The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Stopping immigration from Latin America will reduce our crime rates.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 318 times Debate No: 78616
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




(Meaning the U.S.) My opponent will argue that stopping immigration from Latin America will NOT lower our crime rates.

4 rounds
72 hours to post argument
6,000 character max
open voting
3 day voting period
1st round for acceptance and any comments



I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


In 2012 the low estimate of illegal immigrants in the US was a staggering 11 million people. Today, estimates range from 11 million to a more accurate number of 30 million. Of illegal immigrants here, 75% of them are from Latin America. [1]
So naturally if we stopped the influx of Latin Americans coming here, our crime rates would be lower.



Increased immigration has been consistently shown to not increase crime rates [1]. Because of this it is almost certain that reducing immigration from Latin America to the US will not reduce crime rates.

In fact immigration has been shown to have almost universal economic benefits [2] and economic growth has a tendency to reduce crime [3] meaning that in reality immigration from Latin America probably reduces crime rates.

Debate Round No. 2


Im saying that since so many people from Latin American countries are ILLEGAL immigrants, if we blocked all immigration from there our crime rates would go down. They are all commiting a crime of being here illegally.


Impracticality of Enforcement

The US government already does all that it can to prevent illegal immigration from Latin America. An attempt to prevent any kind of immigration from Latin America will just effect the people who attempt to come to the US legally. In reality because there would be no legal path for Latin American would be migrants any more you would increase the number of illegal migrants due to the lack of a legal route therefore increasing the crime rate.

Impact On Agriculture

The agriculture industry in the US relies heavily on the cheap labor provided by Latin American migrants [1]. If this supply of labor was disrupted (as it would be by this policy) it would have a dramatic effect on the US agricultural industry. This would drive up food prices and this would lead to both a rise in unemployment (farm businesses driven under) which is linked to higher crime rate and a rise in the cost of commodities which is also linked to a higher crime rate.

This would cancel out any small decrease in crime (would likely be an increase) caused by the policy of zero immigration from Latin America.

Debate Round No. 3


Teaparty1 forfeited this round.


I guess I win then.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ModerateLiberalism 1 year ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: While there wasn't much diversity of argument, Con did have an argument which I found to be very compelling. The point regarding economics was well-sourced and potent, creating a direct link between Pro's resolution and increased rates of crime. This is both offensive and gives Con the potential to outweigh any points Pro brings up. Pro's only point was a sort of pedantic "well they're here illegally so they technically increase crime", but Con has a rather potent and offensive (in terms of the offense of your argument, not offensive like "in bad taste") rebuttal, claiming that the illegal immigrants aren't allowed in in the first place, so removing a path for legal immigrants actually increases the number of illegal immigrants. These points combined with Pro's absence in the final round make this round an easy Con ballot.