The Instigator
Debateee
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
yannikmarazia
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants curren

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Debateee
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 494 times Debate No: 42631
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Debateee

Pro

I affirm; Resolved: Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States.

Contention One: Economic Growth
Sub-Point A: Individual Benefits
The Center for American Progress explains that "The acquisition of citizenship enables undocumented immigrants to produce and earn significantly more. These resulting productivity and wage gains spread through the economy because immigrants are not just workers - they are also taxpayers and consumers. This increased consumption expands the economy, generates new jobs, and increases the earnings of all Americans." In fact, they calculate that "Immigrants create average wage increases of 0.6 percent for US-Born American workers."

Sub-Point B: Macroeconomic Impacts
Overall, allowing a path to citizenship benefits the economy in two independent ways:
First, by increasing tax revenue. According to the Congressional Budget Office, "Taxes paid by legalized immigrants more than offset the use of social programs, because the increased costs are only modest. The increase cost of social services would be just 4.4 percent of the total increase in tax revenues."
Second, by filling employment gaps.
According to UCLA at Berkley, "The rate of growth in the U.S. workforce is expected to drop in the next five years to the lowest in decades. An influx of workers would help to offset those losses." Essentially, by offering citizenship to those currently in the United States, the economic losses of this employment gap are reduced. They calculate, that "An immigration plan that includes a way for undocumented workers to gain legal status would increase GDP by 0.84 percent."

This is significant, because Daniel Letterman of the World Bank finds that, "For every 1 percent increase in GDP, homicide rates fall by 23 percent in the long run."

Contention Two: Citizenship Prevents Single-Parent Homes
Eleni Towns of the Center for American Progress finds that "16.6 million people live in a mixed family where one parent is an undocumented citizen." She furthers, "The undocumented parents are detained, deported, and the families are devastated." Fortunately, a clear pathway to citizenship would solve this.
This creates three unique impacts:
First, a decrease in crime. In a meta-analysis of 50 studies, Edward Wells of Illinois State University finds that "Delinquency is 15 percent higher in broken homes than in intact homes." This leads Patrick Fagan of the Heritage Foundation to calculate that "A 1 percent increase in single parent homes increases crime by 1.7 percent."
Second, economy. The Heritage Foundation finds that "Overall, children in married families are 82 percent less likely to live in poverty than children of single parent homes."
Third, less costs to Americans. The Heritage Foundation furthers that, "Three quarters of welfare assistance went to single parent families."
By offering a pathway to citizenship, single parent homes are prevented, crime is reduced, and Americans benefit economically.

Contention Three: Education
Michael McClain of the University of Chicago argues that, "Because offering citizenship encourages undocumented immigrant children to remain in school rather than dropping out, it will almost certainly increase the number of immigrant students in school, and therefore increase the diversity within our school system." He furthers, "The increase of immigrant students at the university level would add greater diversity and enhance the educational experience for all students."
A study by Colgate University empirically proves the results of this, finding that, "A one standard increase in diversity leads to a 5.8 percent increase in output per worker and a 6 percent increase in wages."

Contention Four: Granting Citizenship is Comparatively Better
Granting legal status to undocumented immigrants improves national security in two independent ways:
First, legal aliens can now be tracked and monitored via passports and other documentation that undocumented immigrants did not have previously.
Second, Balanced Politics argues that, "Offering citizenship makes criminal immigrants more accountable, whereas currently illegals are afraid to be a part of the system due to possibility of deportation. In addition, because illegal immigrants are already fugitives from the law, nothing is preventing them from committing additional crimes."
The impact is that by affirming the resolution, undocumented immigrants are held more accountable and the risk of crime decreases.
yannikmarazia

Con

First off these people are illegal the did something illegal. They need to be punished
Debate Round No. 1
Debateee

Pro

Are you retarded?
yannikmarazia

Con

yannikmarazia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Debateee

Pro

Debateee forfeited this round.
yannikmarazia

Con

yannikmarazia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by amik10 2 years ago
amik10
DebateeeyannikmaraziaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: So conduct is tied b/c con forfeited 2 rounds, but pro called con a retard? so a tie there. Then S&g is Pro because there he gave a really well written (grammatically) case in round 1. Argument to pro, b/c he presented an argument and con didn't. Con did make a good point in round 1, but did not elaborate, and gave only 1 sentence, and forfeited 2 rounds. Sources to pro b/c he had sources and con did not. I wish both sides would have actually debated? would have be interesting.