This House Supports Free Immigration
I will be arguing that free immigration should not be allowed, my opponent will be arguing that free immigration should be allowed. There is a shared BOP. R1 is for acceptance only.
No semantics, trolling, forfeiture is an automatic 7 point concession, the same going for plagiarism.
Free Immigration - the ability to come to a country of which one is not native, usually for permanent residence without being restricted by laws banning immigration and immigrating through any means (e.g. train, boat etc.) and these immigrants then hold the ability not to be deported back to their country of origin
If my opponent would like to make any definitional changes, it must be posted in R1 and I hold the right to deny any such changes.
I look forward to a great debate!
The current immigration system is the antithesis of a free-market and indeed the heritage of the United States is built on these very principles, to go against immigration in this manner could be construed as being anti American, or immoral.
Deportation is subject to human rights and is therefore subjective, so it would be wrong to generalize all immigrants as has been given.
Immigrants who enter into the country via work permits are subject to labor and contract law and are therefore here legally, and are within their rights to exercise naturalization once certain criteria has been met. immigrants who fall within this ambit are not joining the US civilization 'freely' but have earned through labor, tax and economic contribution the right to call themselves American, as did our ancestors (as immigrants) who contributed to this land initially.
I thank my opponent for his comments.
I have noticed that my opponent from his opening comments seems to be under the impression that I am against immigration all together. That is not the purpose of this debate, this debate is not on immigration, it is on FREE IMMIGRATION. There are many differences between free immigration, and regular immigration. This debate is not on whether these people should be called Americans, it is if these people should be in America at all.
Firstly, with free immigration the person can get into the country through any means, even if it is illegal.
Secondly, there is no application, no forms, nothing, if they wish to enter then they enter. All they have to do is sign their name on a piece of paper stating how many people are entering.
Thirdly, these people then cannot be deported, that is a key component of Free Immigration. Thus, what my opponent has said about immigration so far is invalidated, e.g. the current immigration system, immigrants who enter the country via work permits, etc. etc. The topic of this debate is FREE IMMIGRATION.
Before I begin, I would like to point out that I support immigration an d freedom, but unchecked freedom I feel is more harmful than beneficial.
THE HARMS OF FREE IMMIGRATION
If we were to accept Free Immigration we would allow droves of people to come into our country to live the American dream. Now this may not seem so bad, because these people now get to lead a better life. But in reality, this harms both the country they are moving to and the country they are moving from. This will be my case line for this debate.
C1: IT HARMS THE COUNTRY THEY MOVE FROM
It is clear to many that America is a first world nation, and many people desire to better their lives in America. For example, many people from Mexico try to illegally immigrate to America to better their lives. Many people don’t dare try and enter the United States illegally through fear of being caught and because of its illegality. If we opened our borders, droves of people will be coming. The lower class, the middle class, the upper class, all will be coming into the country. Now, we aren’t saying that EVERYONE will just leave, but we can safely assume that many people will come. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, and the unemployed will take their skills to another country. This means that Mexico will be left with fewer doctors, lawyers, teachers, and the unemployed. This will cripple the country. We can’t guarantee that these people will return to their country of origin by choice, and we can’t deport them out. These higher educated people and the hard workers is what a 3rd world country needs to become a 1st world country. Encouraging these people to move to a different country will bring the country of origin to its knees and condemn the country to forever be 3rd world. We on side Opposition will not kill a country.
C2: IT HARMS THE COUNTRY THE PEOPLE MOVE TO
There are many examples of this in history, when a sudden population boom destroys a country. We see here that as these people enter the country, there will be too many people and too few jobs. America already faces massive unemployment, my opponent wishes to add to that. The industrial revolution and Britain. We see here that the sudden loss of thousands of people’s jobs ruined the economy. People began working over 10 hours a day for little to no pay! There were so many people willing to work, too few jobs, and some factory owners to take advantage of that. The cities in England couldn’t handle the stress either. The fact that there were so many people, the quality of services such as education, medical care, and social services decreased greatly. Sanitation was near zero. Education was low. My opponent wants to repeat this disaster.
The fall of the Russian Tsarhood. The Tsar encouraged people to move from the rural areas of Russia into the cities. What happened? Too many people, too few jobs. The cities weren’t ready to hold so many people and expand in so little time. What happened next? That’s right, people began working for less and less. Services lacked quality.
These examples in history show us that a population boom will wreck the country experiencing the population explosion. We cannot let this occur in modern day.
C3: IT HARMS CULTURAL RELATIONS
This may seem like an awkward pillar, as my opponent may say that this brings cultures together and encourages diversity. But this is incorrect. Imagine going to work, suddenly finding that you’ve been laid off and your job was taken by an immigrant. Some people can’t handle that; some people can’t afford to lose their job. Instances like these spark racial hatred and discrimination; it doesn’t encourage cultural diversity at all. Tensions will rise until racially motivated crimes start occurring. We don’t want that in America.
So, it is for these reasons that we are opposed to Free Immigration. I urge voters to VOTE CON.
In Defense of free Immigration:
Immigration is one of the most difficult and divisive issues for freedom lovers. Many believe in government restrictions on immigration, either for their own sake or as an interim measure so long as the United States has welfare programs that are presumed to attract immigrants, who then become net recipients of government revenue at the cost of taxpayers. Most arguments against immigration, coming from partisans of freedom, boil down one way or another to the notion that free immigration fosters socialism and moves American society away from the libertarian ideal. It is argued that immigrants use welfare programs and encourage their expansion; or that immigrants modify American culture generally for the worse, bringing from their native countries alien and socialistic ideas; or that free immigration itself constitutes a de facto trespass against the private-property rights of Americans; or some combination of the above arguments is advanced.
C1. It harms the country they move from:
There is no evidence to support this. If Cons argument on overpopulation in America is anything to go by then it would be hypocritical for him to state that the migrant"s home country would be benefited if said countries population would be larger.
C2. Immigration harms the country they move to:
Some pro-immigration libertarians have attempted to show that illegal immigrants actually receive less in welfare than they pay in taxes or even less than what native-born Americans receive, on average. This argument, as useful as it may be, circumvents the fundamental issues of immigration policy. (I, for one, think that if open immigration overloads the welfare system, causing it to collapse, so much the better.)
In exploring immigration as a social service welfare issue, let us consider that it is not only opponents of social welfare who oppose open borders because of a perceived relationship between immigration and the welfare issue. European countries with socialist economies oftentimes have extremely strict immigration policies, and citizens of those countries oftentimes see that open immigration threatens their welfare state, which they strive to maintain.
American advocates of social welfare policies also see the incompatibility between their pet programs and a free flow of immigrants. In a recent interview with Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader implied such an incompatibility, as well as a conception that the government should centrally plan the economy, when he said, "I don"t believe in giving visas to software people from the Third World when we have got all kinds of unemployed software people here." He went on to say,
This is the reason the Wall Street Journal is for an open-borders policy: they want a cheap-wage policy. . .. [Illegal immigrants] should be given all the fair-labor standards and all the rights and benefits of American workers, and if this country doesn"t like that, maybe they will do something about the immigration laws.
Nader is willing to bet that an expansion of labor regulations and economic socialism would lead to tighter immigration controls, which he appears to advocate.
Conservatives have at times attempted to restrict the ability of immigrants to receive welfare benefits, such as with the notable 1994 Californian voter initiative, Proposition 187. This is surely a better method to reduce any problems immigration might have regarding the welfare state, when compared to giving the government more power and money to keep out immigrants who only seek work and freedom. It is more politically viable and more realistic, and reduces the activity of the state, rather than increasing dependence on it. (Ideally, of course, immigrants would be exempt not only from welfare but from taxes as well. Even more ideally, these exemptions would also apply to citizens.)
All in all, any alleged relationship between free immigration and a growing welfare state is irrelevant to the underlying issue and lacks tangible evidence in regards to be destructive e.g the UK and Russia, as pointed out by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and is pro free immigration. As Hoppe explains,
[The effect of immigration on social service welfare] is not an argument against immigration but against the welfare state. To be sure, the welfare state should be destroyed, root and branch. However, in any case the problems of immigration and welfare are analytically distinct problems, and they must be treated accordingly.
In consideration of the United Kingdom, I am currently here and have just started school at Harrow. I can certainly advocate that the education here has not been affected by immigration, in fact if one considers the new 2012 international university survey they will find that the United Kingdom has 4 schools within the top 6, and from a country nearly the size of Florida that is a remarkable feat. http://www.guardian.co.uk... Therefore, I cannot accept that the education has been affected in the UK, I will go as far as to say that Harrow is far superior to the education I received back home in the US. Additionally, My father is English, therefore I have English family. My English Aunt who recently discovered she had cancer underwent emergency treatment and medication in 2010, she has since made a full recovery and has no bills to pay. Here it can be deduced that immigration has not affected the medical system as Con suggests.
No welfare problem or attack on social services (as Con has pointed out) is ultimately the result of immigration. Therefore, I urges us to separate these issues conceptually.
C3. It harms cultural relations:
Some, including this writer, often argue that immigration is a blessing to the culture of America, which has always been a nation with a large immigrant population. The expanded variety in foods, music, art, and traditions is one of the things that makes America the great country it is.
Con argues that immigrants bring with them foreign customs, practices, and ideas, which, on balance, compromise the tradition of American liberty embraced by native-born Americans, whose Anglo-European heritage provides them with an affinity for the rule of law and constitutional liberty or who simply have assimilated and come to embrace freedom over socialism.
There are weaknesses with this argument, seeing that many immigrants come especially because they seek freedom, not the socialism or despotism characteristic of the countries from which they come. To the extent that they come for the socialism that already exists in America, it testifies as much against the socialist tendencies of Americans, who enact such policies, as it does against the foreigners who seek them.
However, like the welfare/social issue, the cultural impact of immigration is really secondary to what kind of immigration policy is fit for a free country. Many libertarian policies will tolerate culturally and even morally questionable trends, but we who cherish freedom believe that such vices will pale in importance when compared with the moral virtues and practical benefits of maximized freedom such as America so bravely and stridently fights for, as well as the moral and cultural greatness that such freedom, on balance, nurtures.
Open versus restricted immigration and employment:
So the real question is whether open immigration or restricted immigration as Con may prefer, is the more appropriate policy for a free country. One argument against open immigration, given by some, is that in an ideal world almost all land would be private, but in the meantime illegal immigrants who use public space are essentially trespassing on what should be the privately owned land of native-born Americans.
It is indeed true that we should maximize how much land is owned privately. If nearly all land were private, landlords, employers, merchants, and others would determine who could enter their property. Every property owner would have his own "immigration" policy.
The fact is as Con skimmed, landlords, employers, and merchants currently allow immigrants on their land all the time, and in many cases would be more open to immigrants if they did not fear legal repercussions. The only question that remains is what to do about public property, including much of the land along the national borders. Whereas in a free society property owners along the border would be free to allow foreigners to enter their property, opponents of open immigration believe that the government must, in the interim, forbid people from allowing immigrants onto their own land.
The philosophical case for prohibiting immigrants on public land " and by corollary, effectively keeping them out of the country and off the private land of willingly accommodating owners " as an extension of private property rights is highly problematic. Why would such a rationale not be fitting to limit, by law, the number of children a family can have? If a middle-class family has 10 children, certainly it takes up an amount of space disproportional to its income and what it pays in taxes.
Every day we see the willingness of Americans to accommodate immigrants. The market supports them. They work, purchase goods and services, and pay for housing. Their use of public resources and land, if anything, is a problem with the status of so much property as public " just as their potential abuse of welfare is a problem with welfare itself. Continuing to shut out immigrants, or becoming even more restrictive with the borders, further reinforces the notion that so much public land should be protected by government, and takes us a step away from our ultimate goal of eventually privatizing it. Once most land is privatized, most immigrants would be able to find work and housing in the marketplace, and in the meantime the government cannot mimic the proper supply and demand for labor in lieu of market mechanisms.
Furthermore, the use of the federal government to control borders contributes directly to socialism far more than the immigrants themselves.
Just like all other federal government programs, immigration controls are a form of socialism. They involve bloated budgets, bureaucracy, central planning, taxation, abusive police powers, intrusions in the marketplace, and widespread corruption.
Immigration controls are expensive, and they clearly don"t work that well. More than a million foreigners enter America illegally every year. A serious attempt to keep them out would require even higher taxes, a more militarized border patrol, and vast invasions of the privacy of employers and other Americans. It would potentially require a national ID card, as well as an army of border police and federal agents to round up and repatriate illegals. It would depend on central planning, which, as all free-market economists should know, simply doesn"t work. The border guards have already been implicated in a number of scandals, and the idea that the government can maintain efficiency and honesty in its border police, when the federal government does a poor job of preventing corruption and degradation among city police, prison guards, and even in the highly regimented military, requires quite a stretch of the imagination.
As borders are tightened, a black market in immigration will expand, leading to increased violence and government corruption. The war on drugs has utterly failed to keep drugs out of the country, and yet has succeeded in draining away enormous resources and eroding precious civil liberties; a war on immigrants would yield similar results.
Immigration, the Declaration, and the United States Constitution:
Moreover, just like all the other socialist federal programs in America, free immigration is totally constitutional. Article I, Section 8 provides no authority whatever to the federal government to close the borders. It is a step in the wrong direction to violate the Constitution further, simply to allow one favored government program to slip through. Such leniency with the Constitution, after all, is how we wound up with so much socialism and freedom in the first place.
This brings us to the question of the history of immigration control. Many Americans point to the 1965 amendments to the Immigration Act, which loosened restrictions on immigration somewhat, and associate them with Lyndon Johnson"s socialist Great Society programs of the same era, believing they are another indication that free immigration and socialism go hand in hand.
This does not necessarily follow any more than Andrew Jackson"s opposition to central banking and his atrocious Trail of Tears, when taken together, demonstrate that free-market banking goes hand in hand with the brutal displacement of American Indians. Still, it is often useful to see the political movements associated with certain political trends and opinions.
In the case of immigration, we can go all the way back to the Declaration of Independence, in which Thomas Jefferson cited King George III"s obstruction to immigration to the colonies as a grievance: "He has endeavored to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands."
For most of U.S. history, there were virtually no immigration controls. Some northern states had Black Codes that kept free blacks from entering. Eventually, the federal government passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
Therefore, in light of the evidence, I refer back to my original statement that it is anti American to go against free immigration; it is immoral, unjust, and hypocritical in light of American legislation, the Constitution, our history, and an insult to our military personnel who are currently at war in the name of freedom and said principles.
I thank my opponent for his comments. I will now take this time to refute the arguments brought forth by my opponent. Before I begin, I would like to point out that the American Constitution though important, HAS NO PLACE IN THIS DEBATE, as the constitution is for American citizens only. Secondly, I am not against immigration, just FREE IMMIGRATION. People will still be allowed to immigrate legally to the United States.
There is no evidence to support this.
I’m sorry, but there are extreme amounts of evidence to support this. A name has been given to this effect, the “brain drain.”
- In 2006 over 250, 000 Europeans immigrated to America. Portugal lost 19.5% of its qualified population and currently struggles to replace those people
- 68% of Ghana’s trained medical staff left between 1993 and 2000. Ghana has roughly 1 doctor for every 6700 people, while the United States has 1 doctor for every 430 people
- Malaysia’s economic growth has fallen 4.6% annually since the 2000s since 305, 000 people left Malaysia to go overseas 
Clearly this brain drain effect is very real and occurring. Free immigration encourages more people to leave their country and continually cripple these developing nations. Even advanced European nations such as Portugal are affected by brain drain, what will the effect be on developing countries?
If Cons argument on overpopulation in America
My argument isn’t primarily about overpopulation, it’s about an overpopulation of unskilled workers seeking jobs. This will kill the economy. America already has high unemployment rates, my opponent wishes to add to this.
“I don’t believe in giving visas to software people from the Third World when we have got all kinds of unemployed software people here.”
This exactly proves my point. Unemployment will reach an all-time high under this resolution.
However, in any case the problems of immigration and welfare are analytically distinct problems, and they must be treated accordingly.
This is clearly incorrect. Welfare and immigration are clearly and distinctly linked with each other. One is not causation, but there is a correlation between the two. This is simple, more immigrants come and need welfare, thus welfare is overstretched and creates problems. Clearly the two are related.
In consideration of the United Kingdom, I am currently here and have just started school at Harrow.
Congratulations on that, but as this is a personal experience it cannot be considered evidence in this debate.
Therefore, I cannot accept that the education has been affected in the UK.
But this is merely in one area (and based off of personal experience) in the United States illegal immigration to California has affected their $42-44 billion deficit, causing teachers to be laid off and clearly effecting education. 
My English Aunt who recently discovered she had cancer underwent emergency treatment and medication in 2010, she has since made a full recovery and has no bills to pay. Here it can be deduced that immigration has not affected the medical system as Con suggests.
I am happy to hear that your aunt has made a full recovery, but as I have stated above this is personal experience and cannot be considered evidence. Furthermore, in Arizona $2 billion dollars of their $4 billion dollar deficit is directly attributed to education, health care, and incarceration of illegal immigrants.  This deficit brings down services for everyone because there isn’t enough money. If we accepted this resolution, even more people would come and drain more money out of our economy.
No welfare problem or attack on social services (as Con has pointed out) is ultimately the result of immigration.
I have shown (with sources) that social services are directly affected by immigration.
Con argues that immigrants bring with them foreign customs, practices, and ideas, which, on balance, compromise the tradition of American liberty embraced by native-born Americans,
I have never said this in my speech and I never will. My opponent is putting words in my mouth, I did not say that these cultures would compromise American culture. I have never denied the fact that immigrants have contributed an exponential amount to America. What I have merely said is that a mass amount of immigrants coming to this country will increase unemployment rates undoubtedly. These immigrants (being immigrants) clearly will be willing to work for less. Thus, jobs will be given to the immigrants over the Americans. I have NEVER said that this is a bad thing, but that this will undoubtedly cause racial hate. Imagine it, a job you desperately need is given to an immigrant. You are laid off and your job given to an immigrant. Instances like this spark racial hate and hate crimes.
I have refuted all of the refutation my opponent has provided. I will now move on to refute the arguments brought forth by my opponent.
The only question remains what to do about public property.
The issue here with free immigration is not property issues at all. The problem here is that a country has a duty to its people and to its people first and foremost. In America, the American government has a duty to its people, not to the people of Mexico, or the people of France, but to the people of America. Now, with free immigration we allow anyone to become an American. The government then doesn’t have a duty to its people, but now it has a duty to potentially millions more who are essentially coming into the country to take advantage of our resources and liberties. These resources should be delegated out to the people of America first.
Immigration controls are expensive.
We already have immigration controls in place. What my opponent would rather do, is just open up the country completely. Instead of bothering to try and keep these people out, or maintain any sort of order, we should just give up because it is too expensive and let them come. Following this logic, we should abandon our efforts in decreasing obesity rates. 2/3s of Americans are overweight, so it clearly isn’t working, so we should just stop trying. This is ridiculous.
Moreover, just like all the other socialist federal programs in America, free immigration is totally constitutional.
As I have shown in the beginning of my speech, the constitution has no place in this debate.
Article I, Section 8 provides no authority whatever to the federal government to close borders.
My opponent is under the impression that I am against all immigration. This is incorrect, only free immigration. People will still be allowed to immigrate legally to the United States. The borders will not be closed.
I have refuted all of my opponent’s points, refuted my opponent’s refutations to my points, and have provided sources and evidence to show why Free Immigration would be detrimental to all aspects of our society.
Freedom is a great thing, unchecked freedom is anarchy. VOTE CON.
"There is no evidence to support this.
Aforementioned, there is no evidence to support the claim. I went on to the answer query put forth and gave credence to the fact that this has nothing to do with free immigration. As with the initial argument, brain drain (is an issue of pay and skill) should be separated from the issue of free immigration.
"If Cons argument on overpopulation in America
My argument isn"t primarily about overpopulation, it"s about an overpopulation of unskilled workers seeking jobs. This will kill the economy. America already has high unemployment rates, my opponent wishes to add to this. I do not seek to hinder our country. A: Unemployment is not the sole matter of free immigration, when our companies seek cheap labor from international sources. Maybe we should selling production to China too.
""I don"t believe in giving visas to software people from the Third World when we have got all kinds of unemployed software people here."
This exactly proves my point. Unemployment will reach an all-time high under this resolution. A: Exactly, I have unwitting answered my own argument above.
"However, in any case the problems of immigration and welfare are analytically distinct problems, and they must be treated accordingly.
This is clearly incorrect. Welfare and immigration are clearly and distinctly linked with each other. One is not causation, but there is a correlation between the two. This is simple, more immigrants come and need welfare, thus welfare is overstretched and creates problems. Clearly the two are related. A: The proof is in the pudding.
"In consideration of the United Kingdom, I am currently here and have just started school at Harrow.
Congratulations on that, but as this is a personal experience it cannot be considered evidence in this debate. A: I gave the evidence quite clearly e.g. The Guardian; shows 4 out of the top 6 universities in the world are indeed from England, a country basically the size of FL. Free immigration has really trounced the education system in England.
"Therefore, I cannot accept that the education has been affected in the UK.
But this is merely in one area (and based off of personal experience) in the United States illegal immigration to California has affected their $42-44 billion deficit, causing teachers to be laid off and clearly effecting education. A: I am not opposed to CA teachers being laid off, in fact I think we should disband the entire Teacher Union while we are at it " it is nothing short of being the 4th Reich!
"My English Aunt who recently discovered she had cancer underwent emergency treatment and medication in 2010, she has since made a full recovery and has no bills to pay. Here it can be deduced that immigration has not affected the medical system as Con suggests.
I am happy to hear that your aunt has made a full recovery, but as I have stated above this is personal experience and cannot be considered evidence. Furthermore, in Arizona $2 billion dollars of their $4 billion dollar deficit is directly attributed to education, health care, and incarceration of illegal immigrants.  This deficit brings down services for everyone because there isn"t enough money. If we accepted this resolution, even more people would come and drain more money out of our economy. A: As above, education, health care, and the justice system has nothing to do with free immigration. The point here was that the is a free and fantastic health care service where everybody is seen immediately, regardless of condition " a health care system which has not been trounced by free immigration as you expressed in using the UK as evidence.
"No welfare problem or attack on social services (as Con has pointed out) is ultimately the result of immigration.
I have shown (with sources) that social services are directly affected by immigration. A: as above.
"Con argues that immigrants bring with them foreign customs, practices, and ideas, which, on balance, compromise the tradition of American liberty embraced by native-born Americans,
I have never said this in my speech and I never will. My opponent is putting words in my mouth, I did not say that these cultures would compromise American culture. A: you said: "it doesn"t encourage cultural diversity at all." I have shown it does.
"The only question remains what to do about public property.
The issue here with free immigration is not property issues at all. A: Yes it is, this is why you do not want new people in our country.
"Immigration controls are expensive.
We already have immigration controls in place. What my opponent would rather do is just open up the country completely. A: an absurd "no".
"Moreover, just like all the other socialist federal programs in America, free immigration is totally constitutional.
As I have shown in the beginning of my speech, the constitution has no place in this debate.
A: Yes it does, the courts have held otherwise and support the argument I advance. The constitution is a living document as is the European Convention of Human Rights. The Constitution has repeatedly been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appeals courts and Congress in order to address the ever-changing needs and demands of the people. While many argue that "We the People of the United States," refers only to legal citizens, the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed, e.g. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886). In Yick Wo, the case involved the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." Another fine example is (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903).
Plyler v. Doe (1982):
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term" The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."
Allow me to now advance my position:
EQUAL PROTECTION: THE CONSTITUTION:
When the Supreme Court decides cases dealing with First Amendment rights, it typically draws guidance from the 14th Amendment's principal of "equal protection under the law." In essence, the "equal protection" clause extends First Amendment protection to anyone and everyone covered by the 5th and 14th Amendments. Through its consistent rulings that the 5th and 14th Amendments apply equally to illegal aliens, they also enjoy First Amendment rights.
In rejecting the argument that the "equal" protections of the 14th Amendment are limited to U.S. citizens, the Supreme Court has referred to language used by the Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment:
"The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . . It [the 14th Amendment] will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction."
While illegal aliens do not enjoy all of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution, specifically the rights to vote or possess firearms, these rights can also be denied to U.S. citizens convicted of felonies. In final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans.
A moment"s reflection will convince any disinterested party that free immigration is not necessarily invasive. Immigration consists of no more than moving to a foreign country. For the purist libertarian, national boundaries are only lines on a map, demarcating one "country" from another; there is no such thing as a legitimate nation-state. According to Rothbard: [T]here can be no such thing as an "international trade" problem. For nations might then possibly continue as Of course, if they are themselves murderers, and are escaping to another country in order to avoid paying the just penalties for their foul deeds, or are escaping with private property stolen from its rightful owners, this is an entirely different matter. No longer do we have here innocent people merely attempting to better their own lives. Now, the "migrants" are themselves the criminals. Walter Block " A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration cultural expressions, but not as economically meaningful units. Since there would be neither trade nor other barriers between nations nor currency differences, "international trade" would become a mere appendage to a general study of interspatial trade. It would not matter whether the trade was within or outside a nation.
Therefore, immigration across national boundaries should be analyzed in an identical manner to that migration which takes place within a country. If it is non-invasive for Jones to change his locale from one place in Misesania to another in that country, then it cannot be invasive for him to move from Rothbardania to Misesania. Alternatively, if migration across international borders is somehow illegitimate, this should apply to the domestic variety as well.
As long as the immigrant moves to a piece of private property whose owner is willing to take him in (maybe for a fee), there can be nothing untoward about such a transaction. This, along with all other capitalist acts between consenting adults, must be considered valid in the libertarian world. Note that there is no freedom of movement of the person per se. This is always subject to the willingness of property owners in the host nation to accept the immigrant onto their land. Rothbard explains: [T]he private ownership of all streets would resolve the problem of the "human right" to freedom of immigration. There is no question about the fact the current immigration barriers restrict, not so much a "human right" to immigrate, but the right of property owners to rent or sell property to immigrants. There can be no human right to immigrate, for on whose property does someone else have the right to trample? In short, if "Primus" wishes to migrate now from some other country to the United States, we cannot say that he has the absolute right to immigrate to this land area; for what of those property owners who don"t want him on their property? On the other hand, there may be, and undoubtedly are, other property owners who would jump at the chance to rent or sell property to Primus, and the current laws now invade their property rights by preventing them from doing so.It is almost a certainty that there will in fact always be "other property owners who would jump at the chance to rent or sell property to" immigrants. If this is not obvious based on common sense experience, the economics of discrimination suggests no other possible conclusion.16 If there are many owners who refuse to rent or sell to immigrants, the price the latter will have to pay will be high. But this will tend to induce those landowners on the margin to agree to accept immigrants. It must be the rare case indeed where in a country of millions of property owners there is not a single one willing to accept newcomers, even at the very highest prices they are willing to pay. In such a rare case, all those who adhere to libertarianism must indeed unite in opposing immigration, for, with Rothbard, there is no one "on whose property . . . someone else ha[s] the right to trample." But this is a theoretical curiosity, not something relevant to reality, or to public policy analysis. In real world countries, certainly including the U.S., there can be found thousands, if not millions, of landowners willing to sell or rent space to people from all parts of the globe, no matter how obscure. For example, restaurateurs pecializing in the foods common to foreign lands may wish to hire authentic foreign-born cooks. As a practical matter, it is inconceivable that some citizen property owners, whose families themselves immigrated in the past, would not be
interested in taking in their countrymen, particularly at the very high remuneration available if most landlords do not wish to deal with the immigrants. The case is equally clear for allowing immigrants to settle on unowned land. When there is virgin territory, there is no legitimate reason for immigrants (or domestic citizens) to be prevented
from bringing it into fruitful production. States Rothbard: "Everyone should have the right to appropriate as his property previously unowned land or other resources."18 "Everyone," presumably, includes immigrants as well as citizens or residents of the home country. Mises, from a utilitarian rather than a natural-rights libertarian
position, considered immigration an important element of freedom and progress: Walter Block " A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration 175 The principles of freedom, which have gradually been gaining ground everywhere since the eighteenth entury, gave people freedom of movement. The growing security of law facilitates capital movements, improvement of
transportation facilities, and the location of production away from the points of consumption. That coincides" not by chance"with a great revolution in the entire technique of production and with drawing the entire earth"s surface into world trade. The world is gradually approaching a condition of free movement of persons and capital goods.
THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT AND THE HISTORY OF FREE IMMIGRATION AND LIBERTY:
The early 1920s were a logical time for such legislation, for it was the tail end of what is called the Progressive Era. The progressives were a loose movement of Americans who advocated a hugely expansive and interventionist government, both at home and abroad. They championed electoral reform, business regulations, income taxation, and government-enforced personal morality. By the time the three presidents of the Progressive Era " Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson " were done with their progressive reforms, America had seen the largest expansion in government power, and most significant shift in national politics, since the Civil War. Much of their agenda was accomplished in these three administrations " antitrust legislation, food and drug regulation, environmental "protection," a graduated income tax, central banking, and sweeping reforms in local political procedures.
The United States embarked for the first time on an imperialist foreign policy in 1898 with the Spanish American War, and the progressives continued this policy in Latin America and eventually in the nationalization of American industry and mobilization of millions of conscripts for U.S. entry into World War I.
The progressives also tended to believe in temperance, and they had a strong anti-immigrant streak not unlike Con. Their successes in these two arenas didn"t come until the very end of the Progressive Era, with the alcohol prohibition of the Eighteenth Amendment and Volstead Act of 1920, and with the Immigration Act of 1921. The Republican administrations in the 1920s had some distinct differences from the progressives, but they implemented the policies on immigration and alcohol for which the progressives had fought for years.
Of course, the progressives were right once in a while, as on equal rights for women under the law. And the Great Society politicians in the 1960s were right once in a while, as in the relaxation of immigration controls in 1965.
But by and large, the Progressive movement was one of the most harmful episodes for American liberty and constitutionally limited government in U.S. history. It was an essentially socialist movement, and American progressives of the early 20th century understood the incompatibility between a free immigration policy and a managed economy, as well as the logical correlation between such an economy and immigration controls. Sometimes the progressives cloaked their advocacy for immigration controls under a guise of wanting to help the immigrants, but, as with their Progressive foreign policies, their humanitarian rhetoric about foreigners did not translate into genuine compassion in the real world.
Whereas many millions of free immigrants came to America in the early 20th century, the decades that followed the passage of the Immigration Act of 1921 saw a severe decline in free immigration. This was tragic for those who wanted to enter America, most notably when huddled masses of European Jews sought refuge from Hitler"s terror but were denied entrance into the land of the free by Franklin Roosevelt, one of the most socialist presidents in American history.
The history of free immigration in America coincides well with the history of liberty, and it shows the socialist origins of anti free immigration controls. In its history, its theory, and its practice, free immigration controls are just one more boondoggle of dysfunctional, immoral, unconstitutional, and socialist central planning. A welfare state may depend on such controls, but a free society should reject them. Severe restrictions on free immigration compromise the liberty of the people inside as well as outside the borders, and they should be among the policies opposed in their efforts to bring liberty back to America.
ONE LAST POINT:
If free immigration were per se invasive, then, perhaps with the exception of true natives, the Indians, as Americans are all either immigrants or descended from them, our occupancy of this country would be legally questionable. Since no advocate of immigration restrictions has ever expressed any such reservations, there is a problem of logical consistency here, and immoral hypocrisy. I refer back to all of my original points, specifically the 98% that con failed to acknowledge, or deliberately sidestepped.
"Freedom is a great thing, unchecked freedom is anarchy" " checked freedom is NOT freedom in the slightest.
(Menlo Park,Calif.: Institute for Humane Studies, 1977), p. 229, emphasis in original.
10For how long? Who knows? Whose business is it anyway?
Walter Block " A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration 171
see Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution
of No Authority (Larkspur, Colo.: Ralph Myles,  1966).
12See Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of
the American Civil War (Chicago: Open Court, 1996), for a thorough-going analysis
14Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles
(Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute,  1993), p. 550. See also Rothbard,
For A New Liberty; and Ludwig von Mises, Nation, State, and Economy, Leland
Yeager, trans. (New York: New York University Press, 1983).
15Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities
Press, 1982), p. 119
16On this topic, see Gary Becker, The Economics of Discrimination (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1957); Thomas Sowell, Race and Economics (New York: Longman,
1975); idem, The Economics and Politics of Race: An International Perspective
(New York: Morrow, 1983).
17That is, opposing it totally, as private property rights violations. However, even
in this case there would be no need for a law prohibiting immigration, only one banning trespass in general.
18Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty, p. 240, emphasis added. See also Hoppe, Economics and
Ethics of Private Property.
I thank my opponent for an interesting debate. I HAVE RECENTLY DISCOVERED THAT MY OPPONENT IS EXPLOITING AN UNFAIR BUG. THIS BUG ELIMINATES THE 8000 CHARACTER LIMIT WHILE I AM LIMITED TO 8000. AFTER ASKING AIRMAX, I AM THUS TO RECEIVE CONDUCT. I ask my opponent to try and limit himself to 8000 characters for the final round. I also notice a lack of sources which I can verify his information (a link). I remind my opponent NOT to post a new argument in the final round as I cannot refute it. A new argument I believe is a 7 point forfeit.
As with the initial argument, brain drain (is an issue of pay and skill) should be separated from the issue of free immigration.
This is a blatant lie; I have clearly shown that brain drain is a result of mass immigration. It is clearly related to free immigration and isn’t separate from it.
Unemployment is not the sole matter of free immigration.
True, but free immigration will lead to increased unemployment. This is basic and simple logic. People come with no jobs seeking jobs, they are unemployed.
Exactly, I have unwitting answered my own argument above.
This quote is clearly supporting my argument, a direct contradiction to what my opponent would have you believe.
The proof is in the pudding.
Not sure what my opponent means by this, I have shown how welfare is affected by immigration.
I gave evidence quite clearly
And I have given evidence clearly proving the contrary in numerous American states. Furthermore, Prime Minister David Cameron has admitted that immigration to Britain is becoming out of control and “the impact on British-born workers has been brushed under the carpet for too long.” 
I am not opposed to CA teachers being laid off, in fact I think we should disband the entire Teacher Union while we are at it.
This is not a refutation, merely your opinion.
As above, education, health care, and the justice system has nothing to do with free immigration.
This is clearly incorrect. Education, health care, and the justice system are all affected by free immigration. It is obvious that all public services will be affected by increased population.
You said: “it doesn’t encourage cultural diversity at all.” I have shown it does.
I showed how a MASS AMOUNT of new immigrants doesn’t at all encourage diversity (which you have not refuted).
Yes it is, why do you not want new people in our country?
Because as I have shown it will affect our country, their country, and all of our public services, not because of a lack of space.
What my opponent would rather do is just open up the country completely. A: an absurd “no”.
This is a complete contradiction in your case. Free immigration is essentially opening up the country completely to other countries. Direct contradiction.
Yes it does, the courts have held otherwise and support the argument I advance.
The constitution is not extended to anyone out of America. If it was, we are totally unconstitutional because Chinese people in China under our constitution are being oppressed. The constitution applies to all persons IN the United States, not possible people in the future. In the case of Plyler v Doe those aliens were in the United States.
I will now refute my opponent’s arguments.
EQUAL PROTECTION: THE CONSTITUTION
As I have shown the constitution doesn’t extend to anyone not in America. Our constitution doesn’t affect anyone living in Malaysia who wants to immigrate to the United States. This point is invalidated.
Immigration consists of no more than moving to a foreign country. For the purist libertarian, national boundaries are only lines on a map, demarcating one “country” from another
This is completely ridiculous. Is moving to a different city in your state mere miles away at all similar to moving to, say, Russia?? No it isn’t! Anyone can tell you that immigration is completely different from moving to a different city. You abide by different laws, different language, different culture, different, everything!!
and are escaping to another country in order to avoid paying the just penalties
With free immigration this is allowed. I invite my opponent to respond to this.
whose owner is willing to take him in (maybe for a fee)
What about immigrants buying houses? Renting apartments and condos is fine, but when we suddenly have 350,000 people waiting to rent your condo there will be problems. This point in general is very obscure and unrelated to this debate. I have never said that the immigrants won’t have living quarters, but free immigration will destroy public services. This point seems to be related to what my opponent has said about the problem of free immigration is property. It isn’t.
But by and large, the Progressive movement was one of the most harmful episodes for American liberty and constitutionally limited government in U.S. history.
The Progressive movement was not at all harmful to American liberty and constitution. I have already refuted your argument regarding the constitution, plus I have shown why free immigration is harmful to society. A government has a duty to its people first and foremost, not to possible immigrants. The Progressive Movement was one of the greatest episodes of American liberty.
An American government has a duty to its people. At this time, America had not yet joined WWII. Countries shielding Jews were attacked by Hitler. What the American government did at the time was prevent a possible war that they didn’t want to enter. Furthermore, Franklin Roosevelt is considered by many to be a great president. Is anyone whom is against free immigration a socialist?? Thus, David Cameron is a socialist. Obama is a socialist. This is completely ridiculous to associate socialism with immigration controls!
and it shows the socialist origins of anti-free immigration controls. In its history, its theory, and its practice, free immigration controls are just one more boondoggle of dysfunctional, immoral, unconstitutional, and socialist central planning.
Free immigration controls are what have prevented many an economy and civilization from collapsing. The constitution here is irrelevant, and socialism cannot be associated with immigration controls.
Severe restrictions on free immigration compromise the liberty of people inside as well as outside the borders
People outside of the border don’t have our liberties.
our occupancy of this country would be legally questionable.
My opponent is blurring the line between free immigration and immigration. PEOPLE CAN STILL IMMIGRATE LEGALLY. FREE IMMIGRATION IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM IMMIGRATION. Our occupancy is completely legal. This is ridiculous.
I refer back to all of my original points, specifically the 98% that con failed to acknowledge
Many of your points are pretty irrelevant, plus you had a whopping 20 000 character response!! I am limited to 8000, of course I will not address all the back story, irrelevancy, and every word of your 20 000 character speech. I would like to mention the lack of serious refutation on my opponent’s part too, merely referring to personal experience as evidence.
checked freedom is NOT freedom in the slightest.
This is a ridiculous. I desire to steal from a store. My freedom is being checked by the law, thus I am not free.
A lot of my points my opponent has not addressed sufficiently as I have refuted all of his points, his refutation, and provided sources for it. Once again, I AM TO RECEIVE CONDUCT for the bug. All my arguments stand, I have refuted my opponent’s arguments, it is an easy VOTE CON.
dashton82 forfeited this round.
|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:||4||0|