The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

if illegal immigration causes job loss, so does free trade

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 9/7/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,522 times Debate No: 78873
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

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
InVinoVeritas

Con

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.

Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

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?
InVinoVeritas

Con

Outsourcing jobs to people in other countries is different from giving jobs to illegal immigrants within America's borders. When a company hires an illegal immigrant in America's borders, it is paying someone to sustain himself while smuggling into America the values, languages, and traditions of his home country. The whole idea of employment is based on an idea of capitalism and freedom of association that would certainly not exist anymore if many of these illegal immigrants were granted political power--or if their children were granted political power.

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.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

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.
InVinoVeritas

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KasiaLynne 2 years ago
KasiaLynne
In a way they are stealing jobs. The jobs in America are for American citizens. Hints why you need to provide birth certificates, ids and social security numbers. By them taking the jobs they are taking them away from American people.

Not to mention, Obama has set this thing up where businesses get a bonus for hiring illegals and penalized for hiring Americans; and businesses aren't required to cover illegals on insurance. That means more businesses will hire illegals, who can't even speak our language and deny Americans the jobs.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 2 years ago
InVinoVeritas
R3: I meant to put italics around "stealing," not "jobs."
Posted by Kmn12311997 2 years ago
Kmn12311997
Well first of all, I think it is crazy to compare free trade with illegal immigration but okay whatever. Immigration is great when and only when it is legal. When it is illegal they need to be removed completely from the country. Or the US can defend it borders like all the other countries on the planet. Now illegal immigrants take away jobs from someone who happens to be here legally. Someone who is supposed to be here. Free trade is the concept that all countries can and will trade all the different products that country makes through the import and export system. So when Mexico make whatever and they want to trade with Brazil they will and when Brazil makes something and Mexico wants some they will be able to get it. To me it seems that this debate is about whats the difference. Why does it matter that the immigrants make the article of clothing or picks fruits in which ever country when it will make it easier for that country to get the product. Well, if Mexico has Mangoes and the US can't make any, but the US has oranges and Mexico can't make oranges we should just swap immigrants because then Mexico will get their oranges and the US will get there mangoes. Nope, people just moved around. If citizens stay where they are and get job in their own country and the countries trade than the country itself goes up in an economic standpoint. The people then make more money in turn and everything is smooth sailing. Until someone from a different country that is illegal comes and takes the job from say the US citizen because he can be paid cheaper. Now the business is illegal and the economy looks worse because unemployment went up. Even worse, which ever country that immigrant came from is in a worse position. Mainly because they lost a employee. So if you want to move do it legally and allow free trade.
Posted by Kmn12311997 2 years ago
Kmn12311997
Well first of all, I think it is crazy to compare free trade with illegal immigration but okay whatever. Immigration is great when and only when it is legal. When it is illegal they need to be removed completely from the country. Or the US can defend it borders like all the other countries on the planet. Now illegal immigrants take away jobs from someone who happens to be here legally. Someone who is supposed to be here. Free trade is the concept that all countries can and will trade all the different products that country makes through the import and export system. So when Mexico make whatever and they want to trade with Brazil they will and when Brazil makes something and Mexico wants some they will be able to get it. To me it seems that this debate is about whats the difference. Why does it matter that the immigrants make the article of clothing or picks fruits in which ever country when it will make it easier for that country to get the product. Well, if Mexico has Mangoes and the US can't make any, but the US has oranges and Mexico can't make oranges we should just swap immigrants because then Mexico will get their oranges and the US will get there mangoes. Nope, people just moved around. If citizens stay where they are and get job in their own country and the countries trade than the country itself goes up in an economic standpoint. The people then make more money in turn and everything is smooth sailing. Until someone from a different country that is illegal comes and takes the job from say the US citizen because he can be paid cheaper. Now the business is illegal and the economy looks worse because unemployment went up. Even worse, which ever country that immigrant came from is in a worse position. Mainly because they lost a employee. So if you want to move do it legally and allow free trade.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Good thing I support both (from an econ perspective).
Posted by psyrus 2 years ago
psyrus
The proposed argument seems to ask whether it is contradictory to be supportive of free trade and against illegal immigration.

When it comes to free trade, it has a purpose. Trade with other countries is necessary but can be overdone. There are things you can't produce in some countries where you can make in others and free trade is meant to encourage that type of trade and improve relations. The problem is with trade in general, when the product can be produced in country but replaced by imports. This is okay as long as it's minimal, however if it can have dangerous impacts on a countries economy. Basically, the trade system needs to be controlled and balanced with the intention to improve our countries economy instead of another.

illegal immigration mainly "steals" illegal jobs, many American employers work under the table to use these people as workers because they are cheaper and have excellent work ethics. The only legal jobs they can get are when they get fake ID's and I'd imagine that is less common. The effect on the economy is different then free trade because most of the money stays in country and the jobs that get "stolen" are jobs an average American wouldn't want anyway.

So basically both free trade and illegal immigration can have a concerning effect on jobs. However, free trade and illegal immigration are considerably different topics because of their complexity and although they CAN have very similar effects, each effect has a substantially different weight then the other.

To conclude, not every argument that could be used for free trade would be the same for illegal immigration.
Posted by Shrektheboss 2 years ago
Shrektheboss
trump for president
Posted by asi14 2 years ago
asi14
Are the restrictions imposed on this debate made for everyone?
Posted by ax123man 2 years ago
ax123man
while the proposed resolution might strictly be true (I'm not convinced it is), I don't think it's very relevant. Which scenario would improve our lives more: completely closed borders and 100% free trade or completely open borders and 100% restricted trade?

Btw, the unemployment rate in North Korea right now is less than in the U.S.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
i changed the resolution to be clearer
No votes have been placed for this debate.