The Instigator
joaquin
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Natalija
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points

the system

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,175 times Debate No: 12622
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

joaquin

Con

illegal immigrants should not be allowed the same benefits as persons that are legal
Natalija

Pro

I don't know what is meant by the benefits that legal persons have in relation to the illegal and I will focus on the fact that illegal immigrants should have the same or at least similar rights as legal people.

There are many reasons why someone chose to leave their country of origin and move to another country. The other country may can provide 'better life' and in some situations save lives. I will talk about what I saw and what I see every day.

In the last century it was many wars, world and civil, and as a consequence of all this, there are huge population migration. A large number of people had (!) (not want) to move out.

More recently in the Balkans civil war began 1991st and lasted until 1995. Then was no matter who's who of nationality, people had been killed in a row and randomly. Those who had the opportunity to choose were able to choose between illegal immigration in a country (where they had friends, relatives, acquaintances or in extreme cases did have no one) or to stay and be drafted or executed. Most people from this area fled to Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Canada and the U.S. They can not in those countries enter legally because there was no embassy which would be addressed (all ambassadors have fled in front of the threat) to obtain a visa (temporary or emigrant) and also the border of their country (later countries because 1 country fell apart in 6 ones) were closed so they generally are not able to legally leave the country. These people later were not allowed to submit requests for a visa because of the possibility of being arrested and deported for violating the law.

If you look at this example, it is almost 5 years of exile. If these people are not allowed to do something (to have a job), they automatically have to deal with crime and other illegal acts in order to survive. A well-known that there is always work for those who want to work.

Based on this, I think we should allow illegal immigrants to work.

And btw do you know what conditions are needed for a U.S. visa? It is difficult (almost impossible) to fulfill.

So the only possibility for legal entry remains marriage to a citizen of that state for a period of at least 5 years. It appears many people offering marriage for money. The price is approximately 20 000 euros for the marriage (in Western Europe-Switzerland, Germany, Austria). At the same time there is no guarantee that that someone will cheat and ask for a divorce before the expiration of 5 years of marriage.

Another thing is that people from these regions can only dream of 20 000 euros (average salary is 300 euros and that is not enough even for a normal life and people take loans at banks and they are even more indebted).

On the basis of written can be concluded that almost no legal possibility of going to one of the more developed countries, primarily because the conditions for obtaining a visa is very strict and marriage as one of the aspects of legal entry cost very much.
Debate Round No. 1
joaquin

Con

joaquin forfeited this round.
Natalija

Pro

It is estimated that in the United States are more than 12 million illegal immigrants. What can the States to do? To ignore them? To act like they do not exist? To send them to jail? To return them home? It cost much more than providing them some benefits...

The fact that someone is illegally in a country does not mean that the country does not know that someone is present, that there live and try to survive. The state itself has a great benefit from that kind of people and it is normal to provide them education.

This population is of great benefit to the state because they have no rights but has all the obligations of other legal residents. Illegal immigrant has no social protection, no health care, about pension not to speak, but it performs best kind of dirty work. So they do job and little cost. They should be sent to school in order to be productive, to contribute more for the same salary.

Analysts say that the economic impact of a substantial - not just because they are cheap labor - but because they are consumers. Some American companies own products and services directed toward them. Many companies consider illegal immigrants to unofficial citizens. For example, companies that offer mortgage said: 'Even if you do not have documents for staying in the country, there are ways to apply for a loan and buy a house.' Owners of businesses and shops do not ask if you have documents or not, they are only interested can you pay for the products they sell.

Establishing centers for their engagement will introduce some order in the employment of workers without documents. This center should probably provide language classes and some kind of training for some work.

For economic reasons, employers claim that they need illegal immigrants. Laborers are sometimes abused. They do not always receive a salary, and sometimes are left in places from which they can not return home or somewhere.
Debate Round No. 2
joaquin

Con

joaquin forfeited this round.
Natalija

Pro

On the basis of written I think I managed to prove that illegal immigrants should have the same or even similar rights and benefits as legal people.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Natalija 7 years ago
Natalija
Thanks for voting! I don't know how I sound to you, it's probably funny and with mistakes, but you know, English is not my first language and I usually first write all this things on my language and then translate them into English... I had an interesting situation yesterday when I realised that 'reason' and 'cause' have same meaning on my language and that I made doubt with my sentence.
Posted by Ninja_Tru 7 years ago
Ninja_Tru
Although I don't agree with all of your ideas, Pro, you definitely win all of my points for a couple of reasons. First, the Con never responded. Second, your responses proved better conduct (participation), better spelling and grammar (the Con's one sentence is not very hopeful on this point), arguments (some were made). Neither side used sources, but I'll give Pro that because third, the Con screwed you over by voting for itself; that sucks badly. I would vote Pro just to negate that bad tactic.

Side note, Pro, you have an interesting accent when writing.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
So exploitable.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by KevinW 6 years ago
KevinW
joaquinNatalijaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
joaquinNatalijaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by joaquin 7 years ago
joaquin
joaquinNatalijaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by FREEDO 7 years ago
FREEDO
joaquinNatalijaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by Ninja_Tru 7 years ago
Ninja_Tru
joaquinNatalijaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07