The Instigator
christiandebater
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Con (against)
Losing
11 Points

The U.S. should build a fence on its southern border in order to reduce illegal immigration.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,482 times Debate No: 4507
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (10)

 

christiandebater

Pro

I think a border fence would be excellent in keeping illegals out of the U.S. There are already several cities in the U.S. where fences are put up (San Diego, Nogales, El Paso.) All have reduced illegal immigration. The problem is we don't have enough Border Patrol and a fence on the southern border would help immensely. Here are my reasons:

1. The fence will be hard to penetrate.
This is a main controversy of the...anti-border fence people. What good is 6-foot high chicken wire? Well first, it is cost effective. And any fence no matter how high can be climbed over. And the secret would be to guard the fence with cameras that cover the entire border. The fence slows them down and they get details on camera. Also it will be covered with barbed wire that's 3 inches apart which is harder to penetrate than normal. If the wire is cut a sensor will go off alerting the Border Patrol increasing the likelihood of arrest. Its also easy to fix. The DOI (Department of the Interior) won't allow non-government funding of it. They only choose to keep government standard fences barely within the limit because of lack of funding. Environmentalists won't allow a fence that is deemed harmful. A solid steel fence is too expensive for a non-profit company. The Border Patrol would be able to see through the fence because it is not concrete or steel. We are now building chain link security fencing on private land and reinforcing agricultural public fencing with chain link also. The chicken wire would be made to be as tough as 10 gauge wire. We are also considering walls made of recycled materials. This would be cost effective.

2. We have the support of the environmentalists and the government.
The DOI has been working with the government for solutions. The environmentalists who claim it is more harm than good usually lose in court. Plus zoologists have found that mostly sea animals and birds have migratory patterns. For those few animals who do want to cross they may be trapped but research shows they have plenty of habitat to survive on either side. Plus it wouldn't cut off an entire habitat. The current plan is to build on private land adjacent to Mexico.

3. The Bush Administration won't stop it.
The DOI has permission to undergo this project. Any attempts to stop Standard Form 299 and legal action will be taken.

4. The fence will be a great design.
If you decide to submit an idea to the DOI they will take it under consideration if it passes legal judgment. So we can rest assured the fence will be a great design.

5. It is not a scam.
We can rest assured the Border Fence Project working with DOI and others is a legal non-profit organisation. All money goes to tools and materials among other necessities. Here is a link concerning the Border Fence Project's legal status. http://www.borderfenceproject.com...

6.The rubber wall will work.
If the illegals try to burn the wall it will be covered with inflammable material too hard to scrape or dissolve. The rubber inside would also be inflammable.

7.It is a team coordinated effort.
The Minutemen, Border Patrol, DOI, and most importantly the government are working together to come up with the best solution to illegal immigration. We can rest assured it will be an effective, safe, and legal solution.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

My case is very simple: We should have an open border. That is, we should let everyone enjoy the freedom, liberty, and economic prosperity (comparatively) of our great nation.

Up until fairly recently, anyone could come to America, and our nation prospered. The racism of the early 20th century regulated our borders, and led to our current immigration policy. We must end this policy, and revert to an open border.

An open border has many advantages, and, it is completely free!

Advantage 1: Immigrants are essential to our economy. The jobs that no Americans will take are taken by immigrants. Chicken processing plants, orange plantations, and those other "dirty" jobs rely on the unskilled labor that immigration provides. Businesses such as these have shown losses in labor force, and increases in price when there are crackdowns on illegal immigrants. If we bring in more immigrants, as would happen with an open border, we would have more labor, and our economy could grow. Jason Riley, member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board, points out that "The typical immigrant is either higher-skilled or lower-skilled than the average American, so they tend to complement the workforce rather than take jobs," this HELPS our economy! Obviously, helping our economy is good, so we want immigrants. A border fence would cut off this supply of immigrants by a large margin.

Advantage 2: An open border presents the United States as an welcoming, open country, rather than the shady, paranoid country we are seen as currently. In 2007, the University of Maryland found that only 28% of the world found that the US was having a positive influence on the world. Having an open border can only improve our status.

Advantage 3: An open border makes travel easy. No longer does one need visas, and green cards to travel throughout North America. One may argue that this makes illegal travel easier, but this argument does not hold weight, most drugs, and illegal substances come in by boat, as the sea ports are our weakest point. Customs officials don't actually check boats, the captains of the boats just have to check in. This means that criminals will just use this weak point, rather than the borders.

Advantage 4: An open border is easy to maintain. No work is required at all, the only action required is passivity.

Advantage 5: Open borders will lead to more cultural integration and understanding. If people can travel more freely, they will encounter each other more frequently, and we will have a "melting pot."

Broad case: Open borders work in many places. In the EU, all members have open borders, and they see much success in economic, cultural, and political exchanges. Also, we have one with Canada, and we have no problems there. There is no reason why it wouldn't work with Mexico.

Now, for anticipatory arguments:
==Illegal immigration causes crime, more welfare, and poverty!==
Jason Riley, member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board, noted that all of these have decreased with the recent rise in immigration, so obviously immigration won't cause these.

==Terrorists will come in!==
Most terrorists don't come in over the border. Usually they come here legally.

==What about drugs?==
I pointed out that drug runners will have an easier time using our ports.

==Won't they steal our jobs==
Like I said, they don't. You should read my evidence above.

Opponent's case:
"There are already several cities in the U.S. where fences are put up (San Diego, Nogales, El Paso.) All have reduced illegal immigration."

That's bad, we want immigration. Therefore we shouldn't put up a fence. We don't need a Berlin Wall.

"This is a main controversy of the...anti-border fence people. What good is 6-foot high chicken wire? Well first, it is cost effective. And any fence no matter how high can be climbed over. And the secret would be to guard the fence with cameras that cover the entire border. The fence slows them down and they get details on camera. Also it will be covered with barbed wire that's 3 inches apart which is harder to penetrate than normal. If the wire is cut a sensor will go off alerting the Border Patrol increasing the likelihood of arrest. Its also easy to fix. The DOI (Department of the Interior) won't allow non-government funding of it. They only choose to keep government standard fences barely within the limit because of lack of funding. Environmentalists won't allow a fence that is deemed harmful. A solid steel fence is too expensive for a non-profit company. The Border Patrol would be able to see through the fence because it is not concrete or steel. We are now building chain link security fencing on private land and reinforcing agricultural public fencing with chain link also. The chicken wire would be made to be as tough as 10 gauge wire. We are also considering walls made of recycled materials. This would be cost effective."

But we want them to get through. Keeping them out is bad. Don't you get it?

"2. We have the support of the environmentalists and the government.
The DOI has been working with the government for solutions. The environmentalists who claim it is more harm than good usually lose in court. Plus zoologists have found that mostly sea animals and birds have migratory patterns. For those few animals who do want to cross they may be trapped but research shows they have plenty of habitat to survive on either side. Plus it wouldn't cut off an entire habitat. The current plan is to build on private land adjacent to Mexico."

And cut through people's yards? I recently read an article about the fence in Brownsville, Texas. The fence goes through a family's yard, about ten feet from their door, it cuts off a rancher's cattle from their pastures, and it goes through the habitat of endangered species. Also, most environmental groups don't support a border fence, including Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, etc.

"The DOI has permission to undergo this project. Any attempts to stop Standard Form 299 and legal action will be taken."

So? That doesn't mean they should.

"4. The fence will be a great design.
If you decide to submit an idea to the DOI they will take it under consideration if it passes legal judgment. So we can rest assured the fence will be a great design."

Does it let everyone in? No. I rest my case.

"5. It is not a scam.
We can rest assured the Border Fence Project working with DOI and others is a legal non-profit organisation. All money goes to tools and materials among other necessities. Here is a link concerning the Border Fence Project's legal status. http://www.borderfenceproject.com...;

No, it's what will trash our economy even more. We need immigration!

"6.The rubber wall will work.
If the illegals try to burn the wall it will be covered with inflammable material too hard to scrape or dissolve. The rubber inside would also be inflammable."

We don't want it to keep them out. It is not good to do so.

"7.It is a team coordinated effort.
The Minutemen, Border Patrol, DOI, and most importantly the government are working together to come up with the best solution to illegal immigration. We can rest assured it will be an effective, safe, and legal solution."

The Minutemen are a bunch of racist middle-aged white guys, they should be of with their biker gangs, not enforcing vigilante "justice." And the best dolution is to OPEN THE BORDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Conclusion: My opponent's case rests on the fact that we want to keep them out. As I have shown, we want the immigration, and a border fence doesn't help immigration.
Debate Round No. 1
christiandebater

Pro

Thanks for accepting this debate LR4…. (Do you mind if I call you that?) Honestly, I really didn't expect to see someone who wanted a free, open, border. First, let's start with the rebuttals:

"My case is very simple: We should have an open border. That is, we should let everyone enjoy the freedom, liberty, and economic prosperity (comparatively) of our great nation."

Is this a reason to have an open border? Plenty of people come from all over the world and enjoy our freedom. The difference is they do it LEGALLY.

"Up until fairly recently, anyone could come to America, and our nation prospered."

People still can come to America.

"The racism of the early 20th century regulated our borders, and led to our current immigration policy."

This had nothing to do with racism. From 1907 to 1911 the Dillingham Commission studied US immigration. Their studies found that too many immigrants from north and western Europe were coming to America. The Commission had 41 volumes of study on it. http://site.ebrary.com...

Advantage 1

Allow me to analyze what you're saying. "Unemployment rates were so high and the economy so low that 11 million illegals crossing the border illegally is a good thing. The reason is Americans are too high-class and wealthy to take such disgusting slop jobs that dirty, low-life Mexicans would gladly take. That's why illegal immigration is good."

I don't recall our unemployment and economy being in turmoil before illegals decided to show up. They can help the work force like you say if they come over LEGALLY. The difference is they're doing it ILLEGALLY. The supposed effect on the economy would be just as well if they crossed legally.

Advantage 2

Your statistic said 28% of the world views us as positive NOT unwelcome. If I sat down to take that poll a border fence would be the last thing on my mind. We are still welcoming to people. It's all a matter of legality. If a terrorist walked into this country illegally would you accept him/her with open arms. Legality certainly makes a difference.

Advantage 3

Let's analyze. A Mexican drives to a passport office. The nearest one is 30 minutes. It takes 1 hour for him to register his passport to cross the border. It takes another half hour to drive back. He drives to the border shows his passport and has it verified. After 5 minutes he's a legal citizen of the US! So having a border fence would decrease about 2 hours and 5 minutes of a person's life. Great reason! Can you give me any proof that custom officials don't check the boats at all? Both illegals and boats carry drugs as well as citizens of America.

Advantage 4

This is true but in the long run would it help? I can think of plenty of Americans who would take those jobs that Mexicans do. When you think about it it increases unemployment because Mexicans are taking jobs that others want. And how do you explain the current economic slump if they're as essential and helpful as you say they are?

Advantage 5

We already have a melting pot. And the more illegals the less melting pot there is because of so much Mexican influence.

Broad Case

The EU works because ALL members have agreed to it. Does it have anything to do with economy though? And even if it did is it really helping? Ever heard of "stagflation"? How many "illegal Canadians" do we have each year? Their economy is secure. Mexico is not.

Illegal immigration causes crime, more welfare, and poverty!
Try to refute these. http://newsbusters.org... www.vdare.com/misc/riley_wsj.htm Please don't use the stupid argument of claiming it's biased, dismiss it, and never refute it.

Terrorists will come in!

I wouldn't have used this argument. I agree most terrorists come from sea legally. But think of this. If a terrorist lives in Mexico by a visa he could easily cross an unmaintained US border without anyone knowing.

What about drugs?

I agree but drug dealers come from everywhere including Mexico. An open border would simply make it easier for them.

Won't they steal our jobs

What evidence? You didn't show me anything pertaining to employment ratios.

My case

Your entire argument is based on 1 easily refutable point. Since I've refuted it these arguments stand. However, I will make a point on #2. Do you understand the meaning of the word adjacent? It means "parallel to". The DOI is planning to build the fence parallel to private property. And do you have a basis for your stereotype of the Minutemen?

Here are some more points.

1. Burden on tax-based resources, costing taxpayers billions of dollars.
2. Difficult prosecution and justice when perpetrators flee the country.
3. Disparity between legal immigrants who follow the rules and those who don't.
4. They risk death when traveling the desert to reach the borders.
5. Those who successfully cross the border inspire those left behind to do the same.
6. Continued growth of the demand for cheap labor and low wages.
7. No government reimbursement to offset states illegal alien maintenance costs.
8. Potential negative effects on working and middle-class citizens.
9. Millions of U.S. dollars remitted to Mexico
10. Mortgage loan fraud
11. Fake document mills
12. Imbalance in authorized immigration quotas
13. Interstate human trafficking
14. Population health risks due to no pre-entry immunizations
15. Increase in road traffic and usage, injurious or fatal accidents
16. Congestion of tax-based public parks and recreation
17. Overcrowding of public schools
18. Continued law-breaking rationalization for those who employ illegals
19. Growing number of uninsured illegal aliens who can't pay for claims
20. Monopolization of Spanish language in various segments of society
21. Lack of true ethnic diversity
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

"Is this a reason to have an open border? Plenty of people come from all over the world and enjoy our freedom. The difference is they do it LEGALLY."
First, the reasons are the 4 I listed. Anyways,the only reason that there are illegal immigrants is because we don't let enough people in. Only maybe 10% of those who try to get in actually get in (NPR). This means that 90% who want to get in legally can't, so they do it illegally. If we let everyone come in legally, we wouldn't have that problem.
"People still can come to America.'
Obviously not, otherwise everyone would come legally.
"This had nothing to do with racism. From 1907 to 1911 the Dillingham Commission studied US immigration. Their studies found that too many immigrants from north and western Europe were coming to America. The Commission had 41 volumes of study on it. http://site.ebrary.com...... "
No the study found that we had a lot of Eastern and Southern Europeans coming to this country. our country happened to be prejudiced against Eastern and Southern Europeans at that point in time. Hmmm... could it be, racism?
"Allow me to analyze what you're saying. 'Unemployment rates were so high and the economy so low that 11 million illegals crossing the border illegally is a good thing. The reason is Americans are too high-class and wealthy to take such disgusting slop jobs that dirty, low-life Mexicans would gladly take. That's why illegal immigration is good.'"
No, what I'm saying is that there is a demand for blue collar labor, such as construction careers, plumbing, welding, electricians, and certain manufacturing jobs that isn't being filled. That's where immigrants come in, most immigrants take blue collar jobs, so they fill this demand. The other "dirty jobs" I mentioned are jobs that have always relied on immigrants, as the assimilated groups could get better jobs that weren't so dirty, and the new wave of immigrants filled the gap. Of course some Americans take them, but not enough, otherwise there would be no demand.
"I don't recall our unemployment and economy being in turmoil before illegals decided to show up. They can help the work force like you say if they come over LEGALLY. The difference is they're doing it ILLEGALLY. The supposed effect on the economy would be just as well if they crossed legally.'
That's what I'm doing, I'm letting in everyone legally. And there have always been unemployment and economic turmoil, and often, immigrants help end that phenomenon. So, yeah, they help the economy. Saying otherwise is ignorant of supply and demand economics. Basically, if there was no way for immigrants to make money (no demand) they wouldn't come. They do come, therefore they are needed.
"Your statistic said 28% of the world views us as positive NOT unwelcome. If I sat down to take that poll a border fence would be the last thing on my mind. We are still welcoming to people. It's all a matter of legality. If a terrorist walked into this country illegally would you accept him/her with open arms. Legality certainly makes a difference.
If a convicted terrorist came legally or illegally, he would be thrown in jail. Under my plan though, nobody comes in illegally. In fact, a border fence would piss people off though, as it helps create our image as paranoid hypocrites.
"Let's analyze. A Mexican drives to a passport office. The nearest one is 30 minutes. It takes 1 hour for him to register his passport to cross the border. It takes another half hour to drive back. He drives to the border shows his passport and has it verified. After 5 minutes he's a legal citizen of the US! So having a border fence would decrease about 2 hours and 5 minutes of a person's life. Great reason! Can you give me any proof that custom officials don't check the boats at all? Both illegals and boats carry drugs as well as citizens of America."
Are you completely ignorant of immigration procedures? This would be a more accurate scenario: A Mexican drives to a US consulate, waits in line for 3 days, is denied a green card. Or even if he does get the green card, he waits in the US for 7 years before citizenship. Hmm... 2 hours and 5 minutes, I don't think so. Proof that customs officials don't check boats: http://www.lsyc.info... It's the #$%@ing honor system!
"This is true but in the long run would it help? I can think of plenty of Americans who would take those jobs that Mexicans do. When you think about it it increases unemployment because Mexicans are taking jobs that others want. And how do you explain the current economic slump if they're as essential and helpful as you say they are?"
The current economic slump is due to the stupidity of banks. It has nothing to do with immigrants. Obviously though, those 'plenty of Americans" aren't enough to fill those jobs.
"We already have a melting pot. And the more illegals the less melting pot there is because of so much Mexican influence."
Yeah, those damn illegals are destroying our melting pot by adding their culture! You're right, they definitely will destroy the melting pot by adding their culture (sarcastic tone). Immigrants from Mexico make up less than 3.33333333% of our population, this doesn't throw things out of whack, as we can still get immigrants from other countries.
"The EU works because ALL members have agreed to it. Does it have anything to do with economy though? And even if it did is it really helping? Ever heard of "stagflation"? How many "illegal Canadians" do we have each year? Their economy is secure. Mexico is not."
Stagflation has nothing to do with illegal immigration. The EU just shows that open borders work, it doesn't matter who agrees with it, it still works. And Canada's economy only works because of an open border and NAFTA (http://www.hsaj.org...).
"Try to refute these. http://newsbusters.org...... www.vdare.com/misc/riley_wsj.htm Please don't use the stupid argument of claiming it's biased, dismiss it, and never refute it."
The first is an interview, and the only valid point that it makes is that an open border is not a conservative viewpoint. Jason Riley's points for an open border only prove my point, and the interviewer couldn't stump of refute him. The second, is ridiculous, and should be dismissed not because of bias, but because the writer can't make a point without making 110 logical fallacies. It only shows why young children should not do drugs.
"I wouldn't have used this argument. I agree most terrorists come from sea legally. But think of this. If a terrorist lives in Mexico by a visa he could easily cross an unmaintained US border without anyone knowing."
He could already do that with Canada, so that's irrelevant.
"I agree but drug dealers come from everywhere including Mexico. An open border would simply make it easier for them."
Fact: More drugs come by sea, and from Canada rather than over the border. Anyways, the best solution is to legalize drugs, and regulate them, destroying the black market for them.
"What evidence? You didn't show me anything pertaining to employment ratios."
Evidence:http://www.townhall.com...
"However, I will make a point on #2. Do you understand the meaning of the word adjacent? It means "parallel to". The DOI is planning to build the fence parallel to private property. And do you have a basis for your stereotype of the Minutemen?"
Unless you like arguing with Newsweek from 2 weeks ago, I'm right, it goes through private property. Second, the Minutemen hate Mexicans, ergo they are racist.
Don't have room for your list, so I will summarize.
Most of these are potential negatives, or things that wouldn't occur (fake document mills?). Remember, everyone is legal in this case, everyone can come here. The potential scares either won't happen or are easily solved/ not due to immigration.
Debate Round No. 2
christiandebater

Pro

"Anyways, the only reason..."

True but it's illegal because there's too many negatives to an open border. That's why it's illegal.

Obviously not,

My argument was People still can come. Not everyone because letting everyone come legally would increase crime. It's better to let people come legally as they are now for security reasons.

No the study...

Did you even read the link? It had nothing to do with racism.

No, what I'm saying...

Legal immigration could handle this same "problem." You still haven't proved to me why ILLEGAL immigration is better than LEGAL immigration.

That's what I'm doing,...

You really aren't disproving why the current illegal immigrant is better than a legal immigrant. I have presented to you the reasons an open border would be bad. You aren't disproving me. There's always a way for people to make money. I'm asking you to show me how bad unemployment was before the illegals came to America and supposedly made it all better.

If a convicted terrorist

So under your plan terrorists could just freely walk in? Great! We'd get to celebrate 9/11 every day under your plan. Maybe we are paranoid. Hypocrites I don't know. The reason we're paranoid is because of things like 9/11. We let the terrorists come in legally. So we cracked down on immigration policies because of this.

Are you completely ignorant...

I wasn't talking about citizenship policies. I was talking about crossing over legally. 7 years in the United States as an immigrant is legal if he does it right. And waiting in line for 3 days only to be denied? I seriously doubt this happens often. Your link proved your point but drug dealers could come just as easy from the Mexican border. And cussing is a real mature, Christian way to handle this debate LR4.

The current economic slump

I never said it was due to illegals. I said Shoudn't the illegals be helping like you say. Obviously those "plenty of Mexicans" aren't enough to fill the jobs.

Yeah, those...

I'm not saying Mexican influence is bad. I'm saying that 3% rate over time will jump up to 6%, then 12, 24, and before you know it, the US is a completely Mexican culture. There goes the melting pot. Eventually, this kind of thing will happen if we don't regulate immigration.

Stagflation

That's what I'm saying. If Europe's economy is being helped so much by open borders the stagflation problem should be mending. Like I said the reason the EU works is because all members have agreed to it. Everyone trusts each other so it works. That's why an open border with Canada works. We trust Canada more than Mexico because Mexico (unfortunately) has shown us they don't accept us. You see them hanging our flag upside-down and putting their flag in our place. This kind of thing will continue with open borders. I'm not racist against them, the problem is they have shown us they can't be trusted. If they came over legally a lot of these problems would be solved. And like I said, we trust Canada more than Mexico. I'm not saying it's right, but Mexico has shown us they can't be trusted. A border fence would most probably reduce a lot of these problems.

The first is an interview...

The first said he was not impressed by Jason Riley. The last part of that page was the interview. The first part was reasons why he was wrong. The second was a refutation and had nothing to do with drugs.

He could already...

So you're telling me he's going to go to the Mexican shore, take a boat which costs money, drive the boat to Canada, then attack us? I'm not saying he won't do that, but a border fence certainly would help.

Fact:

We also need to regulate our sea traffic better. That's for a different debate, but since Canada is an open border, people will come from Mexico as well if we completely open the border. And your solution is to legalize drugs? So everyone can smoke, do "pot", "weed", marijuana. That's for a different debate but it's not a good solution. Why don't we just legalize stealing, rape, and murder, so everybody can be happy. This is not a solution, this is a problem.

Evidence:

It didn't provide evidence on our unemployment rates going down from illegals. It gave an opinion on what they think might happen, but certainly not evidence. I want a link that indisputably proves that illegal immigrants are without a doubt helping us.

Unless you like arguing

I'm not talking about Newsweek, I'm talking about the DOI. The DOI will fix this problem. You gave no proof the Minutemen hate Mexicans, ergo you're wrong. http://www.minutemanproject.com...

"Most of these are potential negatives,"

That's the whole point. I'm seeing if you can prove me wrong. Since you didn't though... "or things that wouldn't occur" Can you prove to me these things wouldn't occur?

A note to anyone who is voting. LR4... here has failed to disprove a single one of my 21 points. These points indefinitely stand since he failed to refute them.

LR4... I hope you have a great vacation, and I hope you get to respond. Yours truly, ChristianDebater
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

First, thank you for your very speedy reply. The quality of this reply may be slightly sub-par, as I only have 30 min.

"True but it's illegal because there's too many negatives to an open border. That's why it's illegal."

The negatives had been there for close to 150 years, and our country is doing great, and was doing great then. The reason it is illegal is because xenophobia makes a good voter issue.

"My argument was People still can come. Not everyone because letting everyone come legally would increase crime. It's better to let people come legally as they are now for security reasons."

I'm sure 90% of Mexicans aren't criminals, we just deny them because we have quotas to fill. Anyways, you have no evidence that it would significantly increase crime, and I have evidence that it would help the economy, which reduces crime.

"Did you even read the link? It had nothing to do with racism."

I read it, but many of the reasons for the final decision, quotas, were racist. The pressure was on Congress because of racism, and they are only politicians. I can assure you that the study is not that pure.

"Legal immigration could handle this same "problem." You still haven't proved to me why ILLEGAL immigration is better than LEGAL immigration."

Because unrestricted immigration allows the market forces to work, people will come if there are jobs, which there are. If there weren't people wouldn't come. Corporate America will effectively control immigration.

"You really aren't disproving why the current illegal immigrant is better than a legal immigrant. I have presented to you the reasons an open border would be bad. You aren't disproving me. There's always a way for people to make money. I'm asking you to show me how bad unemployment was before the illegals came to America and supposedly made it all better."

The immigrants have come over a long period of time, therefore I can't show a change in our economy, as some came during times of prosperity, others came during times of slump. So, the change isn't really apparent, but most economists would agree with me that an open border, which lets in as many workers as we need, would improve the economy long term.

"So under your plan terrorists could just freely walk in? Great! We'd get to celebrate 9/11 every day under your plan. Maybe we are paranoid. Hypocrites I don't know. The reason we're paranoid is because of things like 9/11. We let the terrorists come in legally. So we cracked down on immigration policies because of this."

Terrorists come through Canada, not through Mexico, so an open border with Mexico makes no difference.

"I wasn't talking about citizenship policies. I was talking about crossing over legally. 7 years in the United States as an immigrant is legal if he does it right. And waiting in line for 3 days only to be denied? I seriously doubt this happens often. Your link proved your point but drug dealers could come just as easy from the Mexican border. And cussing is a real mature, Christian way to handle this debate LR4."

Oh, well you shouldn't have said "citizen" but anyways, this occurrence happens to around 90% of Mexicans waiting to immigrate, as the lines are so long, and the acceptance rate is so low. It's as if the United States was Harvard University or something. I didn't cuss though, I said "#$%@ing" in no language I know is this a swear word. #$%@ may imply a swear, but its your choice to interpret it that way.

"Stagflation"

It hasn't helped because it is so controlled.

"
The first said he was not impressed by Jason Riley. The last part of that page was the interview. The first part was reasons why he was wrong. The second was a refutation and had nothing to do with drugs."

The first gave no good reasons to be unimpressed, and the ones he did were rebteted by riley.

Canada

No he goes straight to Canada.

Fact;

I have to go, sorry..
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
CD, do you want a rematch sometime, maybe not now, because I'm leaving again pretty soon, but sometime, because this debate was never really finished.
Posted by bacon 8 years ago
bacon
NEVERMIND I FOUND OUT Y HE IS GONE MY BAD
Posted by bacon 8 years ago
bacon
wheres the other guy unlike u CD who sticks around for the other comments every1 else just runs away and leavesafter the deate not answering questions. and u do take a lot of heat
Posted by christiandebater 8 years ago
christiandebater
"This is in a way racist its like we are already diverse enough we dont need any more mexians to bring their influence to take control of the white culture that is generally accepted."

This isn't racist bacon. All I said was that the more illegals the less melting pot. I dont mind Mexicans at all. But they should come through a legal controlled process like you did.
Posted by christiandebater 8 years ago
christiandebater
Sorry miroslava. I was not aware El Paso did not have a border fence. I could have sworn the links I read did. Anyways that's not the main part of the debate so it doesn't matter a whole lot anyways.
Posted by bacon 8 years ago
bacon
LR4N6FTW4EVACon
"If we let everyone come in legally, we wouldn't have that problem."
Seriously do you want our country as crowded as china i understand people want to be in america and i understand that the embassy is very harrassing and cruel to those that try to enter the country howevver we should allow more but not everyone because that will definatly lead to population issues
"People still can come to America.'
Obviously not, otherwise everyone would come legally.
there has been a great amount of africans entering the country
Posted by bacon 8 years ago
bacon
CD
"We already have a melting pot. And the more illegals the less melting pot there is because of so much Mexican influence."
This is in a way racist its like we are already diverse enough we dont need any more mexians to bring their influence to take control of the white culture that is generally accepted.
However i get your point we are a very diverse country and we dont need to allow illegals just to make us more diverse it leads to heavy population issues. I myself am an immigrant that came legally i find it unfair that illegals have to come and make those who try and enter the country legally wait and get denied. It is selfish.
I didnt mean to put words in your mouth but thats how one can persieve it
Posted by miroslava 8 years ago
miroslava
"There are already several cities in the U.S. where fences are put up (San Diego, Nogales, El Paso."

Lie!!
I am a Mexican living in El Paso, i can assure you, there's no fence here other than the one everyone can break easily though out the entire border of the US with Mexico..

i've lived all my life in the border, in both sides,
and the pro side makes it seem as if coming to the US is easy.
It's not, at all.. even to just cross over to come shopping and go back you do have to go through a lot of paperwork and time. it's even worst when it comes to residency and citizenship. Not to mention the cost and the waiting time.

maybe if the prices weren't so over the top there would be more fairness in the process.
Posted by krdutch31 8 years ago
krdutch31
I think it will be a while before Maryland has a true problem with illegal immigrants...
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Oh, and I'll probably miss R#, if I do, could you please be considerate and not post. I am going on a month long vacation and I'm leaving tomorrow, so I'll be absent if you haven't posted by tonight.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
christiandebaterLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Vote Placed by ladygirl 8 years ago
ladygirl
christiandebaterLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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:30 
Vote Placed by patthebaker 8 years ago
patthebaker
christiandebaterLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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 
Vote Placed by tarsjake 8 years ago
tarsjake
christiandebaterLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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:30 
Vote Placed by krdutch31 8 years ago
krdutch31
christiandebaterLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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:30 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
christiandebaterLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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 
Vote Placed by surfride 8 years ago
surfride
christiandebaterLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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 
Vote Placed by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
christiandebaterLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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:30 
Vote Placed by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
christiandebaterLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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:30 
Vote Placed by christiandebater 8 years ago
christiandebater
christiandebaterLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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:30