Resolved: United States policy on illegal immigration should focus on attrition through enforcement

Resolved: United States policy on illegal immigration should focus on attrition through enforcement rather than amnesty.

Because my opponent has put forth no definitions or arguments, I will begin by establishing the fact that granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would mean granting them United States citizenship; in other words accepting their illegal entry into our country and acknowledging them as being privy to the same rights given to American born civilians. Attrition (through enforcement) is defined by the dictionary as: A wearing down or weakening of resistance, especially as a result of continuous pressure or harassment. To engage in attrition warfare is to wear down your enemy to the "point of collapse." While proponents of such a harsh sounding policy say that they are merely advocating for employers to require legal citizen status, and push for local law enforcement to discourage settlement of illegal immigrants, the New York Times describes the more accurate reality of what the policy aims to do:

"Their one big idea is that harsh, unrelenting enforcement at the border, in the workplace and in homes and streets would dry up opportunities for illegal immigrants and eventually cause the human tide to flow backward. That would be true only if life for illegal immigrants in America could be made significantly more miserable than life in, say, rural Guatemala or the slums of Mexico City. That will take a lot of time and a lot of misery to pull that off in a country that has tolerated and profited from illegal labor for generations."

In other words, the purpose of attrition through enforcement would be to rally American citizens in support of anti-immigration, in order to make life in America nearly impossible for the citizens who have escaped to live here in search of a better life. I am opposed to this ideology for several reasons which I will detail in the following arguments.

1) All of our ancestors came to the United States in search of a better life, or for certain freedoms and values not granted in the origin of their birth. Immigrants are flocking to the U.S. now for that very same reason. The only difference is that our ancestors used violent force and other malicious attacks to drive the original inhabitants of North America out of their homes, while immigrants are merely attempting to work hard for their money and live in a more effective and safe capitalistic, somewhat democratic society. I fail to see why it should be fair that we make their lives Hell for wanting to seek the same opportunities of which our ancestors came, simply because we have expanded our government enabling us to do so.

2) Amnesty, as defined by its opponents, has come to mean getting forgiveness for free. But under the Senate's current compromise, the path for illegals is not anything close to easy. Under the compromise, the 12 million immigrants would face a 13-year process including $5,000 in fines per person, benchmarks for learning English, and an onerous "touchback" provision that calls for the head of each household to leave job and family behind and return to his or her home country for an indeterminate amount of time to queue up for the final green card. Nothing free about that, notes TIME magazine.

3) Many opponents of amnesty also say that immigrants should work hard to enter this country legally if they wish to be accepted. However what they don't tell you is that many eligible individuals have been waiting patiently for citizenship for as much as 28 years. Our current faulty system obviously needs reform, and that reform would be addressed under the new proposed amnesty bill which I have described above. Without it, there is absolutely no incentive for immigrants to enter this country legally or even try. A further argument on this issue is that we simply cannot stop immigrants from entering this country and working, which is obvious by the sheer amount of people who enter and enter our workforce each day. We already have a Border Patrol; obviously they're failing (and many are corrupt).

4) With that in mind, I'd like people to realize that there already ARE laws about employers requiring their employees to verify their citizenship. There are also laws that require employers to have all of their employees on legitimate, legal pay rolls. That simply just does not happen. People break the law all the time. Consider the amount of jobs that work "off the books" -- I know that I myself have worked several, and I'm not even an immigrant! The point here is that it would be nearly impossible to enforce complete compliance by employers. Creating federal agencies aimed at this goal would just be another expensive, ineffective feat (like the DEA) or possibly even an illegal agency (like the IRS) and include an expansion of bureaucracy. It's funny that the Republicans who often propose these things do so despite the expansion of government that it would require, and the fact that many of the wealthy ones UTILIZE the work of illegal immigrants to their economic advantage every single day... as do most Americans, who often benefit financially from their work and existence in this country as well.

5) Much of the anti-amnesty talk is about racism and xenophobia. For instance, FOX commentator Bill O'Reilly warns that amnesty would drastically alter a country that is already 1/3 minority. In other words, if you're not white, you're not welcome. This is the most bigoted argument that I've ever heard. Additionally, Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo vehemently opposed amnesty on the grounds that Mexicans speak Spanish, and a bilingual country would be detrimental to the United States. This is the biggest bunch of crap that I have ever heard. In fact, I think that Americans are HINDERED at our ability to only speak one language; many Europeans can speak several which works to their advantage both personally and in business. Think about it: The ability to speak more than one language often gets you AHEAD and is considered favorable on college applications, resumes, etc. Additionally, obviously Mexicans understand that they'd have to learn English in order to get ahead in this country. Let's be realistic.

6) In terms of wages and economics, journalist Nathan Thornburgh describes it best: For all the stresses of immigration, we are the only industrialized nation with a population that is growing fast enough and skews young enough to provide the kind of workforce that a dynamic economy needs. The illegals are part of the reason for that, and amnesty ensures that competitive advantage.

7) The plethora of immigrants who live here are already utilizing tax payer dollars in terms of ER medical attention, police protection (sort of) and other benefits such as the building of roads, etc. Wouldn't it be in our economic interest to impose the same tax burdens on them as everyone else has? That seems like the most fair thing to do. Right now they're getting a free ride, and there's no way to stop it - nor should we necessarily try to - as I've already pointed out.

8) Law enforcement is concentrating more on who's living here illegally in certain areas than on trying to fight real, dangerous crime (such as gang activity, violence, etc.). There are more important things that the law should have to worry about than immigration, especially at the local level.

CONCLUSION: The reality is that immigrants are here to stay. The deportation of the millions of illegal immigrants is simply unfeasible. It is ridiculously expensive and obviously not cost efficient in terms of what we gain economically from immigrants vs. the cost of deportation, which is estimated at billions of dollars. Because this is therefore not an option, and the acts of attrition are not only morally questionable but also unenforceable, then the resolution simply does not stand. We should focus on giving these people opportunities to succeed and BENEFIT our country rather than worry about the futile and unrealistic expectation of getting rid of them.

Unfortunately my opponent did not post a second round argument (nor a first) for me to respond to. Please extend my arguments; hopefully my opponent will present a third round argument so that this debate will turn out to be an interesting one. Best of luck, Pro.

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited all subsequent rounds of this debate. Because none of my arguments have been responded to, and because forfeiting all rounds can be seen as a lack of proper conduct, I'd ask that the voters humbly vote for the Con position as I was unable to continue making my case without a proper rebuttal. Thank you.

-- L