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

The US government should cease regulating its borders

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: 2/28/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,730 times Debate No: 14980
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)




The United States government should continue to regulate its borders. The borders need to be secure and the country needs to be careful who they let in on a temporary basis. The more agents we have at the border the harder it will be for illegal immigrants to enter the country. Research shows that illegal immigrants find jobs and housing. If the government establishes a database for employers to enter information about their employees it will be harder for the illegal immigrants to find jobs. It will also open up more jobs for the legal citizens. Also if the government cracks down on the employer's that are giving the immigrants jobs by ticketing them, they will be less willing to hire the illegal workers. Presumably the United States government will continue to regulate the borders.


I'd like to thank my opponent for a fruitful discussion. I'll save my remaining words for the debate.

== 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.

Debate Round No. 1


Against your first point, the government is patrolling the border strictly to prevent "weak spots." In what way is this damaging the region? For many years natives have been walking our land for years, they made paths, trails, etc to accommodate their own travels. These "weak spots" have been made check points and they could not possibly harm an entire ecosystem.

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.


And away we go.

== 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.
Debate Round No. 2


The purpose of border control is to preserve American citizens from illegal activities in the best interest of the nation. The use of physical blockade and surveillance increases the possibility of stopping illegal immigrants from entering. Arizona has been the center for crossings by illegal immigrants for many years. In 2009 the system stopped about 9,000 people trying to enter the U.S. illegally. Illegal immigration is estimated to cost the U.S. millions of dollars in lost income tax revenue. Not only is the United States at a loss of millions of dollars but illegal immigration also depletes government spending by overusing social welfare and education programs. TIME magazine states in California alone, $400million is spent on health care for illegal immigrants. CNN says that the care of illegal immigrants in Jacksonville, Florida costs taxpayers $44.5 million. Think of how much money is spent on illegal immigrants across the country, not just in each state.


This was an enjoyable, quick debate. I heartily thank my opponent.

== 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.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ninja_Tru 5 years ago
Normally, I'd agree that 1000 characters are far too few for a good debate. Yet, this debate has changed my mind. 1000 not only keeps the debate to a length that most voters are willing to read easily, but it also requires both debaters to be very choosy with their words. With 8000, debaters generally answer every argument with as much evidence as they want and have enough characters left for a trash-talk intro. 1000 forces debaters to make some cuts, and I don't mean US federal government budget cuts.
Posted by KikoSanchez182 5 years ago
I've noticed the same thing and assumed they were kids doing it for a class. You see a lot of the same debate topic names too. Fwiw, I think the teachers should try this out themselves and they'll see 1,000 words is too few. 2,000 is okay, 24 hours and 3 rounds is fine too. I find 1,000 words to be for people very poor at debating, therefore they want to limit your response.
Posted by mjordan 5 years ago
A course I am taking for school requires me to have this debate on this website which is probably why you keep seeing 1,000 characters, 24 hours, and only 3 rounds. Plus this is my first debate so I do not even know how to work this website nor do I know how to have a debate so I'm trying.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
That's what I thought, which means that all of these debates were manually changed to the current format, which makes me think that these may people may all be linked together.
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
Nope. The default is 8000 characters, 72 hours, and 3 rounds.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
And only 24 hours.

I've noticed there are alot of debates with 1,000 characters, 24 hours, and only 3 rounds. Is that the default?
Posted by thedude346 5 years ago
Research shows? What research? Elaborate! Cite your sources!
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
@wjmelements: I was going to comment on that same line.
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
"You will be allowed to type up to 1,000 characters for every round of debate."

Increase and I'll accept.
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
"Research shows that illegal immigrants find jobs and housing."

What a catastrophe. I'm sure you'd prefer that they add to our starving homeless population.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not well argue for open borders.