Resolved: Immigration policies should be expanded to compensate for a a growing U.S. society
Before accepting, ask any necessary questions in the comments.
This is a topic of great interest to me, and one I wish to be a serious debate. The rules are as follows:
Trolling results in an automatic loss
Forfeiture results in an automatic loss
BoP will be shared between both sides.
Counterplans are not allowed.
Use a sufficient amount of evidence to back up your claims.
The round schedule will go as follows:
Round 1: [Con] Rules & Regulations [Pro] Acceptance Only
Round 2: [Con] Opening Arguments [Pro] Opening Arguments and Initial Refutations
Round 3: Arguments and Rebuttals [C/P]
Round 4: Closing Statements and Rebuttals [C/P] (No new arguments)
Thank you in advance, and I look forward to a great debate. Good luck to whomever accepts! :)
I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and hope to enjoy good argumentation. :) Let’s define some key terms relevant in today’s debate and clear up what the resolution ultimately implies.
Expansion: the act of becoming larger or more extensive.
In the context of the debate, this entails a sense of extending the immigration system to contain more immigrants and further complex facets.
Compensate: to provide the means to counteract variation; to neutralize the effect of
Increased immigration policies would make up for the growing society.
Growing: increase; expand
The society is increasing, expanding, changing, evolving, and a solution is needed to neutralize the potential harms from such a change.
In essence, the resolution promotes more immigration and policies expanding that immigration within the United States. With that cleared up, let’s move to the heart of the debate.
Before delving into arguments too quickly, let us simply explain a) what immigration laws we have b) what purpose these laws serve and c) why immigration even exists.
According to the Immigration Policy Center in 2015, “U.S. immigration law is very complex, and there is much confusion as to how it works. The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), the body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members. Congress and the President determine a separate number for refugee admissions. Immigration to the United States is based upon the following principles: the reunification of families, admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the U.S. economy, protecting refugees, and promoting diversity.”  Basically, our immigration laws vary due to different circumstances, but as a core ideal, the central law is an annual limit of roughly 675,000 immigrants each year. Take note that the immigrants are all considered legal (the statistics and laws exclude illegal aliens from passage).
Immigration laws are in place for many reasons, but primarily to avoid an excessive population without sufficient necessities (including housing, work, medical services, etc.). The Legal Information Institute of Cornell University Law School expands on the purpose by saying, “Federal immigration law determines whether a person is an alien, the rights, duties, and obligations associated with being an alien in the United States, and how aliens gain residence or citizenship within the United States. It also provides the means by which certain aliens can become legally naturalized citizens with full rights of citizenship. Immigration law serves as a gatekeeper for the nation's border, determining who may enter, how long they may stay, and when they must leave.”  Accordingly, these laws normatively prevent problems within the country itself.
There are a variety of reasons as to why people immigrate. The Watson Institute for International Studies of Brown University published an article titled “US Immigration Policy: What Should We Do?” that described a little about this subject: “The idealism surrounding immigration explains in large part the deep feelings it evokes in the public policy arena. These sentiments have jostled with concerns about the economy, ethnic relations, social services, the environment, and other issues. In recent years, the debate over immigration has expanded to incorporate a broad range of foreign policy issues.”  Besides this, there are four age-old reasons explicitly detailing the cause of intentional immigration, particularly to the US. Those are: “1. to be reunited with family 2. to seek a better financial situation 3. to seek freedom and safety and 4. to follow their faith.” 
With those questions effectively cleared up, I will provide the following contentions to detail why I negate the resolution.
C1: Excessive immigration becomes a burden to society.
Immigration can be beneficial on a minute scale, but those benefits quickly turn to detriments when expanded. Inefficiency of extensive immigration has been proven over time, expanding the policy include more people, coming illegally, would only result in problematic and perhaps even dangerous circumstances.
If illegal immigration stopped now, the numbers would be permissible; however, the problems we see exist because illegal immigration is not stopping, or even slowing down; rather, it is accelerating. According to Peter Ketel of the University of Idaho, “More than 10 million illegal immigrants live in the United States, and 1,400 more arrive every day.”  Refer back to the IPC  where they specified that immigration laws restrict access of legal immigrants at 675,000 annually. 1,400 every day calculates to a conservative estimate of 510,000 annually, all illegal. On average, that’s the US increasing in population by 1,185,000 every year. Such an increase is positive to have detrimental effects.
Considering the dilemma from a moral standpoint, we still shouldn’t allow illegal immigrants. Manuel Velasquez, professor of business ethics at Santa Clara University explains, “Because immigrants from less-developed nations are usually willing to work for less than citizens, employers hire the immigrants, pushing wages downward. At the same time, aliens take advantage of government services such as schools and health care. So nations have a moral right to exclude immigrants because they harm citizens by taking away jobs, reducing wages, and draining social services.” 
Furthermore, illegal immigrants also unintentionally receive benefits that legal residents aren’t granted. Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark of Federation for American Immigration Reform explain this phenomenon, “Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. treasury.”  Living illegally should not constitute benefits from which regular legal citizens are excluded.
Furthermore, complications arise particularly for places already facing problems. Economist John W. Schoen explained for NBC News, “The recent surge in immigrants is overwhelming the social services of many border counties like yours, especially in states with relatively small budgets where resources are already stretched thin.” Continuing to burden these governments, local or otherwise, with immigration will only result in further detrimental consequences the government and citizens alike. 
C2: Immigration expansion would foster further illegal immigration.
Increasing the amount of immigrants who are granted entrance to our country would only facilitate further illegal immigration, the very problem the increase attempt to fix. Making the system more complex, and adding unnecessary facets to the system would have the opposite of the intended effect.
Take, for example, the Visa Waiver Program, a tangent of immigration policies that is intended to be expanded. In short, it is a Visa free pass to allow tourists to come to the United States for a specific allotment of time, and then leave. Abuse of this system occurs regularly, and would only worsen if expanded. U.S. Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, an area closely affected by immigration laws and policies, explains, “[Expanding] the VWP (Visa Waiver Program) facilitates illegal immigration. An estimated 40 percent of illegal immigrants came to the U.S. under the VWP or with temporary visas and simply overstayed their period of lawful admission.” 
Allowing intended tourists to stay longer than predetermined times encourages illegal action. This shortcut provides a loophole for individuals wishing only to enter the United States illegally. The expansion of these systems in particular prove to once again be detrimental to society, due to the burden illegal immigrants have on society.
There is a common saying that “if you give someone an inch, they’ll take a mile.” Granting more immigrants to enter the states, legal or otherwise, is sure to continue by leaps and bounds if not prohibited. Further, this increase harms an already delicate job market. Economist Jan Ting explains this effectively. “what is the impact of an executive order adding 5 million or so additional workers to the labor work force in America? How does that affect the job prospects of 9 million unemployed Americans, 2.9 million of whom are considered long-term unemployed, and another 7 million officially recognized as involuntary part-time workers because they want but can't find full-time work, and another 2.2 million who want and are available for work and have looked for work in the past year, including 800,000 designated as discouraged workers who have given up?”  In answer to his legitimate question, harms. That is the only possible answer. Adding immigrants will only further the unemployment market. For these reasons, and many more, I ask for a negative ballot in today’s debate.
beachgirl67 forfeited this round.
To say the least, I'm disappointed. I had hoped that this would be a serious debate. Because therec could be external factors limiting my opponent's ability to respond, I will not hold this forfeit against my opponent.
beachgirl67 forfeited this round.
My opponent has once again forfeited. Extend all arguments.
beachgirl67 forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|