Stopping immigration from Latin America will reduce our crime rates.
Debate Rounds (4)
(Meaning the U.S.) My opponent will argue that stopping immigration from Latin America will NOT lower our crime rates.
72 hours to post argument
6,000 character max
3 day voting period
1st round for acceptance and any comments
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. 
So naturally if we stopped the influx of Latin Americans coming here, our crime rates would be lower.
In fact immigration has been shown to have almost universal economic benefits  and economic growth has a tendency to reduce crime  meaning that in reality immigration from Latin America probably reduces crime rates.
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.
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 . 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.
Teaparty1 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ModerateLiberalism 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.