The Instigator
wierdman
Con (against)
Tied
8 Points
The Contender
KristophKP
Pro (for)
Tied
8 Points

should the united states grant amnesty to immigrants who came here illigally?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,293 times Debate No: 17602
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

wierdman

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate.

The Debate in general will follow the following format:
Round One: Intro
Round Two: main round
Round three: CX
Round four: rebuttal
Round four: conclusion
KristophKP

Pro

I accept your challenge. It's your responsibility to construct an argument and my responsibility to cast reasonable doubt.
Debate Round No. 1
wierdman

Con

For a long time it was rational for the United States to Invite or rather allow many immigrants to come to the United States simply because they were fueling the Industrial revolution thus allowing the United States to help these immigrants as much as possible. This served as a way to help the immigrants as well as help the U.S citizens; however, during this economic downfall, it is almost impossible to house these immigrants and still protect the average United States citizen. According to a march 9th bloom berg article, 71 percent of illegal immigrants are consuming some sort of welfare, 52 percent of lawfully present immigrants are consuming some form of welfare". In contrast only 39 percent of the United States citizen headed household are consuming some sort of welfare. it is quite clear that immigrants no matter what nationality are consuming some incredible amounts of welfare. Many of these immigrants do not have a high school education thus they are highly unlikely to contribute a great deal to our economy. We must look into the Fact that these immigrants are taking advantage of our economy and in return increases the strain on our already strained economy.

JOBS>>> there are fourteen million Americans without a job a vast majority of illegal immigrants have those jobs. The only solution to this problem is to deport an illegal alien thus creating a job for an American citizens. Many of us think that those jobs are jobs that Americans won't do; however in our current economy, it is clear that many are desperate for jobs and even in many fields were illegal aliens work, we find that American citizens also work in the same fields. The Illegal aliens are depressing the wages and taking the jobs of the home born citizen outright. if we truly care about our physical health, economic health or even the health of American citizens, the only option is to reduce the illegal immigrants.

" Illegal immigrants don't do jobs that Americans "don't want" to do. A million Americans recently showed up to apply for a job at McDonald's. That is how desperate Americans are for work these days. Please don't try to tell me that there aren't millions of Americans out there that would not pick fruit for minimum wage. The millions upon millions of illegal immigrants in this country are stealing jobs, they are depressing wages in a whole host of industries and they are a huge factor in the erosion of the middle class." (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com...)

"There is one group of Americans that would benefit from a dramatic cut in illegal immigration: high-school dropouts. Most economists agree that the wages of low-skill high-school dropouts are suppressed by somewhere between 3 percent and 8 percent because of competition from immigrants, both legal and illegal. Economists speculate that for the average high-school dropout, that would mean about a $25 a week raise if there were no job competition from immigrants." (http://www.npr.org...)

Nest we must look at the benefits that many illegal immigrants qualify for. Like I mentioned in my first topic, illegal immigrants take advantage of our economy, many of these immigrants do not pay taxes rather they end up getting income tax credit which allows them to get money back from the federal government because they are low skilled, low waged workers. This means that these people do not pay federal taxes and in many cases they do not pay state taxes. Every single research in past ten years have shown that these illegal immigrants are consuming economic benefits. We must also look into the fact that illegal immigrants are consuming huge amounts of fiscal benefits which develops as a lost towards the American citizen.

"Illegal aliens "pay fewer taxes because they have lower incomes and because their compliance rate [voluntarily filing of income taxes by themselves or by employers] is somewhat lower than our other immigrant groups," said Michael Fix, vice president of the Migration Policy Institute. "And their incomes are lower in large part because many have low levels of education and limited English skills." (http://www.alipac.us...)

"Steven A. Camarota, research director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a District-based group that favors tougher immigration policies, wrote a study in 2004 that found illegal aliens cost the federal government $26.3 billion in services in 2002 but paid only $16 billion in taxes.

Illegal aliens that year created a net fiscal deficit of $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal alien household, he said. The costs reflected a burden on government services such as Medicaid, medical treatment for the uninsured, food-assistance programs, the federal prison and court systems, and federal aid to schools. " (http://www.alipac.us...)

When looking at the case of illegal aliens, we must see that there are winners and there are losers. The winners being the illegal aliens and the losers being the American citizens who loose there jobs as well as those who now get lower wages.
KristophKP

Pro


My opponent has put forth an argument for his belief that illegal immigrants should not be granted amnesty. He proposed that the morally right alternative course of action would be to deport these illegal immigrants back to whence they came. I will show that these two views do not contradict one another.


His argument is straight-forward and sensible. He argues that illegal immigrants consume more welfare, that they do not have a high amount of education, and are thus in an advantageous position whereupon they can reap the benefit of tax returns and other tax-funded domestic services, without having to pay their faire share. This is fair conclusion to make and a worthy argument. If a person decides to live under the umbrella of a government’s services then it should stand to reason that they comply with governmental policies. I will not counter this argument, but rather I will argue that my opponent has failed to provide a convincing case as to why we should not give amnesty to illegal immigrants.


Amnesty is the exoneration and pardoning of past offences, which means that no punishment can doled to the individual in question. Recall that we are talking of illegal immigrants, people who are merely trying to survive in a cruel, harsh world. They want to make a meager living and are not intentionally trying to bankrupt the US or its citizens. They are being selfish, of course, but that is something we expect from everyone. Giving them amnesty would NOT give them citizenship. You’ll recall that I mentioned above that my opponent would want these illegal immigrants to be deported. There is no reason that they shouldn’t be deported. Deportment is not a punishment and does not contradict the purpose of amnesty. Amnesty is given in such a way that a past crime or offence is forgiven. It does mean that they can continue to live illegally within the country. They should instead be transferred towards the immigrations office and apply for refugee status or citizenship in the same manner that any other incoming immigrant would.


I have reduced the argument to a semantic dialogue. I would apologize for this but it was my opponent who established his argument in the way that he did, leaving me no other choice but to single him out for not properly stating his case.


On a final note to this round, I would like to refute an absolute claim that my opponent made. He claimed that the only solution to the lack of jobs was to deport an illegal alien, and I would simply like to point out that this certainly isn’t the only method of reducing unemployment. One fair example would be to forbid the export of labor.




Debate Round No. 2
wierdman

Con

My opponent has proved his case in a highly unusual method however despite the format in which he uses, he has provided no proof nor has he provided a reason why the United States should grant amnesty to these illegal immigrants. My opponent stated that these people come to the united States as a means to acquire a better life; however, we must think of our citizens first before trying to accommodate other people. My opponent stated that " It does mean that they can continue to live illegally within the country. They should instead be transferred towards the immigrations office and apply for refugee status or citizenship in the same manner that any other incoming immigrant would." but he neglected the fact that these citizens are still low skilled workers and would still receive the same benefits that they currently receive thus proving to be a waste of time rather than a solution.

In conclusion: My opponent failed to provide any real prove that these immigrants are beneficial to the United States social and economic status. My opponent also agreed to my case by stating that " If a person decides to live under the umbrella of a government's services then it should stand to reason that they comply with governmental policies.".
KristophKP

Pro

I do not believe that my argument was well received by my opponent and I will endeavour to make myself as clear as possible. My opponent was responsible for constructing an argument against the amnesty of illegal immigrants and I have shown that there are no negative impacts involved in doing so. Amnesty does not mean that they are granted citizenship. It simply means that they are forgiven for their crimes. Once amnesty has been given, the government faces the responsibility of deciding upon deportation or giving them citizenship, and since this isn't an argument about the government's ability to do its job, we must agree that they will do what is best for the country.

I have indeed agreed that a person living under a government's umbrella should comply with its policies. This has nothing to do with amnesty. I believe that my opponent wanted to argue for their deportation, and not against their amnesty, for his arguments are not in line with his resolution.
Debate Round No. 3
wierdman

Con

My opponent although very clear of his point, seemed to have mistaken the meaning of amnesty towards illegal aliens. My opponent describes amnesty as simply forgiving them of there crimes and choosing to deport or to grant legality, when in reality, amnesty gives the illegal alien the ability to continue living in the United States as it grants them legality in all ways as well as forgive them of there crimes of fake identity.

"An amnesty for illegal aliens forgives their act of illegal immigration and implicitly forgives other related illegal acts such as driving and working using false documents. The result of an amnesty is that large numbers of foreigners who illegally gained entry into the United States are rewarded with legal status for their breaking the law." (http://www.theamericanresistance.com...)

" So if an illegal alien enters the country and stays clean for two or more years they will not be deported, what is this if it is not a form af amnesty? Illegal aliens now know that they can come to this country and they will not be punished as long as they do not commit another crime. No matter how you look at it this IS amnesty." (http://americaswatchtower.com...)

My opponent agrees that a person living under the United States should comply with his policies; however, he goes on to stating that this have nothing to do with amnesty. Like mentioned earlier, by granting amnesty you are allowing these people to still live in the United States and since they are still low skilled workers, they continue to damage our economy.

In conclusion, for stating the disadvantages of granting amnesty to these aliens (low skilled workers (round one)), for successfully countering my opponents definition of the word amnesty and for the fact that my opponent wasted our time without presenting any significant case, i urge you to vote for me.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time...
KristophKP

Pro


It was my opponent’s role to define the parameters of the debate and he failed to do so. A straight-forward definition of amnesty means a pardon for one’s crimes and makes no mention of whether they are granted citizenship. How am I to argue a subject when the instigator waits until the fourth round to define the question? My opponent accuses me of wasting of our time and yet he’s the one who just negated an entire debate’s worth. I urge you to use reason when deciding whether my opponent fairly framed the debate.


On another note: America was founded on immigration. It’s odd how one can turn around and say no to an outsider after only very recently barged in through the front door.



Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by wierdman 3 years ago
wierdman
So do i.
Posted by KristophKP 3 years ago
KristophKP
Capitalization counts :) I don't mean to be rude. I'll take you up on the argument either way. I look forward to reading your thoughts.
Posted by wierdman 3 years ago
wierdman
i'll try.
Posted by KristophKP 3 years ago
KristophKP
I'll take you up on this one if you dedicate yourself to using proper diction and grammar.
Posted by wierdman 3 years ago
wierdman
i am very excited about the upcoming match
Posted by wierdman 3 years ago
wierdman
thanks
Posted by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
man, I would totally accept this if you were pro! I'll be watching this!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 2 years ago
Mr.Infidel
wierdmanKristophKPTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vote bomb
Vote Placed by Willoweed 2 years ago
Willoweed
wierdmanKristophKPTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better sources but I agreed .with pro before and after
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
wierdmanKristophKPTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Darkhearth's multi-account vote.
Vote Placed by darkhearth 3 years ago
darkhearth
wierdmanKristophKPTied
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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: .
Vote Placed by spenserririe 3 years ago
spenserririe
wierdmanKristophKPTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: srt