The United States government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the United
Debate Rounds (3)
P: (1) Unauthorized practice of immigration law (UPIL),' often called "notario fraud,"^
continues to be rampant in the United States.^ Practitioners of UPIL are individuals organizations that (a) "hold themselves out as immigration law experts, even though they are
not attorneys" or (b) "act as gatekeepers for 'appearance attorneys' with limited or no
knowledge of their client's immigration case.""* Individuals properly accredited through a
federally recognized organization charging only nominal fees are excluded from this
P:(2) Although notarios sometimes provide useful services,' they can irreparably damage
the lives of immigrants^ and their citizen family members.^ Families are separated, and individuals
are deported to countries they scarcely remember and where they often have no
relatives or friends. Immigrants may lose thousands of hard-earned dollars to scammers who
falsely promise "papers" that would allow them and their families to live lawfully in the
United States. Immigrant workers and their families can lose their livelihoods, and U.S. employers
lose valuable workers. UPIL also compromises the rule of law and faith in the U.S.
P: (3) The United States government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the United States.
- SCHURTMAN, M., & LILLARD, M. C. (2014). REMEDIAL AND PREVENTIVE RESPONSES TO THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF IMMIGRATION LAW. Texas Hispanic Journal Of Law & Policy, 2047-119.
P2: (This premise is not clear, so I'm only going to focus on sentences 2 & 4) Immigrants that come to the U.S. willingly come to the U.S and temporarily leave their families to start a better life for them here. (http://www.usa-job.org... ) (http://www.pbs.org...) It is true that if not allowed in or deported, immigrants and their families lose their livelihoods, and U.S. employers lose valuable workers, that is why the regulation of immigrants to the US should stay as is. (http://www.theguardian.com...)
P3: Immigration creates jobs, because a lot of immigrants create their own businesses which allows for some employment opportunities (http://www.americanprogress.org...). If the regulation of immigration is increased, this may cause for fewer immigrants to be let in, and for more immigrants to be deported.
C: The U.S. government should not substantially strengthen regulation of immigration into the U.S.
Fallacies: because Pro's premises had no connection to the conclusion (possibly because the topic was misinterpreted), it was difficult to determine what fallacies were committed. However, I've decided that Pro has committed the red herring fallacy. The premises offer no support for the conclusion, and are irrelevant.
P2: Some immigrants that come to the U.S willingly come to the U.S and leave their families to start a better life, as stated. Notario fraud will prevent an individual who wishes to do so if they are misguided by actors and gate keepers of the law. If we accept that immigrant come to the U.S to start a better life, we most also enforce better practices of people who interpret the law, if the United States allows them to engage in such practice.
P3: Some immigrants are granted the opportunity to create their own business as well as many American entrepreneurs. There are social programs, and community opportunities that also offer many job opportunities. The important aspect is that we allow the same platform for immigrants that we have for American citizens. If immigrants are misled, misinformed, and become intimidated by the legal system, this can have consequences and effects in which citizens and potential citizens relate to laws and the legal system. Regulation comes in many forms the most important is education; informing immigrants of all of their rights and accesses. we can possibly consider creating more confidential organizations for immigrants in which they can access information.
C: The U.S. government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration into the U.S.
P2: "notario fraud will prevent an individual who wishes to do so". If notario fraud prevents immigrants from wanting to come here, why would YOU (as pro) want to strengthen regulation against it? That would only make it happen less, which would allow for more immigrants to want to come. That's something that I should be arguing
P3: Strengthening the regulation of immigrants TO the U.S. would not allow the "same platforms for immigrants that we have for American citizens", because there would be more control over them (who can come in, the conditions they are allowed in under, etc.) A stronger regulation would deter them from wanting the come. The reason most come to the U.S. is because the immigration system is as is.
C: The U.S. government should not substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the U.S.
P2: As stated in premise 1 during the first round, Notario Fraud is one aspect of the immigration system that requires attention and revision. In my argument, the issue is not whether I argue for immigrants to enter or not enter the country. The issue is the substantial regulation, in which I argue, will uphold U.S laws, will minimize waste, and will increase education for those interpreting the law as well as increasing the confidence of immigrants who will have their first time experience with an unfamiliar government and unfamiliar laws. I argue to maintain, regulate and revise this legal process to provide a platform for immigrants who are faced with an adversary government, sometimes in an unfamiliar language. Those who study immigration law should gain legal certification and uphold U.S law as well serving those who wish to become legal citizens; they should be well informed, well educated, and make a conscious effort to provide legal aid for families.
Fallacies committed: ad hominem debater (con) questions position instead of responding to the given premises and asks a meaningless question. The debater attempts to argue against (pro) based on an assumed ignorance of the topic for debate.
P3: Strengthening the regulation of immigration to the United States does not imply a violent, nagging, persistence. It simply suggests research, a revision in legal language, in which U.S individuals who are properly accredited through federally recognized organization can communicate the proper legal information for individuals who seek citizenship. "The reason most come to the U.S is because the immigration system is as is." This statement is unclear, what aspect of the immigration system assumes more control? Your argument assumes that all immigrants come to the United States for the same reason which weakens this argument. To make such a broad statement as argued by you in Round 1 "Immigration creates jobs, because a lot of immigrants create their own businesses which allows for some employment opportunities .If the regulation of immigration is increased, this may cause for fewer immigrants to be let in, and for more immigrants to be deported." such as "immigrants" alludes to begging the question in your premise 3 for round 2. We cannot assume all immigrants create jobs and start businesses.
Your argument "Strengthening the regulation of immigrants TO the U.S. would not allow the "same platforms for immigrants that we have for American citizens", because there would be more control over them (who can come in, the conditions they are allowed in under, etc.) does not relate and assumes the same for all immigrants who enter the country. A stronger regulation means a stronger system which prevents fraud and legal consequences for immigrants as well as criminal persecution for actors interpreting the immigrations laws. This argument contains a slippery slope, in which the arguer assumes as a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences such as the control of immigrants. Such regulation does not assume absolute control of the bodies of immigrants. It I don"t understand how the first sentence of your premise 3 for round 2 relates to the idea that a stronger regulation would deter them. The last sentence again, appeals to consequence in which regulation will ultimately control immigrants and also assumes all immigrants seek citizenship for the same reasons. If we are not regulating and remaining current with the legal language in which we use to interpret the law to citizens the immigration system will become burdened with fraud and create corrupt theories which authorized citizens interpret and communicate with immigrants or potential U.S citizens. By creating a fair platform for immigrants, we decrease the risks of deportation, of criminalization, and can maintain the integrity of the legal system and those who come in contact with it.
C: The U.S government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the U.S.
http://www.merriam-webster.com... ). Regulation of immigration: directly relates to the regulation of immigrants. So I believe we ARE supposed to be debating the regulation of immigrants as individuals not belonging to the US.
P2: I said the debate was about the regulation of immigration to the US. Meaning laws or rules put in place to CONTROL and MANAGE it.Not a fraud that only applies to immigrants who are already here. Again, Premise is unclear. Sentences 3 and 4 have no sources. Sentence 5 is off topic. I am going to state my Premise 2 as such: immigration to the US has no direct negative effect on the wages of the US citizens because it causes no competeitiveness between them. Immigrants often have a different skill set (manual labor), so they seek jobs different from those of US citizens. ( http://www.americanprogress.org...)
*Ad hominem: "when an arguer rejects his or her opponent's conclusion on the basis of some
characteristic of that person, typically his or her circumstances, social position, history,
or personal associations." ( chapter 5 of the critical thinking textbook) I never rejected your conclusion, i rejected your premises, not based on your personality, but based on the fact they they did not support your conclusion. Perhaps you should re-read your textbook.
P3: "The reason most come to the U.S is because the immigration system is as is." I believe i said most not all. Since you want to go back to my round one premises, maybe you should also look at the sources I've provided which allowed me to make such a broad statement. Begging the question means that my conclusion isn't stated and has to be assumed from the premises. I don't believe that happened either. Again, I didn't say all. " the arguer assumes as a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences such as the control of immigrants." That's my position as Con. This regulation will not assume "absolute control" of the immigrants bodies (never said that either), however a stronger regulation on immigration will lead to them not entering the US (as stated before). It's control, but it isn't absolute. As for the 1st sentence in premise 3 for my round 2 being a deterrent, If someone who is from another country knows that the US has stronger rules in regards to immigration and becoming a citizen (which you are arguing), they would be less likely to migrate here. "If we are not regulating and remaining current with the legal language in which we use to interpret the law to citizens the immigration system will become burdened with fraud and create corrupt theories which authorized citizens interpret and communicate with immigrants or potential U.S citizens." (PRO), my argument is not to stop regulation, it's against INCREASING IT. (the rest of this argument doesn't pertain to topic).
C: The US Government should not substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the US.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.