The Instigator
Azul145
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Should The U.S. Give Amnesty to Illegal Mexicans?

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 5 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,730 times Debate No: 27660
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

Azul145

Con

There are many reasons why the United States should not give amnesty to current illegal Mexican immigrants. I have 3 main points to back up my argument.
(1) Jobs
(2)Welfare and food stamps
(3) Votes

For my first main point I would like to point out how hard it is to find a job these days. Unemployment has skyrocketed the last 12 years. Illegal Mexicans make it harder for legal citizens to get a job because they steal jobs. Some areas it is very hard to find work. Areas like these Mexicans taking Jobs is a very important issue.

For my second main point welfare and food stamps. Some Mexicans come into this country very poor. In America they know that we aren't very poor here. If you don't make much money you can apply for welfare and food stamps and you will survive. Keep in mind these programs are funded by tax payer dollars. If the illegal Mexicans come here poor they will consume tax payer dollars when they have no right to be here illegally.

And for my last main point votes. Voting requires on identification in most parts of this country. The Latino vote is pro democrat because they support amnesty. This can make an election unfair for the republicans and independents because the democrats will be getting more votes because of 1 belief. The illegals shouldn't be voting anyways so the election is stacked to one side.
Thank you for your time and I wish my opponent good luck.
socialpinko

Pro

(1) Con's argument is that illegal immigrants hold jobs that could be being held by legal Americans, Therefore, according to Con, illegal immigrants should not be given amnesty. The problem with this is that Con doesn't give any reason why one should prefer who holds a given job, a Mexican or an American. Economically speaking the effects are the same. Employers in some instances choose illegal immigrants over legal citizens because legal citizens aren't as economical since they're subject to things like minimum wage laws. Illegal immigrants in this sense help the economy as a source of low-cost labor.


But if we abandon the economic pov though, the only thing left is a base preference for one group of people over another. We see this in things like racism and sexism when an irrelevant trait is taken to be a negative owing simply to a prejudicial preference. Con's preference for American as opposed to Mexican employment is unjustifiably prejudicial.


(2) Con here argues that illegal immigrants shouldn't be allowed to absorb benefits paid for by tax payers since they're here illegally. However, note that illegal immigrants annually pay about six to seven billion in Social Security taxes and 1.5 billion in Medicare taxes[1]. Of course, since illegal immigrants are ineligible to receive Social Security, they're a net benefit to that system since they pay in but don't take our. The presupposition that illegal immigrants don't pay into "the system" while still incurring benefits is hardly supported.


(3) Con's argument is as follows: illegal immigrants tend to vote Democratic, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to vote. First, Con's argument is factually incorrect as illegal immigrants are prohibited by law from voting[2]. Second, a group of people voting a certain way isn't an argument. Upper class white males tend to vote Republican. Just because I'm not a Republican doesn't mean that I have a legitimate argument against upper class white males being able to vote. Of course again this is moot since illegal immigrants aren't allowed to vote anyways.


===Sources===


[1] http://www.nytimes.com...
[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
Azul145

Con

Pro said in his first paragraph that it is better to have illegal immigrants to have jobs that Americans could have so they can be taken advantage of. You are saying we should give them jobs so they can get payed less than minimum wage. And how am I being prejudice by saying that illegal immigrants shouldn't have jobs? That is not prejudice at all!
Pro also said that illegal Mexicans pay social security taxes but don't get the benefits. Welfare and foodstamps are payed for by the people. The social security money that they are investing goes to the government, not to the people. This is another reason how they are taken advantage of.
When I talked about votes, I was saying it is unfair for them to vote because they are not citizens. When you vote do they ask for identification? NO. This is how Republicans and Democrats cheat and how illegal Mexicans vote. There are no laws against it.
socialpinko

Pro

(1) Arbitrary Preference.


I didn't say it was better to employ immigrants so they could be "taken advantage of". I said that there's no reason why illegal immigrants being employed is necessarily a bad thing and there's no reason to stop them from entering into voluntary labor contracts with employers unless one has an arbitrary preference for American as opposed to non-American workers.


(2) Immigrants and SS.


Con's response is a bit hard to understand here. He says welfare and food stamps are paid for "by the people" (who?). How is that relevant if I was talking about Social Security payments? Con then argues that Social Security payments are going to the government, "not to the people". Well originally yes but the whole point of Social Security is to pay out money to seniors when they retire. Illegal immigrants are paying a large sum into this pool which they'll never see. So the fact that they don't pay directly into welfare benefits which some of them receive isn't really a refutation.


(3) Immigrants and Voting.

Con is saying that it's unfair for illegal immigrants to vote since they're not citizens. If he read my R1 case though I showed that there are laws on the books though that specifically prohibit non-citizens from voting so Con's point is essentially a non-issue. Con's claim that there are "no laws against it" is completely false. I advise Con to click on my source [1] from the last round.
Debate Round No. 2
Azul145

Con

(1) Okay you are basically saying that employers don't care whether or not your legal or illegal. However being here illegally is AGAINST THE LAW so they should not be holding jobs regardless.

(2) I don't know if you are aware of this but the government is desperate for money. They have been borrowing from Social Security and turned it into an I.O.U. That is where I made my argument and I'm sorry that was not clear enough.

(3) Last the votes. Cheating is considered quite easy in the United States. You can lie for your voting application and easily vote. My mistake when I said laws weren't against it I looked into your source but still found my argument valid by checking other sources.

May I remind you that we are debating amnesty. You have not given any arguments to why it should be legal. You have just refuted my arguments and that's it. (This is a rebuttal round so no new arguments are allowed)
socialpinko

Pro

(1) Con's argument is faulty here in that he's simply assuming the legitimacy of a law and deriving conclusions from that unsupported presupposition. To take a more obvious example, it's as if one were to justify the extermination of political minorities in Nazi-era Germany (Godwin's law FTW) simply by recourse to the fact that it was technically the law. But that argument can't stand unless we independently justify the law itself. Con hasn't justified (or attempted to justify) things like border restrictions or borders themselves.


(Note that this is technically a new argument. However, Con is the one who originally introduced the new point in R3. I'm simply responding to it. On another note it's kind of ironic that Con would introduce new arguments as he specifically mentioned that not being allowed at the end of his counter.)


(2) Even if Social Security is in financial trouble, wouldn't it be a net positive that illegal immigrants pay in since they pay in while not incurring a financial obligation from it?


(3) First, Con hasn't shown why it's "easy" to commit voting fraud in the U.S. He failed to provide either deductive reasoning or empirical justification for the assertion. Furthermore, simply alluding to mystical sources which you don't provide in order to allegedly verify your point isn't an argument as it gives me nothing to refute. Why can't I just say that I consulted my own sources that disprove your position and not provide them? Because that doesn't get us anywhere.


Con has introduced yet another new argument here in the last round, arguing that I haven't defended a positive position of my own, choosing instead to refute his arguments and nothing else. This is simply how the burden of proof works unless otherwise stated. Con is making a positive assertion in starting this debate (that illegal Mexican immigrants should not be granted amnesty). In making this assertion he's tasked with defending it. I as the contender argue that his arguments are insufficient in defending his assertion. To do that I don't have to provide a counter-argument. It might certainly help in my refutation perhaps and if Con had stated that the BoP was shared I certainly would have. But he didn't, therefore I have no obligation to do so. (Furthermore that would probs be impossible on account of the ridiculously low character limit Con instituted for the debate)
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by uiweiosdfoi 4 years ago
uiweiosdfoi
Hi buddy :

HOT SELL Product Brand is below: ==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====
,nike shoes,air jordan shoes,nike s h o x shoes,gucci shoes ,true religion jeans, ed hardy jeans,coogi jeans,affliction
jeans, Laguna Beach Jeans,ed hardy T-shirts,Coogi T-shirts,Christian Audigier T-shirts,Gucci T-shirts,Polo T-shirts,coach
handbag,gucci handbag,prada handbag,chanel handbag .
free shipping
New to Hong Kong : Winter Dress
New era cap $9
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
Nike s h o x(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $33
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $33
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $12
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18
Come back tomorrow for another Daily Dose of Style! Bookmark this page >>
give you the unexpected harvest

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.scnshop.com... ) =====
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Azul145socialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO is clearly a good debater. Given that it will probably not matter how I vote here, I'll give one point to CON for participation. :)
Vote Placed by htennis 4 years ago
htennis
Azul145socialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO could explain why US citizens deserve to be protected from illegal immigrants.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
Azul145socialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro: "Con doesn't give any reason why one should prefer who holds a given job, a Mexican or an American." Indeed. Con's argument that immigrants are illegal does not establish a moral case. His voting argument was proved to be irrelevant. Pro gets sources for actually quoting some evidence.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
Azul145socialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not establish a well-thought out case, nor did he adequately address the issues raised by pro.
Vote Placed by Chicken 4 years ago
Chicken
Azul145socialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con fails to adequately respond to Pro's case, or any argument on the Pro side for that matter. Con's entire rebuttal was based on assumption, and a personal conclusion that was evident in the wording of each argument. Pro successfully pointed this out and thus earned an easy win.