The Instigator
Horse89
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
I-am-a-panda
Con (against)
Winning
46 Points

Immigration Should Be Illegal in the United States

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 10 votes the winner is...
I-am-a-panda
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 14,173 times Debate No: 7040
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (10)

 

Horse89

Pro

Immigration can cause international problems. In this process, countries get upset with the decreasing of their population. Also, the United States can not support the people, especially with the economy so bad they just can not seem to get a job. Then, they are homeless and starve. They cause more robberies and people to get mugged for survival. Immigration can again cause international problems, which can lead to terrorists attacks, such as September 9, 2001. This is a problem leading to the economy. Also, pressure to congress and President Obama in an attack. This is not the "greatest" time to be attacked. With troops in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan the U.S. just can not afford to much off an attack back. If we leave Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan they will just say," Oh, it looks as if we won the war over America. Let's take over America!" Before we now it, we are being attacked very often. That is why I think immigration should be illegal in the United States of America. I rest my first case of this debate.
I-am-a-panda

Con

I would like to thank the instigator Horse84 for starting this debate topic.

To start, we must define immigration. It can be defined as:
- To enter and settle in a country or region to which one is not native.

So far my opponent has only addressed immigration at an international level. He has not addressed local immigration. Local immigration would involve someone moving from one state to another. In the circumstance my opponent gives, moving from state to state would be illegal. In bigger states, such as Texas, you would not be allowed move from West to East, as it is a new region. Also, the clarification of a new region at a local level would be hard when it comes to bigger states (such as the aforementioned Texas).

==Rebuttal==

"Immigration can cause international problems. In this process, countries get upset with the decreasing of their population."

Immigration is admittedly an international problem. However, with all problems, the answer isn't to outright ban it. You mention the country can become upset with a lower population, but the countries people emigrate from usually have no jobs, and it means there is one less person in the country they are obliged to look after, as well as the fact most immigrants send money back, and some even go back to their homes when times get better.

"Also, the United States can not support the people, especially with the economy so bad they just can not seem to get a job."

The U.S. is unable to support the immigrants at the time being. Yes, this is very true. However, in a circumstance that a company wanted to get a world class accountant, or wanted to bring in an expert to help there business, they would be unable to do so. Even in this, they would not be able to move from state to state. This would actually further cripple the economy, as each state is left to it's own resources.

"Then, they are homeless and starve. They cause more robberies and people to get mugged for survival."

Although some do become homeless and starve, they have a better chance in America than they do in their old country. America has homeless shelters and charities dedicated to helping them. The part of them becoming criminals is somewhat ignorance and to a degree racism. The truth about crime rates among immigrants is:

- In 2000, 3 percent of the 45.2 million males age 18 to 39 in the United States were in federal or state prisons or local jails at the time of the census. The incarceration rate of native-born men in this age group was 5 times higher than the incarceration rate of foreign-born men.

- Among the U.S.-born, 9.8 percent of all male high-school drop-outs were in jail or prison in 2000. Only 1.3 percent of immigrant men who were high-school drop-outs were incarcerated.
Source: http://www.truthinimmigration.org...

"which can lead to terrorists attacks, such as September 9, 2001."

9/11 was caused by Muslim extremists. The earliest one to arrive came in January 2000, less than 2 years before the attacks. Just because a few immigrants were extremists, does not mean all immigrants set out plans to destroy the U.S. The majority want to find jobs, make money and have a better life. Not to mention the fact many terrorists are national born Americans.

"This is a problem leading to the economy"

This is not explained in any way, but let's look at the effects of immigration on the U.S. economy. To start, the States would not have started well if immigrants didn't arrive to bolster the colonies. As we move closer to our time, it is apparent slaves are needed for labour and farm work. This slaves are brought to America through forced immigration.
As time progresses, the American economy makes use of European immigrants, particularly the Irish and the Germans, to build rail roads and buildings. Without their help, America would be nowhere as good as it is today. Recent immigration features many nationalities, but in particular, Mexicans. They take up menial, un-skilled jobs most Americans do not want to do, and are happy to pay for.

"This is not the "greatest" time to be attacked. With troops in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan the U.S. just can not afford to much off an attack back. If we leave Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan they will just say," Oh, it looks as if we won the war over America. Let's take over America!" Before we now it, we are being attacked very often."

You're first inaccuracy is that America has not stationed troops in Iran. Secondly, the countries that America will leave will have governments set up. America are fighting extremist rebels, who do not possess a full fledged military like the U.S. They have no modes of air or sea transport on a large scale. This proposed scenario is very un-plausible as America has one of the biggest armies in the world, and would fend off armies from Iraq, Afghanistan and (under your proposed scenario) Iran. Not to mention America would have allies such as the U.K. The situation is un-plausible at best.

==Quick Summary==

To sum up my argument:
- Outlawing immigration would prevent people moving from state to state.
- Immigration's effect on the economy is often good.
- Crimes committed by Immigrants are outweighed by those committed by U.S. citizens.
- Immigrants have a better chance surviving in America, and deserve the opportunity.
Debate Round No. 1
Horse89

Pro

You know, my opponent agreed with me more than he disagreed with me.

1.) " Among the U.S. -born, 9.8 percent of all male high-school drop-outs, (Keyword: Male high-school dropouts, not female.) were in jail or prison in 2000." (Keyword: In 2000, not 2001-2009.) " Only 1.3 percent of immigrant men who were high-school drop-outs were incarcerated." Most immigrants work to either buy drugs or help out their family. They can not go to school for that reason. Another possibility is that they drop-out before high-school. My opponent states that " To start, we must define immigration. It can be defined as: -To enter and settle in a country or region to which one is not native." Region has many definitions but I choose the following: a specified district or territory. According to that definition, Asia, North America, South America, Australia, Europe, Antarctica, Africa, Western Hemisphere, Canada, Mississippi, Middle East, etc. are all regions. To enter and settle in a country or region can be to move from Japan to Canada, or it can mean to move from California to Arizona. I am only addressing international immigration, not local immigration though.

2.) " You mention the country can become upset with a lower population, but the countries people immigrate from usually have no jobs, and it means there is one less person in the country the are obliged to look after, as well as the fact most immigrants send money back, and some even go back to their homes when times get better." Most countries people immigrate from don't look after them! I said countries may be upset with a lower population because, a big population can give a country a sense of domination. China is very dominate. Their population is over one billion. If they had a smaller population they would not have so much power. For instance, Iraq's population is 26,074,906. Is Iraq a powerful country? No it is not. I rest my case Round 2. Please vote pro/for.

* In my Round 1 argument I said " September 9, 2001." I meant to say September 11, 2001. Please forgive me for my error.
I-am-a-panda

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his speedy response and wish him luck.

==Rebuttal==

"Most immigrants work to either buy drugs or help out their family. They can not go to school for that reason. Another possibility is that they drop-out before high-school."

You have made an assertion without proof to back it up. There is no proof given to say all immigrants are drug users, or they don't go to school because they are too concerned with working.

" According to that definition, Asia, North America, South America, Australia, Europe, Antarctica, Africa, Western Hemisphere, Canada, Mississippi, Middle East, etc. are all regions. To enter and settle in a country or region can be to move from Japan to Canada, or it can mean to move from California to Arizona. I am only addressing international immigration, not local immigration though."

The resolution states all immigration. You did not define it as international immigration, so all forms of immigration count. My points on local immigration still stand unless my opponent refutes them. He also admits that moving from state to state is a form of immigration, so under his proposal immigration be made illegal, no American would be allowed settle in a new state, but they would be allowed move to a new country. This is surely ludicrous.

"Most countries people immigrate from don't look after them!"

My point entirely on why immigration should be allowed.

"I said countries may be upset with a lower population because, a big population can give a country a sense of domination. China is very dominate. Their population is over one billion. If they had a smaller population they would not have so much power. For instance, Iraq's population is 26,074,906. Is Iraq a powerful country?"

Actually, what you have said is completely wrong. China is dominant because it is the 4th largest country is square miles in the world. America is a dominant country because it is the 3rd largest country in the world. Russia is dominant because it is the largest country in the world. Because China has a large size, means it can host a largew population and a large army. Whilst population factors into, size factors into it more so.

Nigeria has a population of 127,766,000. Pakistan has a population of 162,420,000.
Japan has a population of 127,417. Russia has a population of 143,420,000.
It's quite obvious from these figures these countries have roughly the same populations. Only 300,000 people separate Nigeria and Japan's population, yet Nigeria has nowhere near the same population as Japan. Pakistan has more people than Russia by 20 million, yet they have nowhere near the same voice as Russia.

Although this isn't related to the main debate resolution, it proves that countries dislike immigration as it makes them feel less dominant, therefore disproving his point.

"You know, my opponent agreed with me more than he disagreed with me."

I feel that my argument made it quite clear I disagree with your 'No immigration policy.

==Summary==

My opponent has not refuted the majority of my points, so they still stand until he does so. He has only chosen points that he can refute.

Once again, my summary:
- Outlawing immigration would prevent people moving from state to state.
- Immigration's effect on the economy is often good.
- Crimes committed by Immigrants are outweighed by those committed by U.S. citizens.
- Immigrants have a better chance surviving in America, and deserve the opportunity.

As the debate currently stands, I urge a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 2
Horse89

Pro

I am now ready to attack my opponent and state my final argument.

"You have made an assertion without proof to back it up. There is no proof given to say all immigrants are drug users, or they don't go to school because they are too concerned with working." My opponent made a large, important error. I didn't say all immigrants do drugs, I said most either work for their families or to buy drugs.

Well, I am now addressing local immigration. I do not think local immigration should be illegal. Let's say 10,000 people moved from Arizona to Mississippi. Arizona will most likely not start a fight with Mississippi. It does not effect the population in the U.S. I have tried very hard to find a definition for local immigration. I would love if my opponent could actually tell me what local immigration is.

I now have not much to say so I rest my final case. I wish my opponent the best of luck. Please vote pro/ for.
I-am-a-panda

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for debating all the rounds with me.

"My opponent made a large, important error. I didn't say all immigrants do drugs, I said most either work for their families or to buy drugs."

I do not see how this advances the proposal that immigration should be outlawed. Saying they quit school early and work for their families is saying they are hard workers. So, under those circumstances, letting immigrants in can only be positive to a countries workforce. You have not given any proof immigrants work for their families, or they buy drugs. Under that assertion, immigrants who live alone buy drugs. There is no proof to back this up, and it is a discriminatory fallacy.

"Well, I am now addressing local immigration. I do not think local immigration should be illegal. Let's say 10,000 people moved from Arizona to Mississippi. Arizona will most likely not start a fight with Mississippi. It does not effect the population in the U.S. I have tried very hard to find a definition for local immigration. I would love if my opponent could actually tell me what local immigration is."

Well, as I have said early, I would consider local immigration to be moving from one sate to another (e.g. California to Arizona, New York to New Jersey) . You concede in your argument that you do not agree with banning local immigration. Therefore you do not stand for banning immigration, and have gone against the thing you argue for.

My opponent has basically conceded that it wouldn't be right to outlaw local immigration. As local immigration is part of immigration as a whole, he has argued against himself.

I urge a CON vote.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Yes. read the forums. Phil changed it because it was vote bombed.
Posted by Horse89 8 years ago
Horse89
What happened?!!! I won!!!! 133 to 46!!!! Someone changed it!!!!
Posted by Mike430522 8 years ago
Mike430522
Over popu lation could be a serious problem for the U.S. I believe a saw a recent poll that went to several countries and asked a simple question: " If you had the chance to would you move to the U.S.?". What was interesting was the highest figure, 70 something percent in India said they would... which asks a good question. Where would we put another 600,000 people in this country and where in the heck would they work? I just thought I'd put that one out there for a thought.
Posted by Nik 8 years ago
Nik
Immigration is essential, someone needs to run those corner stores.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
I kind of picked up on the whole september thing.
Posted by EmyG 8 years ago
EmyG
I believe it was 14 year olds.
And in Round One, Horse89 means September 11, not 9.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
On an note that fits the debate topic, I have a burning desire to take this as my Irish ancestry has a line of emigration to get work. Must......find.......counterargument!
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
I'm allowed take it, maybe you have to be under 18, or have a proper political ideology (jk, we love your libertarianism)
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
What are your age and/or rank criteria?

Scratch that, age criteria, there is no way in heck you have rank criteria I don't qualify for :)
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
Horse89I-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by EmyG 8 years ago
EmyG
Horse89I-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Horse89 8 years ago
Horse89
Horse89I-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Epicurus 8 years ago
Epicurus
Horse89I-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by regperez 8 years ago
regperez
Horse89I-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by animea 8 years ago
animea
Horse89I-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by 106627 8 years ago
106627
Horse89I-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Horse89I-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Wii_Master_Nin 8 years ago
Wii_Master_Nin
Horse89I-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by saamanthagrl 8 years ago
saamanthagrl
Horse89I-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70