The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Do sanctuary cities have a right to limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities?

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  
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: 1/31/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 695 times Debate No: 107355
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I am Vanessa Mutwambaka and I intend to prove Sanctuary Cities can create a undue economy and legal burden on American society.
Sanctuary cities can experience an increase in serious crimes. For example, in Phoenix, Albuquerque and LA 75% of individuals on the most wanted lists are illegal aliens. In San Francisco an illegal alien was deported 5 times before, to be accused of shooting Kathyrin Steinle. SFPD had the illegal alien custody prior to the shooting. Had they inquired about his legal status, Kathryn Steinle would of still be alive.


imagine that the immigrants who come to sanctuary cities are wanderers in a desert. Do we give the oasis funding to allow those wanderers to come and have their lives saved? Immigrants are people too, and they deserve the same as our citizens.

Sanctuary Cities Reduce Crime

Judge, it is statistically proven that Sanctuary Cities reduce crime. If an immigrant believes that the cops will ask them about their immigration status, like in a non-sanctuary city, then they will be less likely to cooperate with investigations. Judge, 70% of undocumented immigrants and 44% of Latinos surveyed are less likely to report if they were the victim of crime and 45% of Latinos are less likely report crimes or voluntarily offer information about a crime for fear police officers would about their immigration status, according to Zoe Lofgren, US Representative (D-CA), stated, "when people are afraid the police might ask about immigration status, they are less likely to report crimes and cooperate with investigations. As a result, criminals thrive, and the general public suffers." Josh Harkinson of Mother Jones says undocumented immigrant cooperation with police is statistically proven to make sanctuary cities safer. Murder rates in San Francisco, one of the oldest sanctuary cities, were at their lowest in 2014 (with 45 murders) since the 1989 "City of Refuge” ordinance was enacted. San Francisco’s murder rate is lower than comparable non-sanctuary cities, with 5.75 murders per 100,000 residents in 2013 compared to 11.39 in Dallas and 15.17 in Indianapolis. Judge, who are we to argue with raw fact? According to LA times, on average, counties that did not comply with ICE requests experienced 35.5 fewer crimes per 10,000 people than those that did. Judge, if you were an undocumented immigrant and you knew that the cops would ask you about your immigration status, would you report a crime? Sanctuary cities prevent cops from doing this, making reportations of crimes decrease significantly. As a whole, undocumented immigrants in sanctuary cities lower crime rates dramatically. The opposition is arguing that we should have crime rates rise, because there is no foolproof way to prevent undocumented immigration. Now, would it be wise to cut funding to these cities after it has been proven that there are lower crime rates?

Affects economics

Judge, have you ever considered how cutting funding to a city would affect economics? According to politifact, Donald Trump has promised to cut funding to sanctuary cities, starting with San Francisco. San Francisco relies solely on grants from the government in order to account for 39.3% of the U.S’s technology exports. That makes about 1 trillion dollars every year, according to CNN. If we are to cut funding to this city, we lose $1 trillion every single year! Judge, according to CNN and the atlantic, the country is in $20 trillion dollar debt. This is an amount of debt that we can not allow. Also, according to and, abnormally high debt leads to a economic decrease of 25% for every added trillion since the ten trillion debt mark. Therefore, if we were to cut funding to just 1 of the 500 sanctuary cities, we would be losing $1 trillion in the economy every year, therefore causing our economy to decrease. Just a reminder Judge, this is 1 city. All together, the remainder of the sanctuary cities provide $200 trillion for the economy every year, according to the associated press. That would cause an economic decrease of $201 trillion dollars and an economic collapse of 5025%. While the government would save money because they don’t have to spend as much, they would only save $55 million in total, according to CNN. Judge, $55 million saved but $201 trillion lost and just $55 million spent to boost the economy by $201 trillion every year?, Judge, according to, The Great Depression was only an economic loss of $20 trillion dollars and an economic decrease of 500%, and that killed 7 million people! We can only imagine how many people an economic crash of the proportions I just mentioned would cause. Actually, we can find out. When you do some math, you come out to 70 million 350 thousand deaths, Picture it this way, judge. Sanctuary cities are part of the economic ecosystem. What happens if you remove a thread from an ecosystem? It falls apart. So if we were to remove funding from sanctuary cities as the opposition wants, removing them, it would cause an untold amount of deaths and our very ways of life would come crashing down.

Saves lives

Judge, undocumented immigrants are people too. According to, 20% of immigrants are from syria. According to, 480,000 Syrian citizens die every month, whereas about 1,000 US citizens due every month. Sanctuary Cities allow these immigrants safe haven, saving their lives. Judge, we have moral duty to allow these immigrants to come into our country to save their lives

Upholding a constitutional right
Judge, non sanctuary cities are doing something very unconstitutional. According to, in supreme court case Gill vs. Whitford, the Supreme Court ruled ICE detainer requests and jailing immigrants for disproportionate crimes UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Judge, if something is unconstitutional then we cannot allow it. Non sanctuary cities deny the rights of the people by unlawfully jailing them and accepting ICE detainer requests. Sanctuary cities take a stand and prevent rights violation.

Rebuttal to: Kate Steinle
The bullet that killed Kate Steinle was a richochet shot that was not meant to hit her, therefore it was not intetntional. (The trial)
Rebuttal to: 75% of illegal immigrants are criminals
However, Sanctuary Cities make things easier for cops to catch criminals, since there is no permanent way to deter illegal immigrants.

I thank con for instigating this topic and I wish her good luck

(I said Judge because this is a speech I did on this topic)

Debate Round No. 1


Illegal Aliens are people, but they're ways to enter this country the legal way. Every country has It's set of laws, and just because your in danger from your country doesn't mean you can break into other people's country for free and start collecting. Around 20.7 Million Immigrants In the United states are legal, so why not that large number of legal aliens continue to be reported by fallowing the steps of entering as an legal alien. When this illegal alien come to the U.S, are they really free? or are they living in fear? they cant just move and live anywhere. These people can't live outside the sanctuary cities they will get stopped and possibly face the consequences of being deported, so why not save themselves a headache and even fearing for your life and fallow the rules for entering this country.

Back to the crime aspects, these illegal alien's are saving what? the police money? but how do we report crime for a person getting into an car accident with a suspended license? Here is another story , an illegal alien struck Dr. Edward Horowitz with a motor vehicle at an intersection in Nebraska. The illegal alien was stopped 11 days earlier for driving with a suspended license but his immigration status was never and I repeat never questioned or reported, Now how would the other person ( American Citizen) go about this ? that illegal alien probably had no insurance that would protect our citizen from paying medical bills if coming out of pocket , and the other person (illegal Alien) will gain nothing but jail time with no documents. I see no point.

Rebuttal to: Affect to Economic

Illegal aliens directly and indirectly place a financial strain on the economies of Sanctuary Cities and we know this. We can not just ignore it even if others would like to. According to the Federation for American Reform, The average American household pay $1,117.00 per year towards benefits for illegal aliens. Most of the money spent on already stressed education, criminal justice and medical system. That's a lot and I'm sorry but I wouldn't want that much money coming out of my pocket for someone for free when I have my own children to take care of, especially if there not even supposed to be here and I didn't have to really worry about them. These people are strangers that you don't know so why put your $1,117.00 per Household to help them with there needs? We have low income family that still have jobs, low paying jobs but are not allowed to get benefit because they hold a job. Yet my 1,117.00 plus change is going towards there medical bills. This is just not right and we need to fix it.


Hello and I thank Con for responding. Let's get into this

Rebuttal to: There are legal ways to become a citizen
However, 95% of illegal immigrants are trying to collect the $725 citizenship fee, as 95% of these people do not have money when fleeing a 3rd world war torn country. (Abcnews, Statista, Nytimes)

Rebuttal to: These people cannot live outside sanctuary cities
Point conceded. This actually benefits my side of the argument because these people are again trying to work up the money to pay the citizenship fee. Picture Sanctuary Cities as a waiting room in which people can make money. That is all a supermajority of "illegal" immgrants want to do

In defense of: Sanctuary Cities reduce crime
Con has consistently used stories in her assertions and rebuttals. I have stats, and more stats then her stories. Therefore, my stats outweigh her stories

In defense of: Economic affect
As I stated in my speech, Sanctary Cities, if their policies were removed, would cause an economic decrease of $201 trillion dollars and an economic collapse of 5025%. Voters, what is worse? What I just stated, or American households paying $1,117 which is going to helping the well being of these people

Source Tally
Me: 15 sources
Con: 3 sources

As of right now:
I have rebutted all opposing arguments
All my arguments still stand, due to my counter rebuts
Con did not try and refute my unconstitutional point

Thank you Con, and I await your next argument.
Debate Round No. 2


Pro, when we talk about numbers, There's always two sides of the stories. I' m looking at healthcare point. why you may ask? because I work in Healthcare, More effectively Well star. This is a story, yes but it's a true story that I witness in my own eyes every single day. Anyone like me who works at a hospital can tell you, we see illegal Immigrants everyday in here laying in bed for several months with there bills not being paid. Patients with illegal status who are non-compliant with multiple healthcare issues. With rising costs of healthcare in the United States, an illegal immigrant that is admitted into the hospital must be treated and cannot be denied healthcare treatment. In contrast to a U.S. citizen, that must have approval from their insurance company before services are rendered. This is just putting a burden on our healthcare systems.

According to Eric Ruark a senior researched There are 14.5 million immigrants and their U.S born children without health insurance, 32 percent of the uninsured. Between 1989 and 2007, immigrants and their U.S born children accounted for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured. Has of right now more than one out of every four uninsured U.S. residents is an immigrant.The foreign-born make up 27 percent of the uninsured population in the U.S. 48 percent of immigrants and their children are either uninsured or depend on Medicaid. Approximately 65 percent of illegal aliens in the U.S. are uninsured. In some hospitals, as much as two-thirds of total operating costs are for uncompensated care for
illegal aliens. 425,000 births a year in the U.S"more than 1 in every 10 births"is to an illegal alien mother.

I think that we as legal American citizens don't want taxes coming out of our pockets, that's just Facts! true FACTS . You can do the research or even ask your neighbor and they would say no way, why? Your not taking more taxes how am I supposed to feed my children with a low paycheck? We are using our taxes to pay for this people and they are here to stay. Since as you mention they don't have the Money to become a U.s Citizen are they supposed to stay illegal forever and avoid paying their share of taxes for systems ( Healthcare, Education, communities and what is open to the public ) that they and their families benefits from?


Rebuttal to: True story
While it may be a true story, Con has only used anectodal fallacy evidence when there are studies and statistics that directly disproved the anecdotal evidence. Stats vs. Stories

Rebuttal to: Burden on Healthcare systems
However, these illegal immigrants are people too. They deserve to have healthcare, and in the ER, services ARE rendered before insurance is questioned. (Statista, Common Knowledge)

Rebuttal to: taxes
Again, is it better to have Americans pay 1,000 every year, or the government and the economy pay 1,777 trillion dollars?

Rebuttal to: feed children
Appeal to emotion fallacy

In defense of: they have no money
The purpose of a sanctuary city is to provide a place for the illegal immigrants to get the money they need to become a citizen. They are like waiting rooms.

As of now:
All of the opposing arguments are rebutted
Con did not attempt to refute my counter-rebut on crime
Con has still not rebutted my consitutional point
Con has not rebutted my source tally

The topic clearly stated "Do sanctuary cities have a right to limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities?"
None of Con's points adress the topics. Con's points focus around should Sanctuary Cities exist, which is not the topic

My crime point connects to the topic because if Sanctuary Cities have lower crie, they have a right to limit their cooperation to keep it that way

My economics point connects to the topic because cities have the right to try and maintain the economic well-being of the people living inside.

My saves lives point connects to the topic for the same reason above

Lastly, my constitution point connects because Sanctuary Cities have a constitutional right to refuse cooperation, and that was verified by the supreme court as I stated.

My points are the only points applicable to the topic in this debate
Even if Con's points were applicable, I have refuted them
I have counter-rebutted everything my opponent has tried to say
I have more sources.
Con has commited many anecdotal and appeal to emotion fallacies

Therefore voters, please vote for me

Thank you Con, and may the best debater win!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by nikiviki06 2 years ago
I believe that immigrants should come in the legal way, being a naturalized citizen myself. Illegal immigrants should be deported, however, if they are fleeing war or persecution they should be given refugee status and different laws to apply to them.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.