if illegal immigration causes job loss, so does free trade
Debate Rounds (3)
edit: i'm lookin to debate someone who thinks illegal immigration steals jobs but they are for free trade
all to often people, usually conservatives, are against illegal immigration because they "steal" jobs. yet, these same people are for free trade. in either case, someone other than an american has the job. in each case, any arguement you'd use for free trade could be used for illegal immigration.i
My opponent states that it is contradictory to be opposed to illegal immigration while being in favor of free trade. This view is mistaken.
Are illegal immigrants "stealing" jobs? Well, to answer this question, we have to first consider what it means to steal. When one steals, one takes something that does not belong to him without permission. When an illegal immigrant crosses the border, he smuggles in his culture, values, and language; without the consent of the American people, illegal immigrants come into the United States and change its national character.
When an illegal immigrant sneaks his way into California and takes a job on a field there for $4/hour, he is taking a job that does not belong to him; as a non-citizen, he is stealing. Indeed, he takes advantage of US labor laws and regulations, such as the state's minimum wage law, which is built on the shoulders of American taxpayers to provide a safety net for American citizens. When an illegal immigrant comes into the country without the consent of the American people and undeservingly benefits from the social and economic policies there, then he has no right to a job on American soil. And if he does accept a job on American soil, he is stealing it.
If you enter someone else's house without permission, it doesn't become permissible for you to stay there just because you decide to do chores; you have no right to the resources in that house, and any action you perform inside is implicitly unlawful. This is markedly different from social and economic interactions that happen between different households; if you decide to sell someone a shirt and mail it to their house, you have a right to, because you're not intruding on their house. This is the general analogy that I would like to draw when comparing the issues of free trade and illegal immigration, and I will likely go back to it as his debate continues.
Thank you very much. I look forward to hearing my opponent's rebuttal.
con went on a long tirade for some reason to prove illegal immigration steals jobs. i can agree with that. so now the question is isn't free trade the same thing effectively? con uses the household anaology to say they are different.
but i concede there's somehting wrong with just barging into the country, or house. what i dont concede is that it is effectively different. in both situations, something cheaper is being made via cheap labor, which is often the case with free trade. we can go to another country and buy a shirt that made with cheap labor, or we can ask the illegal immigrant to make it for that same cheap labor right here in our own country. what difference does the worker's geographical location make other than to say one is technically a trespasser?
Cheap labor from a distance is very different from cheap labor performed by strangers in your own home. That's the fundamental difference that needs to be noted here.
the resolution doesn't have to do with how the cheap labor is different or not. it has to do with job loss. and paying someone five dollars to make a hundred shirts in mexico is the same as paying an illegal five dollars to make a hundred shirts in the USA border, in terms of job loss.
Anyone who reads Round 1 will see that the resolution for this debate was specifically about stealing jobs, not simply "job loss."
Because the opponent dropped all arguments, I win.
Thanks for reading.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.