The Instigator
MakeItCount
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MichaelGonzales
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

US immigration is not biased.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 976 times Debate No: 30218
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

MakeItCount

Pro

When you said that the US immigration is biased, you were wrong. They cannot let anyone into the United States, they perform background checks and extensive paperwork for each person. If it is the cost that is a problem, it is still not okay to sneak across the border. If you honestly think that there could be the slightest biased agent, maybe you should think again. There have been many laws passed that support the immigration to the United States.
As said at this website:
http://nafbpo.org...
There are four reasons, none of which are specific to certain races, genders, ect.
MichaelGonzales

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for challenging me to what I expect to be a fierce debate. The issue of illegal immigration is a hotly contested one in this country, and I couldn't be happier with this opportunity to discuss it. I wish my opponent the best of luck.

There are those who believe that our immigration system isn't strict enough, and that the 11 million who are presently here illegally need to go home. For the purposes of this debate, I will define an illegal immigrant as one who has entered this country through an unauthorized port of entry, or one who entered through an authorized port of entry but did not have the appropriate paper work allowed for an extensive stay, or one who has entered through legal means with the legal paper work, but has since stayed beyond the paper work's expiration.

Having defined that, we now have an understanding of a term which we will use often. To my opponent's assertion. The immigration system in the United States has had a history of bias through legislation, sometimes with a broad brush effecting everyone, or sometimes a very narrow scope of people. For example, the Immigration Act of 1924 strengthened the established quota system in the United States, which limit the immigrants who can legally migrate here on the basis of how many have migrated before them. [1] The Chinese Exclusion Act barred immigration from the country of China. [2] Even as modern as contemporary society has legislation aimed at adding road blocks for the immigration process. The REAL ID Act, passed in 2005, broadly expanded the scope of the federal government (DHS) and the powers they had in regards to the issuance of a driver's license, and an alteration of the number of visas allowed for temporary workers in a way which was reminiscent of a quota. [3] The greater irony of all this is much of this only captures the very basic history of the United States immigration policy. Little has changed. Quotas still exist, but aren't limited to nationality anymore. Literacy tests have been replaced by a skilled-workers test (which essentially bars those without an education or educational opportunities). Indeed, the bias hasn't gone away.

In addition to basic legislation which hinders the process of immigration, there is also the issue of the costs. The average costs for a person to go through the immigration process is estimated by some to be well-over $1500. [4] This inherently favors countries of wealth versus those without wealth. This table demonstrates the income-levels for those who are here illegally.


http://www.debate.org...


As demonstrated from the table above, much of the income-per-person is at, or near poverty levels. Because the costs of that are so high, and presuming those who choose to immigrate here do not live here, this system only serves to favor those who come from countries of wealth.

Now, I maintain that people who immigrate here should do so through legal measures. That being said, numerous people who choose to immigrate here are seeking an asylum from an oppressive country in which their very well-being, nae, their lives could be in danger. Just south of us, cartel violence threatens the lives and of our southern neighbors. To our west, an oppressive regime in China disregards worker's rights and pollutes the atmosphere, in addition to mandating over-reaching child-laws. I wager, if the United States is a land founded on immigrants, founded on the idea that we are the land of opportunity, and founded as the “melting pot”, then it is a title we should embrace. We need to remove the high barriers we have set in place. I'll end my round with a quote from Lady Liberty.
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

[1]http://history.state.gov...
[2]http://www.ourdocuments.gov...
[3]http://www.gpo.gov...
[4]http://www.uscis.gov...

Debate Round No. 1
MakeItCount

Pro

MakeItCount forfeited this round.
MichaelGonzales

Con

My opponent has missed his chance to respond to my contentions. Instead of shotgun blasting him in a Gish Gallop-style debate, I'll just go ahead and use this argument to post a band that I like listening to.

Debate Round No. 2
MakeItCount

Pro

MakeItCount forfeited this round.
MichaelGonzales

Con

My opponent has, once again, missed his round. I was both hoping and expecting an actual debate. I was sorely disappointed.


Here's more musical awesomeness for your entertainment! :)

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MichaelGonzales 4 years ago
MichaelGonzales
Bleh! It didn't post the table.

A link to the table in question can be found here.
http://www.debate.org...
No votes have been placed for this debate.