The Instigator
Lookingatissues
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Beagle_hugs
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should Immigrants pay a fee percentage, on any money sent out of this country.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 986 times Debate No: 68975
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Lookingatissues

Pro

immigrants have long looked at America as a country where they could come and seek work to better themselves and their families. But for immigrants to only benefit themselves at the expense of the citizens who have to provide benefits to them such as schooling, housing, law enforcement, medical, is a cost that immigrants should contribute to assist in paying for that they take advantage of. There is a cost levied on Americans who wish to live here , shouldn't those who come across our borders also pay for that privilege as well.
Beagle_hugs

Con

I would like to thank lookingatissues for posting this interesting idea, which is that immigrants should pay a fee on any money sent out of the country.

Putting niceties aside, the Pro's premises and conclusion are all utter nonsense.

The Pro claims (offering no support) that immigrants impose a wide array of costs that they do not help pay for. This is patently false. Clear data shows that immigrants pay vastly more in taxes than they consume in benefits, by tens of billions of dollars. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org...

The Pro's premises are, then, false, because immigrants actually contribute so much that, logically, they are helping to fund benefits for natural born citizens. Pro should instead argue that natural born citizens should find the same industry and self-reliance that immigrants have found.

These facts should not be surprising, even to a person who does no research at all before spouting opinions, because it is natural to expect that individuals with the resourcefulness to set out for an unknown nation are likely to be good businessmen and workers. In fact, they are (as the compilation source cited above shows), and likely generate business growth in the U.S. and thus employment for U.S. citizens. Immigrants who send money home are investment-minded, and likely to make good decisions about who will use their hard-earned money well. Their investment in people they know in their home nations helps to drive economic stability and growth in other nations, which is beneficial to the U.S. because of reduced security threats and an increased availability of credible trading partners. Furthermore, immigrants spend much of their money in the U.S.

So, the Pro's premises are absurd. Immigrants contribute more than they consume, benefit the economy for all U.S. workers, and contribute to international growth, which is good for U.S. business and security.

The conclusion that we should charge additional fees on the money they send abroad is based on false premises and is contrary to good sense because it would diminish a positive use of the money.

Importantly, the concept that we should tax immigrant money sent abroad based on some harm to the U.S. is completely vacant because there is no reason to justify the discriminatory treatment of immigrants as opposed to other people who send their money abroad, and there is alot of it. We cannot simply treat one group of people as if their property rights are insignificant. Furthermore, the proposition is illogical because there are more important problems to solve, such as the propensity of U.S. corporations to funnel IP into offshore havens for the expresss purpose of tax evasion. I wonder who is getting the free ride, the hard workers who pay taxes and send some money abroad, or the executives who are handed bonuses for creating fake books by parking money overseas to dodge taxes?

The pro's premises and conclusion are nonsense.
Debate Round No. 1
Lookingatissues

Pro

Beaglehugs makes a compassionate argument that immigrants contribute more to America's well being than the monetary costs to the citizens that arises from their living in this country. America has always welcomed immigrants in the past to come to this country and there was a time when allowing and welcoming immigrants into this country made sense because America had the land and needed the people to help the nation grow. But this is no longer the case here in this country , if anything we now have a over abundance of foreign- born people who have came here and are overwhelming the countries abilities to even adequately provide for the countries own native born citizens.
America has a statue, the Statue of Liberty in New York harbor which has a poem written on a tablet which expressed the thoughts of the America of that era, to immigrants from around the world that stated," Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breath free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. . Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me....."
Certainly times and conditions have changed since the earlier days of this countries history and the ideas that applied then no longer are appropriate for todays conditions that America find itself in today.
It has been advocated for instance, by learned Supreme court justices that we now live in different times and the documents, the Constitution, for example and those thoughts of our founders expressed in that document of that early period no longer can be applied as written but must be interpreted in light of prevailing modern conditions and thought.
If this be so. that the ideas of our founders of a earlier era aren't suitable or workable as written for todays world then it would follow that America's government views need to be amended to recognize the present modern social and economic conditions of the country as they exist today.
America has a statue, the Statue of Liberty in New York harbor which has a poem written on a tablet which expressed the thoughts of the America of that era, to immigrants from around the world that stated," Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breath free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. . Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me....."

If it is prevailing thought of intellectual elite that the ideas of our founders of a earlier era aren't suitable or workable as written for todays world then it would follow that America's government views be amended to recognize the present modern social and economic conditions of the country as they exist today.
"The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a conservative advocacy group that favors tighter immigration laws, argues that the answer is clear: illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion each year."

"Cost estimates usually only measure the fiscal cost, which weighs government spending (such as on public schools, medical care, incarceration and unemployment benefits) against government income (from income, property and sales taxes.) All those interviewed for this story said they can only make rough estimates, since it's almost impossible to gather accurate data about illegal residents.Cost estimates usually only measure the fiscal cost, which weighs government spending (such as on public schools, medical care, incarceration and unemployment benefits) against government income (from income, property and sales taxes.) Arizona state treasurer Dean Martin says his state loses between $1.3 billion and $2.5 billion each year on illegal immigrants.) In addition to the fiscal costs of incarcerating and educating illegal immigrants and their families, To expect immigrants to pay a fee on money that they send out of the country to help cover some of the expenses of immigrants living in this country which places a burden on America's taxpayers would certainly be fair
Beagle_hugs

Con

I will begin by pointing out how my opponent has offered nothing by way of a convincing case.

My opponent begins his second round by stating:

"Beaglehugs makes a compassionate argument that immigrants contribute more to America's well being than the monetary costs to the citizens that arises from their living in this country."

I will point out that I have made a factual argument, not a compassionate argument. Attempting to mischaracterize my position as grounded in emotion will not work. I have made a fact-based argument that is based on cited studies. The facts show that immigrants contribute to economic growth for U.S. citizens and are not a burden on U.S. citizens. The facts show that foreign investment by immigrants is good for the U.S. The Constitution provides against arbitrary treatment of immigrant property based on their previous residency in another country, and it would be arbitrary to treat immigrants sending money abroad as somehow less deserving of rights than other Americans who send plenty of money abroad. These are all facts.

My opponent, however, has yet to cite anything. His arguments are entirely his own opinions and some poetry quotations. My opponent's uncited, unsubstantiated opinions shouldn't merit serious consideration. If he wants to contest the facts that I have provided and cited, let him bring forward something more than his refusal to accept the facts. I have established a positive case that puts his proposition to rest, and he has offered nothing.

I will now proceed by demonstrating that not only should my opponent's opinions have no weight as they are merely his opinions, but also that his opinions are factually incorrect. This is not, of course, necessary for me to prevail. It is just there, like an Everest of a different and smellier composition.

Immigration in the past:

My opponent claims that America has always welcomed immigrants in the past. This is patently false. While America has always had immigrants, some more voluntary than others, it has not been particularly kind to them. This has ranged from laws inhibiting immigration, to preferencing preferred groups of Europeans, to discrimination against immigrants. He may read some starter material if you are unaware of these facts (http://www.immigrationpolicy.org...; http://www.racismreview.com...;
http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Over-abundance of immigrants:

My opponent claims that we now have an over-abundance of foreign-born people in the U.S., when what he means is that we have an over-abundance of non-Europeans in the U.S. I realize I am making an assumption about his meaning, but consider that, according to the facts, there has always been a great deal of immigration to the U.S., and, as my sources describe, it is only recent years in which immigration has not been predominantly from Europe. Additionally, in light of the actual facts that I have discussed, it is difficult to understand what my opponent means by an "over-abundance." Does he mean that we have too many immigrant businessmen creating U.S. economic growth and jobs? Of course, my opponent refuses to accept the facts and simply repeats his patently false claim that immigrants are overwhelming our systems.

Constitutional law:

If my opponent has so easily identified Supreme Court arguments about the changes in how our founding documents might be interpreted, why doesn't he cite those Justices and explain something about their arguments? I can tell you why. It is because he is making a disingenuous argument and misconstruing what Supreme Court justices have actually said. He's referring to a living constitution theory or a theory that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of modern times. But even Originalists will tell you that some provisions in the Constitution don't have any real meaning unless they are interpeted in light of current times: for instance, "cruel and unusual" has no relevant meaning if it was a snapshot of 1787. Scalia might not accept that critique, but the real intellectuals behind the Originalist movement--the ones you can have an honest conversation with--will tell you that some provisions simply must be interpreted in light of the times. As for people who aren't Originalists, well, we simply accept that the process of the legal interpretation and decision making constantly adds to our understanding of a document, which must be interpreted with our own current set of comprehension as the attempt to pretend we are from 1787 is both ludicrous and fundamentally dishonest. In fact, strict Originalists like Scalia are nothing more than tricksters, because their hard Originalism has never admitted of the full range of disagreement present during that time period, and instead has only admitted of their own personal policy preferences which they, unsurprisingly, find enshrined in the "original meaning" of the Constitution (despite a policy debate in 1787 that really intimated our own current debates). Hard Originalists are telling you that the document needs to be interpreted in light of 1787 so that you will give up because you don't have the historical background (neither do they, they just have gall); there is no honesty or realism to their position. But, I digress. But not really. As you see, the debate that my opponent has intimated has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. In fact, no matter whether we try the Originalists or any other group on for size, they will give you pretty much the same answer about whether we can arbitrarily deprive immigrants of property for doing the same exact thing that everyone else does. The answer is no.

Closing:

In closing, I note that my opponent actually did kind of cite a source. He cited FAIR, an organization that basically opposes all but bare minimum immigration. However, he doesn't provide any way for us to go to the article he is citing and evaluate it, perhaps because if we did, we'd find that it's exactly as it seems. In response to carefully accumulated data, his article spouts off some generalized nonsense about what the figures supposedly don't account for and spits out an unsubstantiated number. The articles I have provided are sourced. I'm not going to spend time doing my opponent's research for him; if he wants to cite an article, he can identify it clearly enough that I can discuss it. If he doesn't, we know why.

Anyone who would like can assess for themselves whether FAIR is a reputable source of information: http://www.nytimes.com...;

The ability to make your own assessment is more than my opponent will help you with. But I will point out my own conclusion based on my research. FAIR is anti-immigrant, not pro-reform, and has been influenced by anti-immigrant and even racist groups in developing its data and positions. The fact that FAIR dwells on the opinions of the Arizona governor should be revealing-why is it surprising that "illegal immigration" costs the state so much money, when the state has the silly and costly policy of requiring gestapo-like review of non-whites' rights to be in the state? In any case, unbiased assessment shows that FAIR's position is false--immigrants are broadly beneficial to the U.S.

Even if FAIR's case were correct, my opponent is wrong. It's the lawfully present immigrants who would pay the fine he proposes. It's so absurd that it's not even group punishment. Why some asian guy with a programming background should be paying a fine because of my opponent's feelings about hispanics is beyond me. I think it's beyond any thoughtful person.

It's nonsense.
Debate Round No. 2
Lookingatissues

Pro

Thank you for your efforts you made to refute the information that I provided backing up my argument. I don't fault you for a all too human frailty in perhaps unintentionally allowing personal biases and prejudices to enter into your presentation of data and presenting data as if the data as if it were factual and not subject to dispute.
Liberal global warming scientists too are guilty of offering data in their attempts to prove that the climate is changing and that it is caused by man although other equally, or more qualified, scientists presented data that contradicted that of the liberal scientists claims.
You posted in your rebuttal,"I will point out that I have made a factual argument, not a compassionate argument. Attempting to mischaracterize my position as grounded in emotion will not work. I have made a fact-based argument that is based on cited studies...."
Lewis Carrol who wrote "Through the Looking Glass, wrote about two characters in his story, "Tweedledum and Tweedledee," who offered his comments about facts. Tweedledee replied,"If it were so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't."..... so much for the other fellows facts.
You replied,"I will begin by pointing out how my opponent has offered nothing by way of a convincing case."
What are the associated costs to Americans of Aliens flooding across America's borders,"
You posted n your rebuttal," "The facts show that immigrants contribute to economic growth for U.S. citizens and are not a burden on U.S. citizens.
(A) "George J. an economist at Harvard University, has argued that illegal immigration.... reduce the economic status of U.S. poor...." ask the unskilled American worker with a family if aliens taking America's jobs has hurt his family and himself.
(B) Also, The Center for Immigration studies in 2009 report argued, " New Government data indicate that Immigrants have high rates of criminality...."
(C) In 1999, law enforcement activities involving illegal immigrants in California, Arizona, new Mexico, and Texas cost a combinded total of more than $108 Million dollars. This cost did not include activities related to border enforcement. In San Diego County, the expense( over $50 Million dollars) was nine percent of the total county's budget for law enforcement that year."
(D) The non-partisan budget office reviewed (29) reports published over 15 years to evaaluate the impact of illegal immigrants generate on budgets of state and local governments, do not off-set the total costs of services provided to these immigrants"
(E) In a report published by the Congressional Research Service, illegal immigrants who have been released from custody have gone on to commit (16,226 other crimes between 2008 and mid-2011, inclu19 murders, 142 sex crimes, and thousands of drunk-driving offenses, drug offenses, and felonies; roughly one in six illegal immigrants who were released were later arrested for committing crimes." (F) it has been estimated that the average desert-walking immigrant leaves behind (8) pounds of trash during a journey that lasts one to three days if no major incidents occur. Assuming half a million people cross the border illegally into Arizona annually, that translates to (2,000 tons of trash that migrants dump each year." I think that I have adequately demonstrated some of the costs to American taxpayers because of illegal aliens who are flooding across America's open borders. You stated your opinion that,
" While America has always had immigrants, some more voluntary than others, (it has not been particularly kind to them...") And this statement denies reality, America gives these aliens, welfare, free housing, free medical, free education, and they contribute... what I have listed above.
Is this America, PRESS (1) for English...
Anyone who isn't blinded by liberalism, hate America first, mal-contents, knows the truth about America's generous treatment of immigrants. And then to require aliens to pay a fee on money that they receive from Americans and then send out of the country is thought unreasonable! " In 2003, then-President of Mexico, Vicente Fox stated that remittances "are our biggest source of foreign income,...."
"Two years later, in 2005, the World Bank stated that Mexico was receiving $18.1 billion in remittances..... "
Beagle_hugs

Con

Apologies for formatting. Editor is flawed.

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for, in his latest argument, making a greater effort to provide information to allow for the evaluation of his claims and sources. While making generic and incomplete references doesn't pass for citation, at least it's a start.


But I'd like to focus on four issues in this response: (1) My opponent continues to argue about illegal immigration when his position involves a claim about all immigrants, legal and illegal. (2) My opponent has failed to explain why it is justifiable to inflict a fee on law-abiding immigrants. (3) My opponent has misrepresented his sources. (4) The facts weigh against my opponent's position.


(1) My opponent is ignoring a large portion of the discussion about the costs and benefits associated with immigrants. My opponent proposed a debate on the claim that immigrants should pay a fee on money they send out of the country, based on his premise that immigrants are a net cost to the U.S. All of my opponent's assertions focus on illegal immigration. However, legal immigrants make up approximately 75% of the immigrant population in the U.S. [1] My opponent's claims are essentially non-responsive to my factual position that immigrants are a net benefit, since my opponent has focused on only a fraction of immigrants.


(2) My opponent is arguing that all immigrants should pay a fee on remittances, but his argument focuses on the costs he claims are imposed by undocumented immigrants. This is tantamount to a claim that lawfully present immigrants should be charged a fee for a lawful transaction because of my opponent's belief about an unlawful group of immigrants. Punishment for another's crimes based on group identity or discriminatory regulation of lawful behavior (sending money out of country) based on alien status violates due process and equal protection.[2] Most importantly, a person's alien status has been found an invalid reason for most discriminatory treatment, including discriminatory economic treatment. [id]My opponent has offered no credible response to the fact that his proposition is unconstitutional.


(3) I have already discussed the flaws in my opponent's unclear citation of "FAIR," and will now show that he has misrepresented his sources in his most recent arguments.

(A) "George J." is not much to go on, but a little determination yeilds, George J. Borjas, an immigrant who has made his career in part about the evils of immigration. Borjas takes a minority position among economists, who criticize him for making assumptions that are inconsistent with observations and theory. For instance, David Card points out that Borjas' argument that immigration harms low-wage workers does not hold water: (1) Borjas falsely assumes that the economy is rigid and that native workers and immigrants are good substitutes. (2) Borjas ignores that recessionary forces, macro and micro changes, and technology are probably better explanations for wage conditions. (3) Borjas ignores emperical data that does not support his claims, such as the coincidence of high immigration and wage gains for unskilled workers.[3]

(B) My opponent misrepresent his source, which claims that the data have been conflicting and the government's numbers unclear.[4]


(C) It is unclear what my opponent means to show by citing facts that are 16 years out of date. His argument is about what we should do now, and what Arizona spent in 1999 is irrelevant to what conditions are today.


(D) My opponent misrepresents the CBO, which found that impacts on localities were "modest." In any case, the CBO report was merely a survey of 29 studies that had been done from about 1992, so these are old and insubstantial conclusions.[5]


(E) As there are perhaps hundreds of CRS reports on immigration[6], it's impractical for me to uncover my opponent's source. However, the discussion I could find shows that my opponent misrepresented the report--many of the crimes were charged against single individuals (either because one person committed many crimes or because of the universal practice of charging lesser included offenses), and the data concerned only charges, not convictions.[7]


(F) I am not sure how to find my opponent's unreferenced quote; however, it is based on old data, because current border crossings are much lower than 1 million annually, let alone for any one state.[8] Increased border security, harsher penalties associated with returns, foreign factors, and recessionary economics have reduced illegal crossings substantially.[9]


(4) As discussed throughout my arguments, the facts weigh against my opponent. The Cato Institute, hardly a den of liberals, argues that immigrants are not more likely to be criminals and that immigration has positive economic effects, encouraging U.S. workers to seek more education and higher paying jobs.[10] The idea that immigrants are criminals is old and has never been supported by convincing data--in fact, immigrants have lower than expected crime rates for their economic groups. That, despite the crudeness they have faced over the centuries by people who thinking that being able to press 8 for Spanish passes for being nice.[11]

In terms of the economic impact of immigrants, even illegal immigrants generated about $11 billion in state taxes alone (let alone federal taxes)[12], and I have cited data in my previous arguments and above to support the net positive impact of immigrants as an entire group.

My opponent's claim that immigration is unusually high or unsustainable at this time is false--it is no higher than has usually been common in our society.[13] Nor has he shown that remittances are too high given the amount of money earned and spent in the U.S. by immigrants--in fact, remittances are estimated to be around $50 billion, while the tax revenue generated by immigrants is around $160 billion. In short, remittances are a small percentage of economic activity by immigrants, and an infinitisimal fraction of GDP.[14]

Furthermore, my opponent's arguments seem to be highly focused on Arizona, which makes sense, because the illegal immigration issues he discusses are confined to just a few states.[15] Much like failing to discuss all immigrants, discussing conditions relevant only to a few states renders my opponent's claims and conclusions suspect.
In short, the facts do not support my opponent, who has misreprented virtually every source he references and has attempted to focus on only one small subset of immigrants and state conditions to justify his proposed rule about all immigrants throughout the entire nation.

There is no reason to charge governmental fees on remittances, which already generate substantial banking fees.[16] Remittances are a negligible part of our economy, but have a big positive impact in developing nations. Remittances are good. And to boot, my opponent's argument is premised on incomplete analysis and false assertions about the cost and criminality of immigrants.

Lewis Carroll? Back at you. And, by the way, "liberalism" is "a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality," it's not a synonym for "Democrat," "liberal," or whatever it is that you hate so much.

And I don't need to resort to calling my opponent frail, emotional, or a malcontent to demonstrate that his position and reasoning is complete and utter nonsense.

Sources:
Debate Round No. 3
Lookingatissues

Pro

Lookingatissues forfeited this round.
Beagle_hugs

Con

Giving up so soon?

I believe my opponent didn't think I would go to the trouble of locating all of those partially referenced and misrepresented sources. I think he was counting on giving the appearance of having brought facts to the table of which I would appear unaware.

No dice.
Debate Round No. 4
Lookingatissues

Pro

I believe my opponent didn't think I would go to the trouble of locating all of those partially referenced and misrepresented sources. I think he was counting on giving the appearance of having brought facts to the table of which I would appear unaware.

No dice.

A statement like your above is a 'none statement' signifying nothing,, while boasting about having checked on the information I presented, and hinting that you found evidence that my information wasn't accurate, you then don't provide any proof, by providing material to back up your statements and innuendos, just your word, that refutes what I have posted. Sorry, your reply doesn't pass the test, but nice try anyway. Question: Did the democrats vote for cutting funding to the America embassies or not.
Beagle_hugs

Con

My opponent appears not to understand the basic requirements of this debate. It's his proposition--he has to prove it. I've offered ample evidence that my opponent's proposition is nonsense.

I've explained a positive case why remittances are good and why immigrants contribute to the economy and are net benefits.

I've pointed out a fatal flaw in my opponent's case by explaining that he's proposing that we punish immigrants without regard to whether they engage in the unlawful behavior he complains of, which is unconstitutional. I've also explained that my opponent's case falls short because he discusses only illegal immigration in a limited number of states (apparently Arizona, for the most part), when legal immigration accounts for the vast majority of immigrants. His proposition was about all immigrants, but his justifications and discussion involved only a small subset of immigrants in a small subset of states (at best).

All of those were accomplished through providing fact and the use of straightforward logic.

As far as my opponent's claim that I have provided just my word that his information is inaccurate, his assertion is patently false and goes to further demonstrate the wilful ignorance and deceit with which he has approached this entire debate. Did my opponent identify a place where I simply made a claim that he has given inaccurate information? No. And why might this be?

Perhaps it's because a review of what I wrote would show any reader that I have explained my reasons and conclusions about my opponent's misrepresentations and provided sources that are easy for the reader to access if the reader believes that I myself might not be representing the situation accurately.

The reason I can give my own assessments and links to the sources rather than pasting unsourced text into my arguments is twofold:

1. I have evaluated the sources and thought about them sufficiently to render an analysis; and
2. I'm not afraid of what the reader might learn about my use of the sources.

As things stand, my opponent is not even effective at using insults to trigger a degradation of the argument into a name-calling exchange that he might actually win, which is what his approach has been all along. It's too bad if he can't take his position being called complete and utter nonsense, but that's the result of carefully explained evaluation, not a pejorative in place of an argument. It's not that surprising that my opponent would try to land a final blow about me "passing a test" in an attempt to elicit an emotional response from me.

Maybe he should insult my mother.


The outcome of this debate is clear--aside from insolence in place of argument and his forfeiture of a round, my opponent's position and arguments are without logic or merit. I have won this debate, and any logical vote will be cast for me. Pleaxe make sure that you cast your vote for me, because this is alot of trouble to go to to just get trolled.

Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Beagle_hugs 2 years ago
Beagle_hugs
lookingatissues,

you are a moron.
Posted by Lookingatissues 2 years ago
Lookingatissues
con posted," I have won this debate, and any logical vote will be cast for me..." If it were only that easy to win in a debate is to declare, I'm the winner," but that's not how it works since the people viewing the debate are the ones who decide who wins in a debate and in their wisdom have decided that the contest was a tie, I accept their decision.
Posted by Lookingatissues 2 years ago
Lookingatissues
Posted by Beagle_hugs 1 day ago
Thanks for the additional web sites you listed.
Beagle_hugs
I have just noticed that the editor stripped some of my sources that appeared after a semicolon.

http://www.splcenter.org......
http://www.factcheck.org......
Posted by Lookingatissues 2 years ago
Lookingatissues
Posted by NoMagic 3 days ago
You commented,""What about the white rich man that sends his money out of country, do you have a problem with them or only "immigrants?"

If you would like to Debate about racism that could be a separate issue for debating on .My Debate was about Immigrants living in America and many immigrants Illegally here making money in this country sending money earned here to support another countries economy and being required to pay a fee on the money they send out of the country.
Posted by Beagle_hugs 2 years ago
Beagle_hugs
I have just noticed that the editor stripped some of my sources that appeared after a semicolon.

http://www.splcenter.org...
http://www.factcheck.org...
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
What about the white rich man that sends his money out of country, do you have a problem with them or only "immigrants?"
No votes have been placed for this debate.