The Instigator
shlh1514
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Wet Feet Dry Feet Act of 1994

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2008 Category: News
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,263 times Debate No: 1577
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

shlh1514

Pro

Well I believe that the Wet Feet Dry Feet Act (circa 1994) was a great way to show that their is some immigration justice to this world. For anyone that doesn't know what it is the act it is:

• The United States agreed to no longer permit Cubans intercepted at sea to come to the United States; rather, Cubans would be placed in a safe haven camp in a third location. Justifying this policy as a "safety of life at sea" issue, Cuba also agreed to use "persuasive methods" to discourage people from setting sail.
• United States and Cuba reaffirmed their support for the United Nations General Assembly resolution on alien smuggling. They pledged to cooperate in the prevention of the illegal transport of migrants and the use of violence or "forcible divergence" to reach the United States.
• The United States agreed to admit no less than 20,000 immigrants from Cuba annually, not including the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens.
• The United States and Cuba agreed to cooperate on the voluntary return of Cubans who arrived in the United States or were intercepted at sea.
• The United States and Cuba did not reach an agreement on how to handle Cubans who are excluded by the INA, but they did agree to continue discussing the matter. (Grounds for removal include health-related grounds; criminal grounds; national security grounds; Nazi persecution grounds; public charge grounds; illegal entry and immigration law violations; and lack of proper immigration documents.)
• The United States and Cuba agreed to review the implementation of this agreement and engage in further discussions. -

Well in here it shows that the Caribbean Natives has few advantages over the average illegal immigrant. This information is for another time. This act should stay for put some justice to the world and US safety.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Wait, why are you celebrating an act that involved us cooperating with a Communist country to help them prevent the escape of the people they are oppressing? Do you have a motive I'm missing here, or are you honestly convinced that reduced escapes from communist slavery = justice?
Debate Round No. 1
shlh1514

Pro

Well I feel that the Wet Feet Dry Feet Act should be in use still today because if the US is SO interested in border safety, then why not continue this law. The Caribbean natives are allowed to set foot on land (dry foot) and if caught are sent back (wet foot). We don't know the dangers of these people.
They can have terrorists on Cuba. We need this act to stay safe.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Safety is not a matter of the borders, because organized terrorists can get through whatever legitimate channels you leave (by acting for a while as though they were noncriminals, and using money to push their way through). Meanwhile, Cuban innocents, without money, cannot get through the "legitimate" channels.

Safety is a matter of, ultimately, first being as committed as possible to making sure you are right (impossible while taking measures that specifically act only against innocents), then eliminating those threats to safety that don't care if you're right, not by way of guarding borders, but by way of guarding strategic locations, killing your enemies, etc.

Furthermore, I have yet to see one terrorist come out of Cuba to attack the United States. The only terrorists there are the Communists, and they are quite satisfied to stay put.
Debate Round No. 2
shlh1514

Pro

You siad that "Safety is not a matter of the borders" it does because without border saftey we'll all be overrun by terrorists. Really safety is
"the state of being safe; freedom from the occurrence or risk of injury, danger, or loss." www.dictionary.com

Really safety of the borders is like a castle to this day.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

And now you expose the primitive premises.

Guess what? Castles don't work! You know why? Because the bad guys have airplanes and bombs and such.

You are trying to fight a 21st century conflict with 15th century tactics. You can't win that way.

Terrorists aren't there to "overrun you," they are there to make you afraid so you eliminate freedoms and thus get your own citizens against you in the long run. Your policy plays into their hands.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by shlh1514 9 years ago
shlh1514
I am SO tired right now and so stressed. I will give my argument within 24 hrs.
Posted by NapoleonofNerds 9 years ago
NapoleonofNerds
Are you arguing that this law was good at the time, or that it shouldn't be changed now? It makes a difference in terms of what arguments can be used.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by lorca 9 years ago
lorca
shlh1514Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Smarticles 9 years ago
Smarticles
shlh1514Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ojmartinez25 9 years ago
ojmartinez25
shlh1514Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by nyboyalwalys 9 years ago
nyboyalwalys
shlh1514Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
shlh1514Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03