The Instigator
Jonotono
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
LoveRichardDawkins
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Immigration from India to the U.S. should be encouraged

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
Pro Tied Con
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
03days19hours56minutes08seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 days ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 202 times Debate No: 115048
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Jonotono

Pro

Definitions
1. India, also called the Republic of India is a country in South Asia.
2. Immigration is the movement of people into a destination country which they are not natives of or where they do not possess citizenship in order to settle or reside there, especially as permanent residents or naturalized citizens, or to take-up employment as a migrant worker or temporarily as a foreign worker.
3. Encourage, to help or stimulate (an activity, state, or view) to develop.


There are current problems in the status quo with immigration, due to the current administration holding immigration down, racism is an issue in America, the economy is hurting and it needs to change. It can start with India.
LoveRichardDawkins

Con

Your definitions are fair and accurate and they are sufficient for clearly setting the parameters of this debate.
Firstly, you need to explain how immigration from india will solve the economic problems of the USA. Furthermore, you need to explain the same for why this will reduce the amount of racism in the USA. One of the main causes of racism is a large influx of migrants in a short period of time. This leads to a feeling of a loss of control and negative associations with migrants taking away jobs, bringing down wages and taking houses etc. Finally, what specifically are the problems with the status quo on immigration in the USA and how will changing immigration rules help to solve the problem.
Debate Round No. 1
Jonotono

Pro

Thank you Con for accepting the Challenge, and responding clearly to avoid a circular debate.


To signpost:
First I will be acknowledging the existence of the issues of the status quo.
Then, I will acknowledge how doing the "plan" or the resolution will solve for the issues of the 1) Economy and 2) Racism.

Firstly, the Inherency

The status quo is right now, our current administration, the sole agent that is keeping likely immigrants home, and not over to the U.S. This is demonstrated by the various restrictions by the President himself, signing the executive order banning 7 Muslim majority countries. As well as the administration's restriction of visas, like the H-1B visa, to immigrant workers who would support the U.S. economy. Card (1). The administration signed the "Buy American and Hire American" act last year, which prioritizes Americans in various job positions and contingencies that further put Americans first, only 1) hurts the economy, as these jobs are going unfulfilled because Americans aren't taking them in the first place, and
2) Promotes a racist and chauvinistic nation due to the focus being on Americans, influencing many to believe America and its citizens should be first, and only sets a racist precedent.

Racism is present in the status quo as a result of this.

However racism is not caused by an influx of migrants, the lack of "supposed" massive immigration is caused by (2). Indians are simply not coming over in droves as expected and perceived by the general population. With 12 years, very few are actually coming over each year, thus that cause of racism is simply an alternative one, that is not relevant to the current resolution.


But what is the impact of racism? Why does it matter for this round? See card (3). Militant groups like the so-called "Dotbusters" rise up and take violent action against minorities and likely immigrants, this again only furthers perpetuation of stereotypes, hate crimes, assault, and general xenophobia against the rest of the world.
Racism is produced by a lack of exposure and interaction. (4). It is a vicious positive feedback loop. As communities are not diversified and intermingled, people distance themselves and avoid minorities, staying only with their own. This only fosters hatred, and further racism. Then the cycle continues as stereotypes manifest, and it only destroys any foundation of happy days between whites and minorities. Similarly, American may feel cheated out of jobs, and the like, blaming immigrants for taking them, fueling racism, this is simply not the case. As shown by the lovely graphs in card (5), this is proving that there is a widening gap between native Americans, and immigrants in the most common job taken, and in general, Americans are becoming more educated. The card says that by 2022, over 4 MILLION jobs, NOT requiring a high school degree (Mostly immigrants) will be added to the market. This means that IF we continue on the path of the status quo, not ONLY are we stalling progress, allowing for racism to manifest as a result of cards (3) and (4), but the U.S. as a whole is missing out on over 4 MILLION jobs worth of revenue.

Secondly
Solvency/ How Pro solves for the issues presented above.

Firstly, changing the political scene/legislation.
Assuming the resolution is granted, assuming it goes through, as Pro would argue, we can assume Pro has fiat over the federal government, our agent of action, therefore making the resolution true. This in effect challenges the legislation passed, and removes it.
The plan is as follows, that:
1) The USFG, the agent being the USCIS, will reduce the yearly waiting list to 2 years, thus increasing the number of Indian migrants to the U.S. In conjunction, the USFG will increase the fiscal yearly work visas granted, from 85,000 to 170,000.

2)The USCIS will enforce, as the agent.

Now I will answer solvency, firstly for the Economy.

Harm: Jobs are going unfulfilled in droves, as Americans cannot fill them, whether it be labor intensive or blue-collar STEM, this creates a stagnant U.S. economy.
Associated Press, February 26, 2018 Card (6)
"America"s 21st century job market increasingly demands high-tech skills and knowledge. Yet consider this: Nearly half the new jobs the government foresees emerging by 2026 will require only a high school diploma " or none at all. Those jobs share something else in common, too: Hundreds of thousands of them will likely be taken by low-skilled immigrants who are willing to do work that many Americans won"t.Economists say that especially with unemployment at a 17-year low and the growth of the workforce slowing, immigrants " skilled as well as unskilled " are vital to the economy. "The idea that we only need people with certain degrees " it"s never been true in America, and it"s less true now than it was in the past," said Michael Clemens, an economist and senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, a Washington think tank.


Solvency
Plan reduces restrictions on immigration, unlike status quo , thus leading to a larger workforce upon arrival to the U.S
Card (7)
"Immigrants in America work more, search for jobs more and get paid way less than native-born U.S. citizens. They're a big chunk of the U.S. job market too. Documented and undocumented immigrants make up nearly 20% of America's labor force, according to a report by Goldman Sachs (GS). Immigrants have a lower unemployment rate (4.3%) than native-born U.S. citizens (4.9%). They also participate more in the economy, meaning they're either working or looking for work. But they make far less than native-born citizens. Immigrants weekly income is about $681. Native-born Americans earn $837 a week, according to Goldman. Immigration is a major factor in the economy's ability to grow more jobs, policymakers say."

With the cards presented, the threat is clear, if we do not act soon, we will see total economic collapse in the U.S. alone.

Impact: The Status Quo results in short term economic downturn, long term total economic collapse.
Card (8)
America needs immigrants to grow and prosper, especially highly-skilled immigrants who fuel innovation and spur higher productivity gains across the economy.Immigrants boost the nation's economic growth rate in two important ways: by increasing the total number of workers employed, and by raising the overall productivity of workers, both immigrant and native born alike. Without a healthy inflow of immigrants, the U.S. labor force would soon begin to decline, imposing a drag on growth while adding to the strain on our retirement programs. Annual growth of the labor force has slowed from 1.2 percent in the 1990s to 0.5 percent in the current decade. And with the number of native-born Americans of working age on a path to decline by 8 million between now and 2035, according to the Pew Research Center, we need immigrant workers and their children to maintain our economic growth into the future. Without a growing workforce, U.S. companies will find it increasingly difficult to hire the workers they need to meet domestic and global demand. Along with the high-tech sector, manufacturing, agriculture and construction are expected to suffer the most acute shortages of workers. A declining workforce would impose a drag on potential growth and reduce our economic power and influence in the world.




Links
Restriction of Visas (1)
https://qz.com...

Wait Times (2)
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...

Racism (3)
https://www.newyorker.com...

Lack of exposure/interaction=Racism (4)
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Job Market viable (5)
https://www.theatlantic.com...

Job Market definitely viable (6)
https://wtop.com...

Immigrants will work (7)
http://money.cnn.com...

Lack of intervention will lead to eco collapse (8)
https://www.usnews.com...
LoveRichardDawkins

Con

Ok. So you made a very detailed argument there. However, I feel that it has failed to prove your original proposal that the USA should endorse mass immigration from India. Firstly, you made a big point about the racism and problems with the status quo concerning immigration. However, your solutions are unrealistic and weak responses. I want to deal with them rather than your premises about the status quo because I don't deny that there are problems with the status quo. So you suggested that racism will be solved by more interactions. This isn't always true and works both ways. Firstly, more interactions between groups is not what actually gets rid of racism. What does is positive interactions. An individual who receives many negative interactions with Indian immigrants would under your model be seen as becoming less racist but really its quite obvious that your model does not work. So we need to change our stance when looking at what solves racism - positive interactions between groups. What you could argue however is that the rate of immigration would be so high that Indian immigrants would become such a predominant group that it would be difficult to marginalise them. However, this is clearly not always true considering the treatment of African americans and other people of colour in the USA. Even though it is true that the treatment of such groups has improved this does validate your argument that we still should endorse immigration from India. Surely, it would just be better to import no racism in the first place by not endorsing immigration instead of endorsing it identifying racism towards immigrants as a problem and then taking a long time of injustice and tension to solve it? Going back to the previous issue with your point, in what way can you be sure that there will be more positive interactions between Americans and Indian immigrants because there will be undoubtedly more jobs market competition between the groups and competition for housing too. Above all there will be a clash of cultures when this happens under this motion. This is what will really drive the hate. I point you to the example of Polish migrants in the UK. Before large scale migration to the UK most British people considered Polish people to be there friends and allies having a long history of cooperation in WWII and fighting back against communist Russia. However, during the period of migration many British people saw Poles in a different way. They competed for low payed jobs, for housing, there were language and culture tensions and as a result once good views towards poles changed to negative views towards them and immigrants in general because after all if native people feel threatened by immigration they often take out their hatred on all groups even those who are not related to original group of immigrants. That is why Black British people witnessed an increase in hate crimes towards them after the Brexit vote which was a manifestation of how views towards immigrants have changed.

Also you argued: " racism is not caused by an influx of migrants, the lack of "supposed" massive immigration is caused by (2). Indians are simply not coming over in droves as expected and perceived by the general population."
My response to this is that this happens under the status quo where there already are such restrictions such as quotas on migration. However under your proposal we would drop such restrictions and therefore immigration from India would increase. And considering the obvious incentives of moving to a free, rich western, english speaking country migration would increase rapidly just as in the example of Poland and the UK. Therefore there would be mass immigration and thus all the associated problems would follow.

Overall, when mass immigration occurs more negative interactions take place. It is these negative reactions which breed racism. History provides so many examples of this - Irish immigration to America etc. How about instead of importing hatred the government amends the racism already in the system by leading by example, introducing anti-discrimination laws etc. ?

Your second point was on the economy. I don't deny that immigration can help the economy. However, this is only true when it is controlled. You painted a picture of an economically doomed USA. I'm really not convinced of this picture. It doesn't seem accurate. The US economy is currently growing at a good rate and jobs are being created. Furthermore, you don't need immigration to have a strong economy. In fact the fact that a country would rely on that suggests that the economy is fundamentally weak. Immigration does not solve this problem - only sustainable solutions. So why is this the case? Well, when immigrants come to the USA they eventually either assimilate or return to their country of birth. Therefore they eventually will adopt the wages and work of that country. I point you towards the examples of the Italian immigrants to the USA in the 1900s. Therefore, more and more immigrants are needed as the problems of job fulfilment are never solved. A way to solve this problem is by improving education, dealing with poverty and its associated social problems and investing in technology.

Also immigrants may have different work patterns towards most americans however they aren't competing with the 'average' american worker. Eventually, its the working man and woman on low pay in unskilled jobs that have to deal with the squeeze. Their wages are often pushed down due to competition from migrant workers and they can eventually go unemployed. Those same migrant workers will eventually also experience the same problems as they are undercut by new immigrants. One point you made is that Americans won't do certain jobs. I question the tinge of racism underlying this point which seems to suggest that Americans are less inclined to do hard jobs. This is not the case. The reason Americans supposedly 'won't do those jobs' is actually because the wages are so poor in the first place. And why are they so poor? Because immigration brings down those wages and employers exploit that due to a lack of a high minimum wage. Finally, you made the point that we should exploit the willing of immigrants to work for such poor wages and hours. Now this seems rather immoral since it suggests that we should take advantage of people when we could treat them better. If we controlled immigration then we could avoid exploitation thus not treating migrant workers, in this case - Indian, so badly.

Overall, your solution does not solve the over-exaggerated problems with the US economy that you identified because new Indian migrants will eventually become part of that economy and the problem will still exist. Your solution may just stall it which considering all the negative effects on the native population is just not worth it. And, it is the working class that suffers as a result.

As for your statistics, you need to consider the bigger picture. The American economy is doing very well. The dollar is strong and employment is high with good GDP growth. As for the wider problem of an ageing population, people are also working for longer so that isn't as much of an issue. And also, immigrants get old too. They will also expect pensions and need tax money. The problem doesn't go away. Plus, America, although a fantastic country, is facing inevitable decline. Ultimately it will not be able to compete with China and India and so will eventually lose influence. But is this a bad thing? India and China are going in a more liberal and free direction and also China and India are much bigger countries so they should have more influence eventually. America can't cling onto power and so shouldn't. It should focus on improving its domestic situation which will not improve through high levels of migration from India. And, say a country doesn't create more jobs. Does that matter as long as people are becoming richer and happier? Surely the role of government is to improve the lives of the poorest especially instead of just creating jobs off the back of exploited immigrants?

Anyway, I hope that has given you some sufficient room for thought and has addressed your main criteria of the motion:

Can high levels of indian migration get rid of racism?

Can high levels of indian migration improve the economy to the extent that this outweighs the problems is brings?

Also, on a side note, why immigrants just from India? Isn't that a bit discriminatory?
Debate Round No. 2
Jonotono

Pro

Thank you for the detailed response, it shows good commitment. I apologize for the late response, I was busy.

Firstly, I will address the attacks on racism and then the attacks on the economy.

Ok, first. You concede there are issues in the status quo, taking Con, that means you are ok with the issues of status quo and thus right away Pro seems better, as I want to fix those problems. On that note, you address racism, but you concede cards 3 and 4. Thus the Inherency is further proved, overall though, you fail to provide any substantial evidence, and talk a lot of "shouldawouldacoulda" you don't provide any cards to prove your claims. As a result, cards 3 and 4 stand, and prove my Inherency, so I win those as of now. Furthermore, If the voters give you those claims, I want to take a look at one of them, you say "Overall, when mass immigration occurs more negative interactions take place." Ok, so the status quo is limited immigration from all countries, again plan is only talking about Indians, and if the issues I described are ALREADY happening, that means that, with card 4 and my proven Inherency. Status quo, as I said in my first speech, is only going to continue a cycle of racism, as by doing nothing, not having interactions AT ALL, we aren't any closer to solving, with plan and Pro, we are.
Next, the economy.
You address it weakly, you concede immigration can help, but again, status quo is right now, the U.S. economy that is suffering, and as you only provide claims with no evidence to back up, I win that. You fail once again to attack cards 5, 6, 7 and 8. Thus the problems I described with those cards still exist. You argue that a weakened, low soft power future America is good, to be "taken over" by a country like China or India. Again the debate is over immigration to the U.S, not whether or not America losing control is good or bad. You argue the foreign scene is not important, and that we can focus on the domestic scene, but as I have proven, you are ok with the issues of the status quo, and if anything, plan is addressing the issues of racism, and the U.S. economy, both domestic issues that have evidence to back them up.

TL;DR

You say a lot of what we COULD do to fix the issue, you drop all of my cards and MOST importantly don't back up your claims with any cards and thus my cards win as you not only drop them but don't respond to them. I want to provide actual change.

Thank you, I look forward to your response.
LoveRichardDawkins

Con

I strongly reject your unfair mischaracterisation of my arguments during this debate. I would like to take this round to respond to what you have just said. Firstly, you unfairly presented my stance on the status quo. You argued that I concede that the status quo has problems. You are quite right to say this. I do agree there are problems. However, you then made the fallacious assumption that therefore because I oppose this motion that means I believe we should not change the status quo. That is complete nonsense. I do believe we should change the status quo. However, I reject your proposal because it is the wrong way to improve the situation. I believe it will actually make the US objectively worse. That doesn't meant that I don't support other reforms. I do. What I do not support is your proposal - it is wrong. So please don't argue that just because I reject your proposal that means that I'm happy with the current problems. That is an excluded middle fallacy.

Next you mentioned that racism exists and said that I conceded some of your evidence. Yes, correct. Racism does exist and I'm not going to argue with you if you have the evidence. There is racism in the American system. However, what you fail to prove (and since you are proposition you must prove to win) is that YOUR MODEL will POSITIVELY CHANGE American society. Just using some dubious newspaper article (which by the way is not reliable empirical evidence) merely identifies a problem. I am asking you to show how you can solve that problem. My argument is simple and strong. Large scale Immigration from India will not solve the problems you have identified. It will only lead to racial tension and will hurt the working class. So you don't "win" on newspaper articles; all you do is illustrate (something which we are all already aware of) that there are problems.

Next, you further misrepresented me by suggesting that I had no evidence. I have two responses. Firstly, that is not true nor is it fair. I gave you some of the best evidence. This evidence was a long-term historical evaluation of Polish immigration to the UK and how now there is actually more racism towards Polish people and other groups in the UK. My evidence is also the Brexit vote. This is evidence that 52% of British people are not happy with immigration. My evidence is the election of Donald Trump by 47% of Americans. This is evidence that 47% of Americans are unhappy with immigration as immigration was one of the most key elements in Trump's campaign. My evidence is strong. It is historical evaluation. Sometimes to get an accurate and reliable picture about immigration you need long-term historical evaluations. Something which I provided and you did not. Do you remember me describing Irish immigration to the USA. Once again, more reliable evidence of the negative and racist attitudes brought about by mass immigration (which IS what you are proposing). How about the the Emergency Quota act of 1921? How about the the Immigration Act of 1924? This is reliable and accurate historical evidence of negative attitudes towards mass immigration and also immigrants themselves. You should read about the Sacco and Vanzetti Case. I may not have provided "cards" (is that really the right word for them?) but what I have provided is much more convincing. Secondly, we are talking about something that is totally hypothetical. Therefore, you need to be very careful when you talk about how your "cards" prove something will occur. In the UK in 2004 it was estimated by what you would call "cards" that immigration from Eastern Europe would be 50 000. It turned out to be 150 000 every single year. Given this, you need to refrain from using "cards" so confidently. They do not prove anything concerning a hypothetical event. You have no idea how many Indian migrants will come to the USA. Nor do you have any idea what the effects will be or whether they will integrate into society. However, my analysis is based on historical evidence which could help to illuminate what might happen.

My argument is mainly based upon not "cards" but logical explanation using past experience and intuitive reason. You can't just dismiss this as being not good enough just because I don't provide "cards". My argument is reliable and it is strong. You later attack my response arguing that under the status quo the issues you identified already happen and therefore it's fine to endorse mass immigration. This is a logical fallacy. Why? Well there is a big difference between the status quo and your proposal. That is much more immigration from India. Well, when this happens there will be more of all the problems you have identified. After all, Indians will still be a minority and so will still face minority problems. Your rebuttal falls down. You then argue that the "cycle of racism" will continue because no interaction will happen "AT ALL". Are you sure about that? There is something called foreign policy. There is something called the news. There is something called tourism. There is something called social media. There is something called the internet. And if that is not enough for you to believe that there will still be interactions then how about there already are Indian immigrants in the USA. So there will be interactions. There will just be fewer. But in this case the fewer interactions will be more positive. Why? Because native Americans will not be in competition with immigrants and as a result will not consider them as a threat. And, by the way, yes they do compete in society.

Then the economy. You argue I weakly addressed it. You said I concede immigration can help. Yes that's true. However, only when it is controlled immigration (again you try to misrepresent me). Also, I mentioned that the US economy is strong. You said I provided no evidence. Why do I need to provide evidence? It is a fact. Read the news. Unemployment is at an all time low. FACT. The US economy is the biggest by GDP in the world. FACT. The US is the 13th richest country in the world. FACT. Once again, no "cards" needed. You need to prove mass immigration can fix some of the minor problems the US economy has. You suggested it will help fill jobs. This is true but the problem does not go away. Because immigrants will eventually become economically integrated and thus you will no longer be able to exploit them at the expense of both them and low-paid Americans. More immigrants will be needed. This is a self sustaining problem. My evidence is immigration to the UK since 1950. Firstly, Black Caribbeans immigrants worked low-paid jobs, then they were replaced by South Asian immigrants in the the 1970s and 80s. Then they were replaced by Eastern European immigrants in the 2000s. Now the UK still has the same issue we need more immigrants to work low-paid jobs. You have to explain why you think its ok to be exploitative of immigrants and also why you think its okay to suck the skill out of their country of origin. India will be worse off if all its best doctors and engineers leave to the USA. Your model doesn't solve any problem. In fact, it makes it worse. Why? Because the working class suffer as they compete with immigrants. So no Pro does not get "closer" solving the problems. Rather Con prevents Pro from making the current problems much worse while suggesting better alternatives. Finally, you mentioned that I said it was good that the USA was overtaken by China and India. I never said it was "good". I said it was reasonable because they are after all larger countries and I believe in equality. I did not also bring this up. You did. So don't say that this debate is not about this. If you bring something up I will shoot it down. It doesn't matter that the USA is declining as long as Americans are richer and happier is what I said in response to you arguing that this is a problem immigration can solve.

So, in actual fact, I have explained using historical evidence and analysis, multiple reliable examples and logical reasoning why:
a) your proposal does not solve the problems you have identified
b) your proposal brings about more racial tension and leads to the economic suffering of low-paid, working class Americans

So not only is your proposal useless it is also objectively bad. Therefore you are not the side of 'actual change' you are the side of regressive change and I am not the side of 'no change just alternatives' I am the side of: NO DON'T DO THAT IT'S STUPID. HEY HERE'S A BETTER IDEA!
I don't need cards. My evidence is reliable. I have responded to your argument. Your cards thus do not win. They are primary sources and hence fail to evaluate the bigger picture in a HYPOTHETICAL situation. I use historical analysis to get a good picture of what might happen. And boy is that picture grim.

Thank you. This is a high quality debate with a worthy opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
Jonotono

Pro

Firstly I want to thank you for your response.

Now, onto the round; since you did not define the word: "Status Quo" and just used the word while placing your stance on it.
The definition is as follows: "the existing state of affairs" defined by
https://www.merriam-webster.com...

Therefore, as Con, your position cannot be an alternate position to what IS. That is my position as Pro, I am arguing to present a change to the current, existing state of affairs, and you, as Con, must argue why Pro is not a good idea to change, and AFFIRM ONLY, the current status of affairs. As a result, everything in your argument about sidestepping BOTH, my plan, and the status quo is abusive. You simply cannot argue an alternative, its like you don't want to argue what truly is the issue at hand. I'm not saying you agree with the status quo. In Debate we have to argue sides we don't personally agree with all the time, I chose Pro, you accepted Con. So argue FOR the status quo ONLY please. Since you have conceded my arguments proving that there is a problem with the Status Quo, and as you have not argued against it, why it is ok to have those issues, you only prove my Inherency, and I win that stock issue.

Onto you defending you attack on Racism.
Firstly, you continue to make claims that my plan will incur racism, I have READ CARDS, that say otherwise. My friend I don't think you understand how Debate works. Your claims do not stand up unless you have a warrant. My cards are self-warranting (for themselves, via the citation, IE: author and their qualifications). Those cards single-handedly warrant my claim. You continue to argue with the line: " My argument is simple and strong. Large scale Immigration from India will not solve the problems you have identified. It will only lead to racial tension and will hurt the working class. " Ok, that is your claim. Now present evidence that backs up this claim, LITERALLY CITE AN ARTICLE, word for word, and show that your argument is backed.

Next, onto you defending why you don't need cards.

You may have cited something that may very well have been said, however I am in no form a scholar, and as such I can't recognize lines from some article, you need to CITE THE ARTICLE please. It's abusive to make a claim and then in a later speech say it was cited from somewhere as now you have a weight-bearing argument that I wrongfully dismissed, and lost a fair chance to argue it, and it automatically would go to you, which is unfair. Now, you continue to bring up evidence with no citation,
"This evidence was a long-term historical evaluation of Polish immigration to the UK and how now there is actually more racism towards Polish people and other groups in the UK. My evidence is also the Brexit vote. This is evidence that 52% of British people are not happy with immigration. "

I have two responses to this.
1) You NEED TO CITE IT for the reason stated above.
2) The resolution is over Indian immigration, not Polish immigration to the U.K.
As a result, you failed to cite it, and it isn't topical, that argument should be thrown out.

Next,
"My evidence is the election of Donald Trump by 47% of Americans. This is evidence that 47% of Americans are unhappy with immigration as immigration was one of the most key elements in Trump's campaign."
First, , you're committing logical suicide, by making a hasty generalization, assuming that 47% of Americans don't like immigration? That is most certainly not the case, I don't need to present a card, I'm just using logical explanation and intuitive reason.

Further, you provide examples of the past, examples from old U.S. immigration, while they could have some merit, if it were arguing the impacts of nuclear war, or something that doesn't change, but Immigration did.
The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882. It was one of the most significant restrictions on free immigration in US history, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers.
The fact is that we do have immigration by Chinese to the U.S. today. This shows that while yes, you finally presented evidence correctly Good for you! This evidence is unfortunately outdated by current facts and legislation.
And I can tell you didn't do debate in high school, or simply didn't care for the history, how ironic... As "cards" come from the usage of notecards, which debaters used to write the evidence onto that notecard, and they informally called them, "cards".
Next, you try to attack the debate as a whole, arguing that it is all hypothetical, and doesn't actually matter, then that means, since you conceded my Inherency, means that the problems are present, but nothing after that matters, ok! Then I still have offense that proves the Status Quo, what you SHOULD be arguing, is still worse than my plan, as you haven't provided any CARDS over why the Status Quo is better.
To close, you argue that your side is just as strong, and that you don't need to provide examples, which is another logical fallacy as you can't argue that a lack of evidence works against me and for you. The lack of evidence doesn't support or deny. It just simply does not exist, see the word "lack"

Thank you for continuing the debate, I look forward to your final response.

TL;DR
You can't debate by throwing claims at me with no warrant, that's literally the whole point of debate. That we argue with NOT ONLY logic but with evidence.
LoveRichardDawkins

Con

Believe me, you do not know who you are talking to. So, before you start to trade insults think about who you could be debating with. Firstly, yes I did do debating at high school. I was the leader of the school team and have both judged and competed at national competitions. Now, I don't know what kind of debating you did/do at school but I did both British parliamentary and Mace debating. Neither of those debating formats required any articles in order to make a point. I'm also studying history at university so I would exercise some restraint when you call me out for having no regard for history. Now what is credited above all else in competitive debating is logical argument. Examples are complementary and useful to SUPPORT an argument. An example can be any historical or current case study where what you are arguing about seems to have taken place. I for one have never heard of 'cards' because usually when I debate me and my other 2 team members get 15 minutes beforehand to plan without access to the internet or to books; we write down our arguments and some supporting examples down on paper and use this when we stand to give a 5 or 7 minute speech depending on whether it's Mace or BP format. But I thank you for explaining that to me.

It's important in this debate to be clear what evidence is. If you think that articles are always more reliable and accurate than historical or contemporary analysis then you are mislead. Articles are not at all reliable. They are raw and unfettered opinion. I could write an article using cherry-picked statistics filled with exaggerations and misrepresentations. What is more accurate and reliable is actual, empirical, analysed examples because you can cherry-pick statistics but things like significant historical events are undeniable. Now in this debate you provided articles. I admit that yours seem reliable. However, I have provided more convincing overall evidence. My evidence is broad and overall which means that it encompasses the whole context and consequences of a case study rather than focusing on individual statistics. I also provided the example of Poland and the UK. I think this is a great case study of what could likely happen under your model. Why? Because although yes these are different countries that doesn't mean that people are generally motivated by the same factors eg. job security, better wages... Now one case study isn't enough but combined with many and believe me there are many e.g. Mexico to US migration and Morocco to France migration my suggestion of what could likely happen under your model is more accurate. Furthermore, your evidence is based upon current information. Now, since we are talking about a hypothetical model of immigration your evidence is less realistic. Ultimately, because you don't know what will happen because things will change under your proposal you cannot be sure that your evidence is fair and representative. After all, cherry-picked statistics from un-representative, non-multi-variable studies seems a lot less reliable when they are judge something they have no idea about. To support my mechanism I give you the empirical example of the Brexit vote in the UK. Now, just like you in this debate, the UK Government, the IMF, the Bank of England and even the Obama administration claimed based upon economic evidence that the economy would collapse the morning after the vote itself! But what actually happened. The economy is performing very well the unemployment rate is getting lower and lower and GDP is growing. Don't be fooled by statistics they are very good at giving you a picture of an aspect of society but not an overall idea of the future. If you do some history source work you'll work with this kind of reasoning a bit more.

So in the same way your cards are not representative of American society and certainly not of it in the future. Whereas, I can show that when this has happened in the past racism was incurred. Again, don't use the argument from authority. It's a dumb one. All sorts of journalists have very good degrees (believe me, I know some columnists) and yet they are completely biased and admit to it! As for immigration hurting the working class, no I don't need to cite a dodgy article. I can give you examples. We can see evidence in the real world for ourselves. Look at low-paid workers in across the western world they will tell you that their wages are depressed and there is a housing shortage. Look at the UK. 300 000 net migration and a massive housing crisis. Immigration is a cause of economic problems and does hurt poorer people. I don't need a citation to know a fact. How do you know that 2 + 2 is 4? Give me an article from an author with a maths degree please. Furthermore, with the Trump example. Fair enough. Given I can't prove that all Trump voters were anti-immigration but it's obvious to see that his vote embodied a general negative immigration attitude and moreover many Americans consider it a problem. After all, their President wants to have a border wall? I mean, do you seriously think there are more positive attitudes towards immigration now?

Finally, it is crucial that I clarify my stance in this debate because you have misconstrued and misrepresented my position and role of Con. Now firstly, yes in this debate I am of the opinion that the status quo is still better than your proposal. Why? Because, based on raw logical reasoning and historical analysis mass migration increases racial tension and hurts working people. Furthermore, uncontrolled immigration limits controlled migration's benefits because it doesn't solve the problems of skill shortage and leads to wealth inequality and poverty. However, just because I think this that doesn't mean that I believe the status quo is good. The status quo is merely better than your proposal. Your proposal is like an infected sticking plaster. It attempts to solve problems and rather makes everything worse. However, in a debate CON is not limited to just being the side of no action. Con can also support changes to the status quo. My proposals are different from yours that's all.

I credit your classic argument that I encounter a lot (and often use myself). This argument goes: I propose some progress and you propose no progress. Some progress is better than no progress. Therefore, support my side. This is a fair argument and usually works. But it is used too much! In this case it doesn't work. Why? Because firstly, I do propose change just in a different way. The only thing this debate requires me to do is to explain that your change is wrong. That doesn't mean I'm arguing that your change is wrong BECAUSE my change is better. It means I'm arguing your change is wrong full stop oh and also here's a better option. Secondly, in order for this argument to work you have to prove that your proposal will bring about progressive and not regressive change otherwise no change is better than some change. This is a straight out of high school debating argument. Sorry, but no.

So to sum up. Debating is not about waving statistics and articles. Or at least not what I'm used to. This is because stats and articles are often unreliable and unrepresentative and further to that when talking about hypotheticals aren't really as useful. Seriously, just listen to politicians using stats to claim some kind of divine prophecy and then get it completely wrong in real life when the policy is enacted. Just look at drug legalisation! How about Prohibition for Christ's sake?! Stats get it wrong time and time again. Do not rely on articles no matter how many micky-mouse degrees the author has. Furthermore, the best evidence is reliable, repeated and accurate. You can fool people with a statistic but you can't fool us with a significant historic event. If you're going to advocate a scientific approach then use a scientific method: hypothesis, repeated observation, test then conclude. I'm not throwing out your articles I'm just saying my evidence is equally valid and there are alternative ways of looking at predictions for a hypothetical policy. Finally, my job is to prove that your change is bad NOT that the status quo is good. Your policy is bad because it intensifies and doesn't solve the problems you have rightly identified e.g. racism in the immigration department. Also I have better options. I am allowed to say this by the way. Increase taxes to provide better education, anti-discrimination laws, investment in infrastructure in the Rust Belt communities etc. My stance is acceptable, reasonable and fair.

Based upon my analysis:

Premise 1: Immigration from India is encouraged
Premise 2: Immigration from India drastically increases
Premise 3: Working classes are squeezed (high school level economics)
Premise 4: More fear and suspicion towards Indian immigrants
Premise 5: More racial tension and more deprivation in poorer areas
Therefore: Lots of immigration from India is bad
Therefore: It should not be encouraged (dabs)

This is very entertaining. You certainly debate well. This should be some food for though. So I hope you enjoy your meal.

Bon appetit.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.