The Instigator
cyclops9311
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
DJBruce
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Mexican Border be torn down and illegal immigrants become legal and are allowed in the U.S.

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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,258 times Debate No: 3079
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (12)

 

cyclops9311

Pro

In a CNN debate in Austin, Texas, Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton agreed Thursday night that the Secure Border Fence Act of 2006, which directs the secretary of Homeland Security to construct 700 miles of double border fencing along specific sections of the U.S.-Mexico border, should not be enforced as written.

Stressing her desire to be deferential to the views of people who live along the border in Texas -- which on March 4 will hold a primary that is widely viewed as a must-win event for the New York senator -- Clinton said of a border fence, "there may be limited places where it would work. But let's deploy more technology and personnel, instead of the physical barrier."

"This is an area where Senator Clinton and I almost entirely agree," said Obama. "I think that the key is to consult with local communities, whether it's on the commercial interests or the environmental stakes of creating any kind of barrier."

Both Clinton and Obama argued that the Bush administration was being too aggressive in pushing to build the border fence mandated by the 2006 law.

The agreement among the senators came in response to a question asked by CNN's John King, one of the moderators of the debate.

On September 29, 2006, the Senate voted 80-19 for passage of H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. (It passed the House on September 14, 2006, by a vote of 283-138). Clinton and Obama both voted for the act.

The law mandated that the secretary of Homeland Security build more than 700 miles of double fencing along specific segments of the U.S.-Mexico. Then House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King (R.-N.Y.), the principal sponsor of the law, explained its purpose in a floor speech on the day of the 2006 House vote. "It provides over 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing," King said, according to the Congressional Record.

An October 1, 2006 story in the Washington Post, which reported that the bill had passed in the Senate, carried this headline: "Border Fence is Approved; Congress Sets Aside Immigration Overhaul in Favor of 700-Mile Barrier."

"The Senate gave final approval Friday night to legislation authorizing the construction of 700 miles of double-layered fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border, shelving President Bush's vision of a comprehensive overhaul of U.S. immigration laws in favor of a vast barrier," said the lead in the Post story.

All 435 members of the House of Representatives and one third of U.S. senators faced reelection contests just one month after passage of the Secure Fence Act.

The actual text of the law -- enacted with Clinton's and Obama's votes -- is unambiguous.

"[T]he Secretary of Homeland Security," the law says, "shall provide for at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors--(i) extending from 10 miles west of the Tecate, California, port of entry to 10 miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry; (ii) extending from 10 miles west of the Calexico, California, port of entry to 5 miles east of the Douglas, Arizona, port of entry; (iii) extending from 5 miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso, Texas; (iv) extending from 5 miles northwest of the Del Rio, Texas, port of entry to 5 miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, Texas, port of entry; and (v) extending 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry."

Early in Thursday night's debate, moderator John King asked about the legally mandated fence, noting that many people in southern Texas oppose it.

/ldblquote Senator, back in 2006, you voted for the construction of that fence. As you know, progress has been slow," said King. "As president of the United States, would you commit tonight that you would finish the fence and speed up the construction, or do you think it's time for a president of the United States to raise his or her hand and say, 'You know what? Wait a minute. Let's think about this again. Do we really want to do this?'"

Clinton's full answer, including some back and forth with King, runs more than 500 words in the transcript of the debate posted by CNN on it website.

"Well, I think both Senator Obama and I voted for that as part of the immigration debate," she started. "And having been along the border for the last week or so--in fact, last night I was at the University of Texas at Brownsville -- and this is how absurd this has become under the Bush administration. Because, you know, there is a smart way to protect our borders, and there is a dumb way to protect our borders. And what I learned last night when I was there with Congressman [Solomon] Ortiz [D.-Texas] is that the University of Texas at Brownsville would have part of its campus cut off.

"This is the kind of absurdity that we're getting from this administration," Clinton continued. "I know it because I've been fighting with them about the northern border. Their imposition of passports and other kinds of burdens are separating people from families, interfering with business and commerce, the movement of goods and people. So what I've said is that I would say, wait a minute, we need to review this. There may be places where a physical barrier is appropriate.

"I think when both of us voted for this, we were voting for the possibility that where it was appropriate and made sense, it would be considered," said Clinton. "But as with so much, the Bush administration has gone off the deep end, and they are unfortunately coming up with a plan that I think is counterproductive.

"So I would have a review," she said. "I would listen to the people who live along the border, who understand what it is we need to be doing to protect our country."

When King then asked her whether she now thought her vote for the border fence was wrong, she did not give a yes-no answer. Instead, she suggested using more manpower and technology, instead of fencing, to secure the border.

"But, you know, John," she said, "there's a lot we've learned about technology and smart fencing. You know, there is technology that can be used instead of a physical barrier. It requires us having enough personnel along the border so that people can be supervising a certain limited amount of space and will be able to be responsive in the event of people attempting to cross illegally."

She then suggested President Bush was being too aggressive in trying to build the fence. "I think that the way that the Bush administration is going about this, filing eminent domain actions against landowners and municipalities, makes no sense," she said.

Also, Hispanics are the back-bone in the U.S. Hispanics are the ones helping rebuild Hurricane Katrina. We do the jobs that nobody else will do. It is not an invasion. We are just wanting to help our family.
DJBruce

Con

In your first argument the only point you made for not building a fence and giving amnesty to illegal immagrants is that the do some jobs in our economy.

Let me inform you on a few facts
-27% of all inmates are illegal immagrants. It was estimated that the federal goverment spends 1.4 billion dollars a year to incracerate illegal immagrants. A study done in 2005 found that of 55000 people polled 49% had been convicted of a felony.
-In Colorado alone the state spends $1.2 billion per year on schooling for the children of illegal immagrants. Nationally that number is around $34 billion.
-Oh and most do not pay taxs.
Debate Round No. 1
cyclops9311

Pro

well illegal immigrants maybe a little problem in the U.S., but we are also a big help. Illegal Immigrants don't come to hurt anybody, they come to help themselves, their family and you.

We may not be the best people, but we are here to help. Like I stated in my round 1, Hispanics are the ones that are helping rebuild the disaster that was caused by Hurricane Katrina. We are the backbone in the United Staes. Also, if we were to tear down the border, more people would come in. That means that we will have a bigger population and we will have more jobs.

If we were to tear down the border and let people come in, we would be a better country. We would have more troops. So really we wouldn't have to worry.
DJBruce

Con

Still your only argument is that illegal immigrants do the jobs Americans do not want to do. But as one of the comments says if illegal immigrants come over they lower the pay of those jobs to almost nothing. So why would Americans want to do it. If there where no illegals theses jobs would still have to be done so companies would raise wages and hire the unemployed Americans decreasing unemployment. So illegals are rebuilding New Orleans if you where not here someone would rebuild it and that someone would be Americans.

If we let everyone come to America there may be a few more jobs but because most of the immigrants will be poor theses jobs will be very low paying. There will be an increase crime, cities will become over crowded and our infrastructure will become overwhelmed and fail.

Illegal immigrants might not come hear to hurt people but the numbers do not lie and it seems like many do and just by being in America illegally you are hurting Americans. By being here illegally you are putting a strain on our infrastructure with out paying for it. This then causes taxes to rise in order to cover the cost of paying for your use of government services and just the use of our infastructor.

I also fail to see how by letting illegal immigrants in and allowing them to join the millaray would make America a better country. By destroying our border we are risking our sovereignty and our safety because anyone good, bad or evil could just come here.
Debate Round No. 2
cyclops9311

Pro

So what if illegal immigrants may lower the pay!! We will still be a better country. Now, dealing with crime, the only reason that there are criminals in mexico and other countries are because those people don't have a home or a family. Also, they are put under alot pressure.

If we were to tear down the border, those people wouldn't feel so much preesure. So, then they would do better. Also, you say that we are bad in crime and things like that. Look at the U.S. The United Staes is not any better. The U.S. probably has the highest crime rate in the world.

Also, if we were to tear down the border, maybe illegal immigrants will be interested in becoming soldiers. So, we will have a bigger army.

Don;t you want this to be a better country. If you do vote pro!!!!
DJBruce

Con

I never mentioned crime in Mexico I merely mentioned crimes committed in the United States by illegal immigrants. Also the crime rate in America is not the highest in the world. It has the 24th murder rate behind Columbia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Costa Rica.

If we tear down the border how will it decreases the pressure these people fell they will still worry about making a living doing very low paying jobs.

As I said in my previous post if we get rid of the border we might have a big army but we will be much more vulnerable because we would not be able to regulate what people come into America. Murders, drug dealers, terrorists could all come in when ever they want and we could do nothing about it.

As for wages being low if wages are driven down by cheap labor Americans cannot compete because they can not live in America on the wages made by most illegal immigrants.

In conclusion my opponent has presented that illegals are good for American because the do jobs that no other Americans would do at the wage illegals immigrants are paid. He says that by tearing down a border we would have a bigger army. But my opponent has failed to respond reasonable to the fact that illegal immigrants drain the government and infrastructure. He has failed to rebut my crime statistics just saying illegals are good people. The choose to make is an easy one. Choose the person who logically responded to any and all of there challengers posts and has provided facts to support there point.

http://www.nationmaster.com...
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jwscavalier60 7 years ago
jwscavalier60
(Continuing my argument)
groups. I personally am not a fan of our abundance of social programs. I would drive the amount of money used on social programs(food stamps, subsidies, etc.) to a small amount and encourage the americans to give. One of the strongest features about America is our charity. Many other countries do not even understand the concept. If we stop the government from forcing us to give, but have them encourage us to give it ourselve I think we will strengthen our society. And for those of you who have a problem with the immigrant criminal rate. First, I believe many times our justice system is discriminative to the minorities and especially Latinos, also I personally would not have a problem with deporting FAIRLY convicted criminals who immigrated lets say within a year. Also, do I think they should learn english?, yes. However, I also think Americans should learn at least one other language and because the U.S. does not have an official language we have no basis for our complaint. In Conclusion, I think immigrating Latinos should be processed and allowed into the country as citizens and as so would not destroy our society like some people think.
Posted by jwscavalier60 7 years ago
jwscavalier60
Who are we to shun the incoming immigrants. They are only illegal because we made them illegal, everyone who exceeds the speed limit is illegal, yet we do not deport speeders.

Ok, on the Statue of Liberty, a huge peace of us culturally and symbolically, is the sonnet "The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Let me remind you that our country is all immigrants who came in here and threw out the "native" Americans, however the Latinos who are entering our country "illegally" are just seeking a better environment, and we invited them to. Overall, they do not mean any harm and if we could figure that out and make them "legal" then we would have less problems with immigrants who don't pay taxes. And then there is really no problem. Yes they will probably draw a lot of money from social programs, but so do other ethnic
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
How can anyone vote Pro? He failed to argue ANYTHING coherently.
Posted by JasonMc 9 years ago
JasonMc
Here are some of my concerns about illegal immigrants in the US:

1) There's a reason Hitler burned so many books and the Comaya Rouge (sp?) in Cambodia killed their educated people: an uneducated populous is much easier to control. If a ever-increasing population of uneducated illegal immigrants is granted citizenship status, political corruption will increase as well.

2) Wouldn't it be very easy for politicians to start / maintain wars if immigrants were declared citizens and then the draft was stared back up? Our military is spread thin all over the planet. Additional troops would be sent abroad as well.

3) The notion that illegal immigrants are doing the jobs Americans don't want to is a joke that those who agree with such a statement lack the insight to see the humor in. With our current unemployment rate, how can ANYONE make that claim?

4) There is a clear move towards incorporating the US, Canada, and Mexico into a North American Union. As more and more immigrants flow over the border, the closer we come to being "Amexica." The border is disappearing. If we indeed are incorporated into a North American Union, our national sovereignty and constitution will be scrapped, leaving the "good old USA" a distant memory. It happened in Europe with the European Union, and the same powers that pushed for it there are trying to accomplish it here as well. Just as the European currency was converted to the Euro, our currency will become the "Amero", and economists have been focusing on this switch for some time.

It's time to wake up and get involved folks.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
BUILD THE FENCE_ NOW

89 % of so of AMERICANS INCLDUDING MEXICAN LEGALS SUPPORT IT

OPPOSE IT AND YOU WILL BE FIRED
Posted by DJBruce 9 years ago
DJBruce
Sorry my bad I meant comments from those who voted Pro but suggestions from con are welcomed too.
Posted by DJBruce 9 years ago
DJBruce
I would really like to here from those people who voted con. I really thought I won but I guess not but comments and suggestions are welcomed.
Posted by candice 9 years ago
candice
It's funny the pro says: "immigrants don't come to hurt anybody". What about those immigrants purposely coming over illegally to smuggle drugs? Which DOES happen, in staggering numbers. Personally, I have absolutely nothing against Mexican nationals coming over to America. Although I believe they should be documented, and go through the proper process to be fair to other's doing things the legal way. Mostly these people just want jobs. Sometimes, this isn't the case. We should allow our government to screen all foreign peoples for Nationalization for the safety of current American Citizens.

By the by, if there were no mexican's doing the "dirty jobs" American's would prevail. For instance, I know of a chicken plant (preparing chicken for sale) got busted for using illegal aliens as cheap workers. The day after there were LINES of American's applying for the work. Of course, the American citizens would have to be paid more. Moreover, reason for illegal immigration not to be allowed. How is this fair to those Mexican's trying to support a family? They're being exploited! So those saying we should just let them all over without proper process is blind to how the world works.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
" We do the jobs that nobody else will do."-Pro

When employers are allowed to pay dirt cheap wages, ofcourse Americans will not do it. Illegals help keep wages down for the rest of Americans. How does this help MY country?
Posted by Shorack 9 years ago
Shorack
you adressed the border fence in your opening post.

but you didn't state a thing about making them migrate, legal.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by jwscavalier60 7 years ago
jwscavalier60
cyclops9311DJBruceTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Snowman43 9 years ago
Snowman43
cyclops9311DJBruceTied
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 Kazuma30 9 years ago
Kazuma30
cyclops9311DJBruceTied
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 killkhan 9 years ago
killkhan
cyclops9311DJBruceTied
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 goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
cyclops9311DJBruceTied
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 Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
cyclops9311DJBruceTied
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 CP 9 years ago
CP
cyclops9311DJBruceTied
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 blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
cyclops9311DJBruceTied
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 Shorack 9 years ago
Shorack
cyclops9311DJBruceTied
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 sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
cyclops9311DJBruceTied
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