The US government should cease regulating its borders
Debate Rounds (3)
== Opening Licks==
1. Border patrol causes massive damage to the environment. "There is a rising concern over what illegal immigration and the U.S. response to it my do to the area's fragile ecosystems." (1) Rather than block off all immigration like many believe it does, border regulation simply funnels immigrant paths to weak spots causing paths and trails of immigration that damage the region.
2. Border patrol is a distraction from a true solution. Governor Rick Perry defends a policy where "law enforcement should focus on criminal aliens. Efforts to crack down on the larger pool of undocumented immigrants could be a distraction." (2) Instead of lined up on the border, personnel would be better served seeking out lawless aliens inside the country.
Refutation to come.
how could we control our staggering number of illegal immigrants in the United States if we can not control the number of people entering? Obviously the government must use all that they can to accommodate both sides by an equal amount of action at home and on the borders. This could provide a large number of job opportunities for the law enforcement agencies across the border and within the government. This would decrease the unemployment rate and boost our economy.
Illegal immigrants often take jobs that were once overlooked,but are now necessary to make a living away from legal taxpaying citizens.
== The Empire Strikes Back==
1. The Con argued "The government is... prevent 'weak spots.' " Yet, though the government may try, with a Southern border the size it is, certain chinks in the armor still appear. The whole fence can not be perfect; illegal immigrants find the weakest spots on the fence and enter there. In Arizona, the weak spot is in front of the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, where "there are now 1,200 miles of illegal roads and footpaths created by drug smugglers and illegal immigrants scarring the refuge." (1) This shows, first, that border patrol fails to stop immigration and, second, that it causes damage. Two reasons to cease regulation.
2. The Con says "how could we control our staggering... people entering?" First, my description of chinks in the armor explains why we can not control the number who enter. We should simply focus on law enforcement. Next, "This could provide... our economy." Adding tax-paid jobs does not boost the econ.
== Closing Remarks==
1. The Con argues that "The use of physical... the U.S. illegally." Certainly, border patrol stops *some*, but that statistic of 9000 does not include all the immigrants that the system *failed* to stop. As immigrants will always be able to find the chinks in the fence, we should focus inland on law enforcement.
2. Next, the Con states that "Illegal immigration is estimated... in each state." I must agree; illegal immigrants are like citizens in that they utilize government programs. However, if we cease border regulation, that will free up monetary resources to cover immigrant social program costs. Even better, the border patrol personnel could be put to work in the Immigration Service. If they can stop "9,000 people trying to enter," they can file 9000 more immigration applications. Now the immigrants are citizens paying taxes, a true solution compared to funneling them to holes in the fence.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years 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:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not well argue for open borders.
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.