The Instigator
trivea
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
thejudgeisgod
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

September 2009 Public Forum Topic

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 2 votes the winner is...
trivea
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,187 times Debate No: 9522
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

trivea

Con

In case you don't know, the September 2009 Public Forum topic is "Resolved: The United States policy on illegal immigration should focus on attrition through enforcement rather than amnesty. I'm done debating this topic, so I don't really care if you take my case. I do care, however, if you join this debate just to get arguments.
As the CON, I am for amnesty. The PRO would have to argue attrition.
Please refrain from posting any arguments until Round 2.
thejudgeisgod

Pro

Thank you for posting this topic. I will be debating this topic on the topic on the 26th and need a brush up debate. As per my opponents request I will refrain from argument in this round. I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
trivea

Con

I would like to thank thejudgeisgod for accepting this debate.

The resolution is arguing for "attrition through enforcement" rather than amnesty. As the con, I must prove that providing amnesty for the nation's 12 million illegals is better then removing them by enforcement.

Attrition through enforcement is, according to the Center of Immigration Studies in 2006, quote, the mandatory workplace verification of immigration status, measures to curb misuse of Social Security and IRS ID numbers, partnerships with state and local law enforcement officials; expanded entry-exit recording under US-VISIT; increased non-criminal removals; and state and local laws to discourage illegal settlement, end quote.
Amnesty is, according to The Gale Group in the book Immigration and Illegal Aliens, Burden or Blessing?, a pardon for entering the United States illegally and the usage of false documentation to more easily gain employment and to remain in the country, and the opportunity to attain permanent residency and eventually citizenship.

Illegal Immigrants benefit the United States.

llegal immigrantion decreases poverty in the US
Many believe that providing amnesty would increase poverty in the United States, as the United States would be taking on people that are under the poverty line. However, a report by the CATO Institute in 2009 states that the size of the underclass has been shrinking since the 1990s, a time period where illegal immigration has been on the rise. There are two main reasons for this increase. One is immigration itself, the arrival of immigrants creates incentive for younger Americans to stay in school and for older Americans to improve their skills. Second, an influx of lower skilled workers expands the economy by creating job openings in managerial positions providing more incentive for workers to acquire job skills and advance to higher society positions.

Amnesty would also provide the United States with a large supply of workers, replacing the workers of the Baby Boomer generation. A report by the U.S. Census Bureau puts the number of Baby Boomers at 78.2 million as of July 1, 2005. However, the Bureau estimates that by 2030, only 57.8 million Boomers will remain. The Boomers that remain will be anywhere from 66 to 84 years old. The Seattle Times reported on February 22, 2005 that tens of millions of people will retire from 2008 to 2020, based on traditional ages for retirement. A CNN article states that there are currently 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Providing amnesty would make all of these immigrants eligible for jobs.

Providing amnesty would allow law enforcement to catch more criminals. According to the book Whatever it Takes: Illegal Immigration, Border Security and the War on Terror by J.D. Hayworth (Congressman), some illegals don't want to report crimes in progress because they fear the arrival of immigration officers. With amnesty, illegals would no longer have that fear. This would allow police officers to catch more people committing serious offenses, such as rape and murder. We must look at what is more important, punishing illegals for breaking immigration laws or finding ways to make our communities safer by taking criminals off the streets.

Removing illegals would cause a loss in GDP
According to Micheal LeMay, a professor from California State University, illegals produce $970 billion for the economy on a daily basis. Removing them, as attrition would do, would remove 9% of our GDP. Needless to say, amnesty would keep this money in the US economy, but the US would also get $35 billion in taxes as well.

Amnesty would correct the real source of the problem

Illegal immigrants send a majority of their wages to their home country solving the core cause of illegal immigration. According to TIME Magazine in June 2007, causes of illegal immigration all stem from economic inequality between countries. As a result, a balance in the economic statuses of the country's would stop illegals from wanting to immigrate in the first place.

The money illegals currently send home is alleviating the problem. An example of this would be Mexico, which in 2006, was sent 20 billion dollars by illegals in the US. As stated in a report by the Inter American Development Bank, this amount is already Mexico's second-largest economic revenue only surpassed by oil. Remittances are also one of the broadest and most effective forms of poverty alleviation. Solving the economic disparity between the United States and Mexico would eliminate the need to immigrate at all in addition to reducing Mexico's poverty levels..

Given amnesty, illegals will be able to send even more money home solving the core cause even faster. According to the book Illegal Immigration in the book series, Current Controversies in 2001, illegal immigrants earn, on average, $3.35 dollars an hour, two times less than the minimum wage. By granting amnesty, the US government must acknowledge the illegals in all forms. The then illegals, with their legal status resolved, are then entitled to an at least minimum wage salary according to the Fair Labor Standards Act. This entitles them to the federal minimum wage of $7.25, which is double their former salary according to the Department of Labor. By allowing them to earn more money, the economic inequality can be balanced in a timelier manner.
Considering the amount of money being sent to Latin America through remittances by illegal immigrants, by shutting down this valuable source of money through attrition of enforcement, we will cause more people to immigrate illegally due to the increased poverty of Latin American nations

By providing amnesty, we can fix problems in the United States while correcting the source of immigration itself
thejudgeisgod

Pro

thejudgeisgod forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
trivea

Con

My opponent has forfeited.

Extend.
thejudgeisgod

Pro

I'm sorry about not being able to post to this debate. Life happened. My sincerest appologies
-thejudgeisgod
Debate Round No. 3
trivea

Con

No problem. Extend
thejudgeisgod

Pro

thejudgeisgod forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
Default Con in everything but S/G.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
trivea, you fool! We discussed the resolution when I shot down N-Kal's resolutional analysis!
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
If this was the new topic i might accept. This one is a little less interesting to me.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Agree with Clockwork. Attrition occurs under both proposals.
Posted by Clockwork 7 years ago
Clockwork
"As the CON, I am for amnesty. The PRO would have to argue attrition."

No... Both of you have to argue attrition... Pro has to argue attrition through enforcement of policy.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
triveathejudgeisgodTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by trivea 7 years ago
trivea
triveathejudgeisgodTied
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:60