The Instigator
kgartrell13
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

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

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  
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: 8/21/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,214 times Debate No: 9289
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

kgartrell13

Pro

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

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 1
kgartrell13

Pro

kgartrell13 forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 2
kgartrell13

Pro

kgartrell13 forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

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
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by m93samman 5 years ago
m93samman
kgartrell13: You have to at least make the statement. I'm sure that you could've accessed the internet wherever you were; it was disrespectful on your part not to notify your contender. And if you really do compete in PF, so be it. Good luck on this topic. Just that, again, out of respect, you should have told your contender so that he didn't have to wait however many days to realize that you weren't even paying attention to this debate.
Posted by jtw9262 5 years ago
jtw9262
did you use any sources? this is my topic for debate1 at the moment and i would like to know where you got this information.
Posted by kgartrell13 5 years ago
kgartrell13
sorry my bad, my family went on a suprise vacation. and m93samman i do PF for my highschool so it kinda is my thing. sorry to my competor
Posted by EmyG 5 years ago
EmyG
Did you use any sources on this? If so, could you tell me where? I'm debating this topic for real. And I'd like to know where to find some useful info.
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
As far as you being Mexican - good for you - I am a first generation American as well (though I'm 100% Italian-American, not Mexican). I never meant to imply that you were a racist. What I said was that it is hypocritical to condemn people today for wanting to enter the U.S. for the same reasons that both mine and your ancestors did. They may have done it legally, but that's because it was much easier to obtain citizenship then. Not to mention that there are plenty of people then who entered the country illegally as well; Mexico is corrupt as hell and in the slums right now (thanks in part to drug gangs which are kept afloat by the U.S.); etc.

I don't think you are being hostile in replying to me. I think you are absolutely entitled to your own opinion and should be able to be passionate about it. However, I would much prefer if you would actually challenge me to a real debate rather than complain in the Comments section of this one. So, please, once again I am welcoming a challenge on this issue or any other relevant one, as I think it would be more convenient and appropriate to have this discussion in an actual debate.
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
First, please tell me how amnesty (especially by the proposed requirements I cited in the debate) is a type of "reward." I was granted citizenship in this country because I was born here; it was not REWARDED to me. Second, yes, I am vehemently opposed to a border fence for a plethora of reasons - one of them being the fact that it DOESN'T WORK. As you know, we already have a fence, and yet there are still millions of immigrants entering this country illegally. Implementing a bigger, stronger border fence would NOT BE WORTH THE MONEY as it would be entirely ineffective and only further promote corruption in the immigration industry (and yes, corruption has made the smuggling of immigrants an INDUSTRY). Like I said, if you wish to argue this, by all means PLEASE send me a debate challenge and I would be more than happy to discuss this with you further.

Moreover, it is very ignorant of you to say that the Mexican immigration is changing the culture of your city. Newsflash: Culture is not permanent - it's transient - meaning it's ever-changing and stagnation is not only boring but detrimental to a society. I was born and raised in New York City where the very essence of culture was a whole bunch of ethnic cultures coming together to produce culture of its own. Culture in itself is another huge topic which once again I would absolutely not mind discussing with you if you'd just send me a challenge.

You said, "Also How can I ever be the cheapest worker when illegals do not have to abide by the minimum wage law when I do?" First of all, amnesty would make illegals abide by our laws, so this point is entirely null and void. Second, you completely ignored my point that this is not the fault of the illegal but the EMPLOYERS - U.S. citizens - so it appears as if your beef is with the wrong people. You don't seem to care about the employers who are breaking our laws by hiring these people, hmm?
Posted by KeithKroeger91 5 years ago
KeithKroeger91
Sorry If I seem a little hostile. I just love arguing with people who don't even live close to the border.
Posted by KeithKroeger91 5 years ago
KeithKroeger91
"With all due respect to your brother and his job, the "dangers" of the border really have nothing to do with this debate."

Well I thought it did, your arguing against border security by allowing illegals to have amnesty what are you doing? Your essentially rewarding them for breaking our law, way to open up the flood gates.
I have already seen the effects of lack of border security I live in a illegal haven. Not only are they slowly changing the culture in my city but mexican crime is on the rise.

So what if you took my job? Your an American citizen your entitled to it. Yes, we do live in a capitalist society I agree. Also How can I ever be the cheapest worker when illegals do not have to abide by the minimum wage law when I do? Already I have a disadvantage due to something I can't even control. Yes, your option would create these people who have broken our laws into citizens therefore requiring them to pay taxes. But, that was the reasoning of the 1980's, Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to illegals. What happened? flood gates opened and we got even more of them. Everybody and their moms will come to America illegally since they know our government rewards defying our laws.

"And finally, your point about European immigration and current Mexican immigration seems very bigoted"

I knew you would bring up the race card, not only am I 1/4 mexican but my mom is 1/2 with my grandpa 100% mexican I have an entire family of mexicans. Guess what? We are all against illegal Immigration. Go figure.. maybe it is not about racism after all.

You say that their is citizens who do not love the country(which is true) But they are by far a very very small minority half of the illegals I meet hate my country and some tell me that us evil americans stole the land back and there is mexicans down here who claim that one day mexico will retake "their" land. Sorry if I do not want to be conquered by these people.
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
*higher not hire - hehe
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
Keith - With all due respect to your brother and his job, the "dangers" of the border really have nothing to do with this debate. This debate is about citizenship for the illegal immigrants who are already IN this country; not keeping more people out of this country.

In regards to immigrants taking American jobs, that is a very poor argument on your behalf. What if *I* took your job? Would you want ME out of the country as well? We live in a capitalistic society and thus I fail to see how it's unfair that an employer hires the person who will work for the cheapest wages... after all, that's how business works (you want the best employee for the cheapest price). What's unfair is that these people get to do this and get away with it - which is not their fault but their employer's fault - and NOT HAVE TO PAY TAXES. My option makes these people actually contribute to society via taxes, meaning they will want hire wages to work, meaning there would once again be a competitive edge in the market place.

And finally, your point about European immigration and current Mexican immigration seems very bigoted (no offense). There are plenty of legal citizens who live here for the benefits and don't love the country. Is loving the country a prerequisite to citizenship? No. You completely disregarded the original settlers activity (very convenient) and jumped right to the early 1900s... but those people didn't come here for a love of America either. They came for a better life - the same one you noted that many Mexicans come here for as well.

Now, we disagree on the amnesty issue and most definitely the border fence issue. I'd be more than willing to debate this officially if you just send me a challenge : )
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by thejudgeisgod 4 years ago
thejudgeisgod
kgartrell13DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by m93samman 5 years ago
m93samman
kgartrell13DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by KeithKroeger91 5 years ago
KeithKroeger91
kgartrell13DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
kgartrell13DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07