The Instigator
Jamesothy
Pro (for)
Losing
41 Points
The Contender
JBlake
Con (against)
Winning
75 Points

We should get rid of illegal aliens.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 18 votes the winner is...
JBlake
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,677 times Debate No: 5387
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (18)

 

Jamesothy

Pro

Get them out of our country!!!!!!! They are destroying the economy and are screwing up our government systems even more.
JBlake

Con

I challenge this statement: "Get them out of our country!!!!!!! They are destroying the economy and are screwing up our government systems even more."

I challenge my opponent to come up with evidence to prove his statements.

I won't even ask my opponent to prove some of the more baseless claims. They obviously are not destroying our economy, and especially not screwing up our government. I will attempt to stick to the broader issue of identifying the problem and seeking proper solutions.

My case:

I reject the idea that all illegal immigrants should be removed. The main reason is that it would be very costly to attempt such a scheme that would not likely be successfull. Not to mention that it would be borderline Ethnic Cleansing to do so (since it will be aimed almost exclusively on Latin Americans (particularly mexicans).

Ex-convicts and criminals absolutely should be removed.

Furthermore, deporting as many illegal immigrants as possible will not solve the issue. We would have to do this sort of round up over and over again, at the expense of the American tax payer. We should be looking for some better long term solutions.

Probably the best thing we could do to secure our southern border is to help raise the Mexican economy. A strong Mexican economy would have the dual benefits of helping our own economy, and giving potential immigrants no reason to illegally enter the United States. Canada is a good example, since we don't have a significant number of illegal Canadians.

Conclusion:
Deporting all illegal immigrants would be too expensive, not efficient, and would fix nothing in the long term. However, any immigrant who chooses not to follow our laws should be deported. This would be much easier since there would be no national round up.
We should seek long term solutions, like helping to reform the Mexican economy.
Debate Round No. 1
Jamesothy

Pro

I accept your challenge (I feel like some sort of knight).

First of all- I am happy to oblige.

"Some estimates place the amount of dollars going south in 2006 will be $45 Billion, which was up from an estimated $30 Billion in 2004." says The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration. Now this was 2006, which means if the amount of money leaving the country kept the same rate of growth, that means that in 2008, a very low estimate is $67.5 BILLION. That means $67.5 BILLION is leaving the country every year.

Now you may ask, what's wrong with that? Well there are many things wrong with that. Sending $67.5 billion out of the country creates a giant sucking sound and lowers the value of the dollar. That $67.5 billion is also $67.5 billion that Americans could be spending.

Lets back up for a second and review the definition of illegal. According to Dictionary.com, the word illegal means "forbidden by law or statute". Now- isn't hopping the fence at the US borders illegal and forbidden by both law and statute?

They are screwing up our government in a couple of ways. First- some of them are criminals (although all of them are illegal and, therefore, criminals) and in these new, ridiculous "safe-havens" these criminals may not be prosecuted. Second- These are illegal immigrants, not registered with the US government, an institution he clearly adores. This means the IRS cannot tax said illegals because they do not officially, as US citizens, exist. This also means that people are paying a portion of their taxes to send illegal people to school.

Next I shall tackle my unworthy opponent's quote "it would be borderline Ethnic Cleansing to do so (since it will be aimed almost exclusively on Latin Americans (particularly Mexicans)." By the way, you forgot a parentheses. I would like to point out that I did not say anything about these illegal immigrants being Mexican and Latin Americans. Now, since you brought that up, yes, they mostly are from Latin America and Mexico. However to say that this is "Ethnic Cleansing" is a ridiculous unfounded claim that I will not tolerate. Therefore, I will tear it apart.

Ethnic cleansing is "the persecution through imprisonment, expulsion, or killing of members of an ethnic minority by a majority to achieve ethnic homogeneity in majority-controlled territory". Now this brings up another point- does imprisoning criminals count as "ethnic cleansing"? No. Countries all over the world do this every day. So then how come when you imprison and/or deport ILLEGAL immigrants, it is all of a sudden "ethnic cleansing"? To compare the United States to the Nazi Germans in the 1940's should be considered criminal.

In the last year, illegal immigration has dropped 20%. Why? You may ask. Well, its because of just shipping the aliens back over the border the instant they come over, the United States has figured out a solution (sort of). They have been detaining the criminals (everyone) for three plus weeks. Now this has deterred people from jumping considerably. Once they have a couple of weeks to lose, they won't be so inclined to do it.

Why is it our job to help raise the Mexican economy??? Give the minutemen ant the border licence to arrest and detain anyone that jumps (or burrows) over (or under) the fence.

PS- We have quite a high amount of Canadians jumping to get away from their horrible National Health Care System, but that's another day.

So, as I read from your profile, you are against the War in Iraq. Does that mean we should help a country just because it is closer to us? Bush has been helping the Iraqi economy for years and received nothing but criticism.
Now you are proposing that we help another country's economy? Hypocrite!
JBlake

Con

Let me first note for the reader the number of personal attacks by my opponent. I will remain civil.

Opponent Claims:
1. "$67.5 BILLION is leaving the country every year."
2. The above is money directly out of the pocket of Americans.
3. Crossing the border is illegal, thus making them criminals.
4. Illegal immigrants can not be taxed.
5. "To compare the United States to the Nazi Germans in the 1940's should be considered criminal."
6. "In the last year, illegal immigration has dropped 20%."
7. "Why is it our job to help raise the Mexican economy???"
8. "We have quite a high amount of Canadians jumping to get away from their horrible National Health Care System, but that's another day."
9. "as I read from your profile, you are against the War in Iraq. Does that mean we should help a country just because it is closer to us? Bush has been helping the Iraqi economy for years and received nothing but criticism.
Now you are proposing that we help another country's economy? Hypocrite!"
10. "They have been detaining the criminals (everyone) for three plus weeks. Now this has deterred people from jumping considerably. Once they have a couple of weeks to lose, they won't be so inclined to do it."

Rebuttal:
1. We are agreed that this is a bad situation.

2. Again, we are agreed that this is a bad situation. Though if we naturalize them they would have less of a need to send the money across the border. They would become 'Americans', so they would not be taking money from Americans.

3. I apologize for not clarifying what I meant by criminals. What I meant by criminals is Violent Criminals. Jumping the border is not a violent crime. I apologize for the confusion. I remind my opponent once again that rounding up all illegal immigrants would cost much more than allowing them to stay. This cost would be exponentially increased because there is no long term strategy to solve the problem so that they do not come back.

4. That is correct, they can not be taxed. This is one of the many reasons that we need to find long term solutions so that these issues do not come right back a few years down the road.

5. My opponent is attacking the Straw man. I did not compare the United States to Nazi Germany.

My opponent's definition of Ethnic Cleansing:
"the persecution through imprisonment, expulsion, or killing of members of an ethnic minority by a majority to achieve ethnic homogeneity in majority-controlled territory"

This supports my statement that it is Borderline (emphasis here) Ethnic Cleansing. My opponent concedes that it is primarily Latin Americans and Mexicans that would be the target. Rounding up large numbers of them and deporting them would fit the discription above (imprisonment and expulsion). In order to do this efficiently we would have to confront most members of this ethnicity. This would violate the rights of those who are legally citizens. Failing that, it would be impossible to deport illegal immigrant in any significant number to correct the problem.

Like I said, it is Borderline Ethnic Cleansing. We would be primarily targetting a specific ethnicity. Since we would not be specifically targetting an ethnicity (like we did with the Japanese during World War II), it would not be Ethnic Cleansing, but it would be Borderline Ethnic Cleansing.

6. Please cite your sources. I have no way to measure the accuracy of such unsupported claims.

7. It is not our duty to help the Mexican economy and I never claimed that it was. I stated that a strong Mexican economy is in the interest of the United States, and I don't think you can refute this point.

On top of all of the other benefits, it also provides Mexicans with jobs and security. This means that less of them would feel the need to migrate to the United States.

8. Again, please cite your sources. This claim is not backed up with evidence.

9. Before defending myself, I will note that my opponent is engaging in personal attacks in order to attempt to discount my argument.

"as I read from your profile, you are against the War in Iraq. Does that mean we should help a country just because it is closer to us? Bush has been helping the Iraqi economy for years and received nothing but criticism.
Now you are proposing that we help another country's economy? Hypocrite!"

It is true that I am against the Iraq War. This does not relate to the topic at hand. There is no connection between a desire for a strengthened Mexican economy and dissention against what I feel to be an unjust war. The implication seems to be that the war in some way 'helps' the Iraqi people. I find it hard to conclude that killing them and destroying their homes is in any way 'helping' them. Furthermore, it would be impossible for us to help the entire world.
Yes, I propose helping the Mexican economy precisely because it is closer to us. What happens in Mexico directly affects us as a nation (with immigration as my opponent points out). It is in our interest to help them, it is not in our interest to 'help' Iraqis, though as I mention above we are not doing much 'helping'.
The term 'hypocrite' would be better used on someone who supports our government in removing one dictator while simultaneously assisting other dictators. Remember that it was our government that put Saddam Hussein in power.

10. Please cite your source so I can ascertain the validity of your claim that this is our current policy. If it is our policy, I would point out that this would be far more expensive in the long run (and less effective) than other long term solutions.

Conclusion:
A better solution to the illegal immigration problem is to help strengthen the Mexican economy. This would be overall less expensive and more efficient than merely deporting them all and waiting for them to return so that we can repeat the process. Increasing border security and incarcerating newly arrived illegal immigrants is also much more costly in the long run.

Allowing law abiding (as in, post border crossing) illegal immigrants to become naturalized would cost the tax payer less money. Coupling this with an efficient long term strategy would be the best policy thus far mentioned in this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Jamesothy

Pro

My not so worthy opponent obviously does not seem to realize the implications of giving amnesty to EVERY ILLEGAL ALIEN IN THE COUNTRY!!!! You would have to be stupid to not realize the implications of this statement. That would add well over 20 million people to the US.
(http://ohmygov.com...)

Now, that wouldn't be to bad if we stopped the tide of illegals and said "IF you cross this border illegally, we will shoot you. Without question, man, woman, or child." This may make me sound heartless and cruel, however this is one of, if not the only way, to deal with these people. In response to #5- yes, you are virtually comparing the US to Nazi Germany.

I beg to differ on the ease with which deportation can be accomplished. Here is an easy solution-
1. Check the schools- many illegals put their kids into school because these days it is illegal to ask for a social security number. Get rid of that stupid law and check for anyone without a ss number. They are illegal.

2. Impose a flat tax- This means legal, illegal, criminal, rich person, or middle class, you pay taxes. Get rid of all of the other taxes and make this- every time you buy something, you are taxed. Simple. Effective.

3. Arrest any illegals for 3+ weeks (then deport)- To deter them from coming back.

4. Any with criminal record: jail them- They want to run away from their home government, fine. Try us and you'll get tried. In a court. With a jury.

5. Plant an impenetrable wall of cacti at the border (not joking)- If you get stuck, you stay stuck. They would die on the border fence and not get over. Failing this, shooting anyone that hops over works just as well.

Think of it this way-
If you came home and found that someone had broken into your house.
So you go to the government and say, "Hey- get them out of my house!"
But the government says, "But why? They didn't do anything wrong. They cleaned your house and mowed your lawn and tended to your garden. We can't make them leave."
So they live in your basement for a few days, until one day, the father comes up.
He says, "I would like to send my children to private school. You have to pay."
So you go to the government very angrily. You shouldn't have to pay for them, they are just in your house, you say.
However, the government thinks otherwise.
"Not only do you have to pay for their children's schooling, but you have to pay to feed and clothe them."
You wouldn't let this happen in your house, so...

Why are you letting it happen in your own country?
Regular people are having to pay for schooling, housing, food, and clothes for these criminals (as they are criminals).

The reason why I HATE illegal immigrants is because my mother is English by birth (I am an American citizen and a British citizen). So when my mum came to the US, it took literally years to get her to become a US citizen. She's been here for 17 years and only got her citizenship last August. It is not fair that legal immigrants have to go through years of terrifying government bullying, just to be able to become a part of the US. Illegal aliens hop over the border and wait for the government to get fed up with them and give them amnesty- the single stupidest thing you could possibly do.

It is not our job to fix the economies of the world (like Mexico) and whenever we do, we get slammed two years later for trying.

Shut up with the stupid "ethnic cleansing" crap. It's insulting. And don't go picking this statement apart either.

If we let them all become Americans, and Obama gets his National Healthcare Plan through, we have to pay for all of these unworthy American people.

Here is another thing to consider- once these "immigrants" (criminals) become older, they have no pension etc.- the poverty rate in the US rises, and there starts another economic crash (not directly) and we have a second Great Depression.
JBlake

Con

My opponent feels that we need to shoot and kill anyone crossing the border illegally. I don't think I need to respond to this, since no serious official has or ever will suggest such a policy.

My opponent lists a number of short term solutions, some of which may help (in the short term), some of which don't make very much sense. I will mention them below:

"1. Check the schools- many illegals put their kids into school because these days it is illegal to ask for a social security number. Get rid of that stupid law and check for anyone without a ss number. They are illegal."

>> This is a short term goal that does not seem as though it would be very successfull in the long run. Illegal immigrants would get around this by merely not sending their children to school. This would be harmful overall because on top of being illegal and not being able to work legitimate jobs, they will be uneducated and thus more likely to become violent criminals.

"2. Impose a flat tax- This means legal, illegal, criminal, rich person, or middle class, you pay taxes. Get rid of all of the other taxes and make this- every time you buy something, you are taxed. Simple. Effective."

>> Such a tax is already in place to a smaller degree than my opponent seems to be suggesting. Changing the entire tax system because of illegal immigrants is illogical. Other reasons for changing the tax system may be meritted, but are irelevent to this debate.

"3. Arrest any illegals for 3+ weeks (then deport)- To deter them from coming back."

>> I addressed this in R2. This costs tax payers money for their time imprisoned. This is also only another short term solution. The cost to detain and deport illegal immigrants is simply not worth the burden to citizens. This is especially so since, alone, it would not prevent people from returning.

"4. Any with criminal record: jail them- They want to run away from their home government, fine. Try us and you'll get tried. In a court. With a jury."

>> As mentioned in R1, I agree with jailing and/or deporting violent criminals.

"5. Plant an impenetrable wall of cacti at the border (not joking)- If you get stuck, you stay stuck. They would die on the border fence and not get over. Failing this, shooting anyone that hops over works just as well."

>> This plan is just absurd from all angles. The cost of building such a barrier would be tremendous, if it were even possible. As with all plants, Cacti need enough space to grow properly. Not only that, but without round the clock surveilance people could just destroy the plants, clearing the way to cross. As for round the clock surveilance, I think it is safe to assume that no one wants to pay the huge sum that would entail.

>> My opponent then cites his mother's difficulty in achieving legal citizenship as compared to the (relative) ease of illegal immigrants waiting out amnesty. It is unfortunate that such a system exists that favors illegal immigration, but that does not mean it is necessary to deport all of them. As I have repeated often in this debate, a more efficient long term goal is needed before we start deporting them, or else deporting them will be in vain (since it will not curb the flow of immigrants).

>> I would also like to note that my opponent did not present any sources or evidence for the claims he made in R2 for which I asked. We must now assume that they are false.

"If we let them all become Americans, and Obama gets his National Healthcare Plan through, we have to pay for all of these unworthy American people."

>> What makes them 'unworthy'? Furthermore, what makes you 'worthy'?

"Here is another thing to consider- once these "immigrants" (criminals) become older, they have no pension etc.- the poverty rate in the US rises, and there starts another economic crash (not directly) and we have a second Great Depression."

>> I don't think very many people would agree with your conclusion that illegal immigrants would be the sole (or even a meaningful) contributing factor of a "Second Great Depression".

"It is not our job to fix the economies of the world (like Mexico) and whenever we do, we get slammed two years later for trying."

>> I never claimed that it was our job or duty to fix the economies of the world. I pointed out that it was within our best interests that the Mexican economy be strengthened. Helping to strengthen it would reduce the number of immigrants to America, since there would be plenty of jobs in their own nation.

Conclusion:
I think it is quite clear who should win this debate. My opponent offered no rebuttals to my long term solution. Indeed, he offered no long term solutions at all. If we were to merely remove all illegal immigrants, as Pro contends, the problem would only be delayed a few years until we had to pay for their removal once again.
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
If we are talking about what the government can do - very little aside from helping with the drug cartel problem (read: drug legalization). Another option could be development of NAU.

In terms of our businesses: strengthen business ties with Mexican industry (specifically manufacturing). However, strengthening ties in which U.S. businesses own the majority of their industry and/or natural resources would have the opposite effect.

Surely greater minds could come up with more ways - I never pretended to have all the answers.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Yeah, it was perhaps a shame that Jamesothy got votes.

Will I get an answer, JBlake?
Posted by tmhustler 8 years ago
tmhustler
this is one of the weakest anti illegal immigration arguments I have ever heard. instead of citing facts and statistics he resorts to personal attacks.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
"I am interested though how you think we should strengthen their economy."
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Interested in knowing what?
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
...still interested in knowing, JBlake.
Posted by SolaGratia 9 years ago
SolaGratia
Reason trumps hysterics. Therefore, even though I agree with Jamesothy, JBlake definitely deserved to win.
Posted by wjmelements 9 years ago
wjmelements
Well, you won the debate and I voted for you. I am interested though how you think we should strengthen their economy. I know it is out of the context of this debate, but I have never heard this point of view before.
Posted by JBlake 9 years ago
JBlake
Those would be decent, relatively low cost strategies for the short term, wjmelements. But to save money in the long run, I feel we need to make it so that they do not feel the need to migrate to America at all. The best way I can see for this to happen is the help to strengthen the Mexican economy. I didn't go into depth on how to do this because that is beyond the scope of this debate.

I thank you for your feedback.
Posted by wjmelements 9 years ago
wjmelements
James was very flagrant in this debate. He called his opponent unworthy a few times, in addition to calling him a hypocrite.
-We should help Mexico's Economy.
I don't know how he plans to do that, but it was not debated and so stands.
In conclusion, that solution, undebated stands perfect and therefore defeats the idea of a border fence or an increased border patrol. In addition, emmigrants of Mexico are not considered to be refugees, so we don't have to let them in legally as we can do with Cubans.

My alternative is to use surveillance and a few helicopters to discourage illegal immigration while making it practical for them to come in through the southern border by having another immigration agency there like we have at Ellis Island and Angel Island.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by aaronr8684 9 years ago
aaronr8684
JamesothyJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Vote Placed by Jamesothy 9 years ago
Jamesothy
JamesothyJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 9 years ago
Robert_Santurri
JamesothyJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 9 years ago
wjmelements
JamesothyJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Vote Placed by water321 9 years ago
water321
JamesothyJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Killer542 9 years ago
Killer542
JamesothyJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by sword_of_lead 9 years ago
sword_of_lead
JamesothyJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by magpie 9 years ago
magpie
JamesothyJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
JamesothyJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
JamesothyJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07