the US government should prioritize the humanitarian needs of refugees over its national interest.
Debate Rounds (4)
Should the united states accept,house, feed, and teach large amounts of refugees as other countries have.
Contention 1: why we are not morally obligated to help.
The flow of asylum seekers from Syria and Iraq has now overwhelmed even Germany, which on Sunday decided to temporarily close its border with Austria
Just last week, Germany was Europe's most vigorous champion of the refugees. But the numbers have swelled in recent days, with Germany taking in more than 50,000 in the past week alone. It expects to reach at least 800,000 by the end of the year "" by far the most in the 28-nation EU.
This is just one example of hoe the number of refugees is HUGE should we really put that many strangers before those from our own country that are in need? We need to prioritize.
But until recently, growing numbers of conflict-generated internally displaced people often fell through the cracks. While primary responsibility for the internally displaced has always rested with their governments, often those states are either unable or unwilling to help. Recognizing this, the humanitarian community today generally views the internally displaced as equally deserving of protection and assistance.
I agree with this however I believe that the governments time and money should be going towards the homeless and starving people of our nation before we start helping others. There are still people from and in our country lacking there humanitarian need to lets put them first.
Contention 2: Many countries including our own can not afford a large influx of refugees.
Recent estimates place the total number of Syrian refugees in Jordan at over 500,000. Zaatari refugee camp has become the fourth largest city in Jordan by population""it may not be much of a home, but each refugee costs the Jordanian government 2,500 dinars ($3,750) to host per year. The cost of Syrian refugees is putting a tremendous strain on the economy.
The American government is broke. The national debt is nearing $17 trillion, including nearly trillion-dollar deficits for the past four years. Is the President expecting to finance this war by borrowing more money from China or getting the Federal Reserve to fire up the printing presses once more? No one who is calling for war with Syria is talking about how this will be paid for.
At an interview President Obama was asked this question
You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?
and he replied with...
Well, we are out of money now
Contention 3: Giving aid could give great threat to the safety of our community
Intervention could cause World War III.
Syria is a strong ally with Iran. Iran and Syria have support from Russia and China, and that support could extend beyond just their votes on the UN Security Council. The chain of events leading to WWI began with a lone gunman assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Will WWIII start by "limited" U.S. military intervention in the Syrian civil war?
Muslim extremists and jihadists pretend to be asylum seekers and apply for asylum in Europe, according to reports from intelligence and security services since the mid-1990s. The then Dutch Domestic Security Service BVD (now the AIVD) reported in May 1998 that radical Muslims from Tunisian, Egyptian and Algerian terrorist organizations had applied for asylum in the Netherlands. "These asylum seekers can count on the support of local sympathizers." And in April 2001 the BVD/AIVD warned of "Islamic war veterans" posing as people who "are looking for asylum or illegal migrants who seek refuge in Western countries who will continue the fight or support it."
when someone arrives at the border (or at an airport), she can request asylum. Rather than admit her into the U.S., the alien is usually detained and scheduled for a "credible fear" interview"a preliminary evaluation of eligibility for asylum. The large majority of aliens "pass" the credible fear interview. Their cases are then transferred to an Immigration Judge and"in most, but not all, cases"they are released from detention. Aliens who do not pass the credible fear interview are deported.
In 638 credible fear interviews, conducted since October 2013, the alien said something or the U.S. government had some information that may have implicated a Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility Ground ("TRIG"). This could have been something relatively benign or something of great concern
It is for all of these reasons that I urge a con ballot. Thank you.
Since my opponent did not offer any terms, I will lay them out.
Prioritize-determine the order for dealing with (a series of items or tasks) according to their relative importance
Humanitarian-concerned with or seeking to promote human welfare
Refugees-.a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster:
Contention 1: Benefits of Immigrants
This contention will look at the numerous examples of where immigrants actually benefit the American economy. I will disprove the false accusations that immigrants and refugees harm the economy. It is actually quite different.
Mexican Immigration(illegal immigration):
This scenario is similar to Syrian refugees., because most undocumented immigrants view themselves as escaping an oppressive government with no opportunity. According to state and local tax analysis, undocumented immigrants contribute 588 million annually. According to The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, undocumented immigrants contribute 11.6 billion dollars every single year.
This is just one scenario where immigrants make a positive impact on the American economy. One should ask themselves why it seems like a significant portion of the American population despises them despite there contributions to the US economy.
I think that this is the most important part of my case. My opponent has made many claims suggesting that Syrians and Muslims could be terrorists. The evidence I will present completely disproves this.
They're better educated than most Americans
U.S. Muslims have the second-highest level of education among major religious groups in the country; Jews have the highest. And a greater proportion of them have college degrees than the general U.S. population.
They have more gender equality
"While in many parts of the Muslim world, women are confined to second-class status, that's not the case among American Muslims. Virtually all of them, 90%, agree that women should be able to work outside the home. American Muslim women hold more college or postgraduate degrees than Muslim men. And they are more likely to work in professional fields than women from most other U.S. religious groups.
They're not as dogmatic as they are portrayed
Much has been made about fundamentalist Muslims and their strict interpretation of the Quran. But most American Muslims are different. A Pew religious landscape survey found that 57% of American Muslims say there is more than one way to interpret Islam's teachings. A similar number say many different religions can lead to eternal life.
Muslims also spoken out against it
After every terrorist attack at home and abroad, the refrain rises, "Where is the Muslim condemnation?" American Muslims have spoken out -- and done much more. A Duke University study found more terrorism suspects and perpetrators were brought to the attention of law enforcement by members of the Muslim-American community than were discovered through U.S. government investigations. And a Pew survey found that roughly half of U.S. Muslims say their religious leaders aren't speaking out enough against Islamic extremism." By Holly Yan, CNN
The empirical evidence stated here just proves that Muslims are indeed capable of fitting into an American environment.
-Immigrants make up 12% of American population.
-They make up 16% of small business owners in America which makes a lot of them job creators.
-1990 and 2005, immigrants started 25 percent of venture backed U.S. public companies, employing more than 200,000 U.S. workers. And some of the companies at the forefront of the digital revolution were co-founded by immigrants: Intel, Sun Microsystems, eBay, Google, and Yahoo to name a few examples.
-Compared to U.S.-born Americans, immigrants are more likely to hold an advanced degree and are almost twice as likely to hold a Ph.D
Contention 2-American Wealth
A lot of people that negate this resolution would claim that America is not wealthy enough to handle immigrants. I believe that this is the most false claim that one could make.
Here is why:
US GDP is 17.43 trillion dollars.
US assets combined is 225 trillion dollars.
Our military budget is over 800,000 billion dollars.
My opponent could claim that this is not important due to the fact that we owe a lot of debt. Although, my opponent is right to an extent; she still has to consider who we owe our debt too.
Here is why:
"We owe most of the money to ourselves.
"We owe a big chunk of the money " about $6 trillion " to the Federal government. So if there ever were a default (hopefully there won"t be) the government would also be stiffing itself.
"We owe about $5 trillion to other countries, including China.
"The total debt to China is only $1.3 trillion.
I would like to point out that the Mexican immigrants are not from nearly as bad a situation as others. They are also here illegally. Though they may make money for the US with taxes they also cost money. In a way that am I trying to say they are an object but humans cost money. the value of a statistical life turns out to be around $5 million over the course of their life. There were 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2014.
You have made it a point to say that Muslims are smart. I never in my case stated that Muslims were not smart nor that they are all terrorists. Many Muslims are very kind people and I personally have Muslim friends. I was using Muslims as one of many examples because terrorism in present day society is not a scarce thing. There were over 400 terrorist attacks around the world killing hundreds of people (by a TON of different groups) in 2015 alone! By opening our borders there is no way of knowing how much violence we would be letting in.
You say that the money would not be an issue but the only evidence you have to support this claim is the fact that we owe money! How on earth does that help you. Yes we owe a lot of money to ourselves but that does not mean that it is any less important than if it was to another country. Also to quote YOU "We owe about $5 trillion to other countries, including China." The fact that this is true is reason in itself that we can not provide for countries or those from countries other than our own.
In your rebuttal if you would please answer these questions:
1. Where is the limit? Should we let in every refugee that asks from Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Iraq?
2. If so how are you intending on paying for the medical care, schooling, teaching of English, housing, and food?
3. How would we prevent a terrorist from coming through the borders?
My opponent argues that my evidence should not be considered acceptable, because it deals with immigrants. I challenge my opponent to find any real evidence on how the refugees fair in European countries. It is way too early to record the evidence of the benefits and harms of the refugees. The debate itself provides a burden of proof for both Pro and Con.
What did Con have to say about refugees?
Germany has championed 800,000 refugees.
But, could you really find any real data detailing the harms of refugees. The only evidence Con could find is from Jordin which is a country that has no where near the economic wealth America has. Why did Germany want to accept refugees? The point was to make Germany look more accepting and compassionate. They wanted to erase the stereotype that the Germans were a bunch of racists who support Nazism.
The same now can be argued for America. There are Europeans that have a negative view on America in the status quo thanks to Donald Trump. America also got a bad reputation from European liberals, because of the Iraq War. Accepting refugees could confirm the idea that America is an accepting country. It would make us look like the leader of the western world. This was going to be an argument in round 2, but I could not put this in due to lack of characters
Pro and Con both have a burden of proof for the benefits and harms of refugees. One can look at the success immigrants have had in America. I will cite sources of Mexicans that have came to America, because of their goal to escape the WAR on drugs. There are many middle easterners that came here in search of a better life. The point I was making in round two was that we(some of us) gave immigrants a chance. There were many people that doubted Mexicans and Muslims. It happened to all immigrants that came to America. Some people claimed that they would be a burden America would have to pay for. These are the same claims made about refugees.
Here are the benefits of immigrants:
-Undocumented immigrants contribute 11.6 billion dollars to the American economy annually.
-Middle Easterners have proven to be far better at education than the average American.
-They are likely to start businesses.
-They are likely to be employed by businesses.
I want to ask my opponent two questions which are very important to this debate.
-Do you believe that there is a burden of proof(benefits and harms have not been recorded accurately due to this being such a new issue) on both sides?
-Do you believe that there is a PROBABILITY of refugees having the same benefits as immigrants do? I believe if anything they will be able to contribute money into our economy through taxes. I am sure my opponent can agree to this as well.
Contention 1- "why we are not morally obligated to help."
Con claims that Germany can do the rest, and " we really put that many strangers before those from our own country that are in need?". Now, look at the benefits of immigrants in our country. Even though, they might need financial aid in the beginning; they still will have to pay taxes. So, will there children pay taxes. So, will there grandchildren pay taxes. So will there great grand children pay taxes. Eventually, the future generations will be fully integrated into American society. They will all pay taxes. This is proven by the empirical evidence that Mexican immigrants can show. Even though, they might have needed financial aid in the beginning; they start paying it all up in taxes. It all adds up to 11.6 billion dollars added into our economy. Although, there will be short term harms that will happen. The long term benefits are rewarding.
Contention 2-Many countries including our own can not afford a large influx of refugees.
I see the most errors in this contention. Saying that our country cannot afford a large influx of refugees is factually incorrect. Our country is very wealthy. I provided the statistics in round 2 proving that we
A. have a GDP of 17.43 trillion dollars.
B. Our assets combined equal 225 trillion dollars.
My opponent did claim in her rebuttal that 5 trillion dollars to other countries including China. But, she forgets that those countries also owe debt to us.
China owes 1 trillion dollars to us.
European debt holders include Belgium, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Ireland, Germany, France and Italy. U.S. debt-holding nations around the world also include North American and South American countries and other nations: Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, South Africa, Israel, Turkey and Chile. In 2014, the total dollar value of all the countries' debt was $6.1 trillion.
On top of that, America has a military budget over 700 billion dollars. We could easily cut some programs, and distribute that money into other causes like refugees.
Contention 3-Giving aid could give great threat.
My opponent argues that there is a probability of Syrian refugees being terrorists. I believe that we should have a proper vetting process. That is what the US currently has. I am not going to say that it should stop. Also, I already have evidence of American Muslims being able to integrate into American society.
Where is the limit? Should we let in every refugee that asks from Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Iraq?
I believe that we should have a proper vetting process. We should make sure that there are no terrorist coming in. I believe that there should also be a distribution of refugees. There should also be a timeframe concerning how many refugees come in each year.
I will answer 2 and 3 in the comments if that is okay, because I am running out of characters.
My opponent has asked me to provide evidence on how the refugees are affecting European countries I will begin by providing a chart that shows where the majority of european refugees are.
I will now provide evidence showing how the influx of refugees has negatively affected europe.
Since Syria's civil war began four years ago, Turkey has maintained an official open-door policy for the victims of the Syrian conflict, absorbing about 2.5 million refugees and spending nearly $8.5 billion in the process.Last year, the EU reached a deal with Turkey, offering it $3.3bn to care for Syrian refugees on Turkish soil. However the other $5.2 billion has come directly out of Turkeys pocket.Right now, Turkey is trying to figure out how it will educate these people and find jobs for them. The country's deputy prime minister, told the media: "Turkey has reached the limit of its capacity to absorb the refugees."
An interview with Switzerland resident Yannick Meyer showed that there was an impact there as well. He made these three points.
One of the major effects that refugees have on the host country is economic impact. It is frequently thought that refugees are of little economic value and make initial demands upon arrival on the host government that end up being at the taxpayer"s expense.
The refugee presence in hosting countries has potential social impacts on the ethnic balance of hosting areas, social conflict, and delivering of social services. Furthermore there may be inequalities between refugees and non-refugees that give rise to social tension.
The third major effect that refugees have on the host country is political impact. Most of the studies that are done on refugees show that the political and security impacts of refugees tend to be negative on the host countries.
Refugees may hold extreme views in politics, for or against the government of their country of origin.
In the case of germany a few people in the east are Neo Nazis and are totally against refugees and immigrants. With that many more refugees maybe more people will become active in the Neo Nazi scene."
Just weeks after Merkel responded to the refugee crisis in Germany with the declaration: "Wir schaffen es " We can do it" " the euphoric mood has been replaced by a more somber response with the realization that the newcomers are here to stay, with all the consequences that entails.
School authorities are calling for at least 25,000 new teaching recruits to cope with the large numbers of new pupils, police officers are being brought out of retirement in their thousands, and the nation is being scoured for suitable accommodation as winter approaches.
These are just some of the negative impacts refugees and open borders have caused.
I am now going to answer the two questions my opponents have asked.
Q. "Do you believe that there is a burden of proof(benefits and harms have not been recorded accurately due to this being such a new issue) on both sides?"
Though I do believe more statistics would be beneficial to this debate i think that I have still made valid points in my case against opening our borders to refugees despite it.
Q.Do you believe that there is a PROBABILITY of refugees having the same benefits as immigrants do? I believe if anything they will be able to contribute money into our economy through taxes. I am sure my opponent can agree to this as well.
I believe that after we have supported them for who knows how long. Given them english classes, taught them how to get and keep jobs, fed them, and housed them yes it is probable. However the refugees will not come to the states with money because of the situations they would be coming from. It would take time before the refugees would be able to afford to pay taxes.
I will now attack my opponent"s previous speech.
I never claimed that Germany can take and provide for the remainder of the immigrans. This is already taking a toll on their society. I was using Germany as an example for how large a number of refugees there are and that taking in refugees with open borders has taken a toll of their society. The problems regarding Germany and other countries in the EU are none of our concern. What is our concern is the people of the united states. With homeless and starving people of our own that we still don't have the required funds to take care of, how are we expected to take care of the starving and homeless of another country.
Though I do agree with you on the fact that our military has much to big a budget, do you think that our government is going to cut that to take care of people that are not our own. The military budget put in place by congress probably has a reason for being so big. How much of the military budget do you think would need to be cut? How much do you think the government would cut? If we don't get funds from the defense budget then would you expect it to be brought out of taxes? What do you think should be done then?
I would like to end my counter attack by asking if you have any evidence supporting your claim that it "is an extremely low probability of terrorists coming in"? Considering the evidence I showed in an earlier speech saying that over 400 terrorist attacks occurred over the course of 2015 and hundreds if not thousands of people died.
Throughout my case I have stated why we are not morally obligated to help, why we can not afford it, why there is threat of violence, and finally what has happened to other countries that have open borders.It is for all of these reasons that I strongly urge a con vote. Thank you for your time and a wonderful debate.
(I have run out of characters so i am going to put sources in the comments.)
Here is the heart of the problem of Con's case. She keeps comparing America to countries like Turkey and Jordan.
"Turkey has maintained an official open-door policy for the victims of the Syrian conflict, absorbing about 2.5 million refugees and spending nearly $8.5 billion in the process. Last year, the EU reached a deal with Turkey, offering it $3.3bn to care for Syrian refugees on Turkish soil. However the other $5.2 billion has come directly out of Turkeys pocket"
The American government would not view offering 3.3 billion dollars as a significant loss, because 3.3 billion dollars is very little next to our 17.43 trillion dollar GDP. Empirical evidence shows that undocumented immigrants could have been a hassle in the beginning, but prove to contribute a significant amount to our economies when they begin to create families. America would not lose anything.
Economic Impacts-My opponent would like you to believe that refugees have little to no economic impact. This is not true. My opponent's only way of proving this is by comparing America to countries that have no where near the size of our GDP. America has a GDP of 17.43 trillion dollars. Our military budget is 800,000 billion dollars. My opponent stated in the previous round that Turkey had to spend 8.5 billion dollars for 2.5 million refugees. I already stated in the comments of how I believe there should be a proper vetting system. My opponent never commented on this. I also stated that we should admit refugees based on timeframe. I would be comfortable admitting anywhere between 500,000 to 1 million refugees every year. But, lets just say we admitted 2.5 million refugees. We would spend 8.5 billion dollars which makes no negative impact whatsoever on our economy. Again, we have a GDP of 17.43 trillion dollars.
"The refugee presence in hosting countries has potential social impacts on the ethnic balance of hosting areas, social conflict, and delivering of social services"
I never saw any evidence supporting this. I would interpret this as basically saying that Americans might me afraid of the refugees. There will be unintended consequences. Unintended consequences are alright. There were unintended consequences when slavery was declared legal. There were unintended consequences when blacks were allowed to go to white schools. But, America has made significant progress towards equality. We don't have an abundant amount of issues and headlines talking about how a majority of the white population is discriminating against black people in there local communities. Whether you agree with me or disagree with me; one cannot disagree that we should have got rid of slaver and the separate but equal concept. Refugees will go down a similar route. There will be short term consequences, but the long term benefits will outweigh the short term consequences. The future generations of refugees will be able to integrate into our society.
"The third major effect that refugees have on the host country is political impact. Most of the studies that are done on refugees show that the political and security impacts of refugees tend to be negative on the host countries.
Refugees may hold extreme views in politics, for or against the government of their country of origin."
I said in the comments that I believed that there should be a vetting process to make sure we are not admitting any refugees with extreme views. My opponent directly asked that question. This impact should be considered null for this debate.
I will now respond to the answers of my opponent's questions.
"Though I do believe more statistics would be beneficial to this debate i think that I have still made valid points in my case against opening our borders to refugees despite it."
My opponent does admit that there should be more data. I have stressed this point again and again. Our country is very wealthy, and will have no problem taking care of these refugees. My opponent cited evidence of countries having to spend 8 billion dollars. Our GDP is 17.43 trillion dollars.
"I believe that after we have supported them for who knows how long. Given them english classes, taught them how to get and keep jobs, fed them, and housed them yes it is probable"
I will take the figure from Turkey. 2 million refugees were estimated to cost 8 billion dollars. 8 billion dollars is no problem for our government, especially when my opponent admits that it is probable that they would have the similar benefits to immigrants.
I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. It is a very interesting topic that I enjoyed debating.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate