1990s, to exert a significant downward pressure on wages."[4]

In other words, as I predicted, the poor and unskilled natives are being harmed by illegal immigrants, and this should not be encouraged.

The CIS further notes,

"The current fiscal burden - tax revenue minus expenditures - imposed on all levels of government by immigrant households is estimated to range from $11 billion to $20 billion. That's more than the report's estimate of the net gain from having immigrants in the work force."[4]

Yes, I will admit immigration does help the economy as they are cheap labor and, therefore, mean more money in a small businesses account, but the fiscal costs and tax burden is hugely higher then the overall gain from immigrants, meaning this: Immigrants have a net decrease to our economic potential. In New Jersey, for example, the costs of illegal immigrants cost 1,000 dollars per household, and 3,000 dollars per household in California. The CIS concludes,

"The findings of the NRC study basically tell us this: We can now say with some confidence that immigration is not the benefit to the economy that it was once thought to be."[4]

Great news, the overall drag on the economy exists. My opponent, then he argues for immigration, essentially argues he wants your job taken away and your taxes to be higher.

How about solutions? Sending national guard to the border significantly reduces violence there as well as the amount of immigration occurring where they are stationed [5]. A border fence, a border fence reduced immigration 95%, in other words 95% of the immigration cost gone [6].

VOTE CON

1. http://blog.heritage.org...
2. http://www.infowars.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://www.cis.org...
5. http://immigration.procon.org...
6. http://www.npr.org...
Debate Round No. 1
raptor356934

Pro

raptor356934 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
raptor356934

Pro

raptor356934 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
16k, we should debate this some time.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Lol so do I, but I wrote this mostly on my phone and couldn't do additional research
Posted by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
Everytime i see Infowars.com as a source I die some inside..
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by ceruleanpolymer 4 years ago
ceruleanpolymer
raptor35693416kadamsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
raptor35693416kadamsTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD is obvious. Conduct for forfeits. Arguments/sources to Con for using them and bringing a coherent case his position.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
raptor35693416kadamsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Total forfeit.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
raptor35693416kadamsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Con's Round 3.