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


Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 1/22/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 454 times Debate No: 119979
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




Our immigration laws have not been effectively enforced for decades. This creates a moral conundrum. These people have established societal connections that often suggest a value to themselves and to the communities they inhabit. Should enforcement of a immigration law be weighed against a perceived or actual good that the violator exhibits? One may argue that all laws must be rigorously enforced and that no priority to enforcement is necessary. Does the enforcement of immigration law, However, Merit priority enforcement? Macroeconomic studies consistently state that illegal immigration is a net benefit to society over time. Questions have been raised about the parameters used in these models but the current consensus among economists is that, Over time, Incumbent low skilled workers will see a small decrease in their incomes while all other wage brackets have improved incomes. The economic studies suggest that lower skilled legal workers will migrate to supervisor or higher-skilled work leaving more of the low skilled work to the immigrants and, Thereby, Improving economic activity. This conclusion supposes that ambition and necessity will drive these low skilled workers to more lucrative employment. Not all legal workers are capable or desirous of this anticipated job migration. Legal workers should not compete for employment with an undocumented worker and it is elitist and wrong to create an environment that pressures these workers to leave occupations of their choice in support of a macroeconomic outcome. A common argument supporting illegal immigration is that legal workers are unwilling to do the difficult work that is disproportionately done by undocumented workers. This argument is inherently flawed since it fails to accept that free markets will adjust to provide compensation equal to the perceived hardship of an occupation. A corollary argument contends that prices for legal labor will drive prices to unbearable levels for consumers. This argument not only ignores the true taxpayer costs for public support of the working poor and their families, But exaggerates the consequence to consumers for using legal labor. Take the often cited example of farm labor. Labor costs comprise less than 10 percent of the price consumers pay for fresh produce. Thus, If farm wages were doubled, And the costs were passed on to consumers, The net cost to the consumer would increase by less than 10 percent. At these higher wages, Many unemployed in the legal workforce would perform this farm labor, Which would not only decrease the amount paid in public benefits to the unemployed, But would eliminate the costs to society for medical care, Schooling, And other public support programs paid to the families of the undocumented worker. Should the moral or "values" consideration hold sway in consideration of enforcement prioritization? That is a complex question, Which in my view, Is best answered by the voting public and the government they choose. I say no. Do you think it's fair to all legal immigrants to just let some people come into America just because they come from a "disadvantaged background"? I know Asian Americans who have come here through hard work and all. One I know had to study hard for months on end to attend a good college and then be able to apply for a student visa in America. Then he had to keep applying for a work visa, Often a difficult task, To be able to say in the United States. It was years later that he finally got a green card, And years after that when he finally became a citizen. Do you think it's fair for an illegal immigrant to just come in, Skip all the systems, And all? Of course not! If you had worked hard for decades to be able to stay in America, And then you saw someone else just skip the entire system while playing on others' sympathies, What would you feel like? Of the person I was talking about, The country he came from (China) at the time was terrible, With no toilets or hot water indoors until his late teens. That would be what we would call a "disadvantaged background". So if some with disadvantaged backgrounds have to work hard to come and stay, Why can't all others? Sure, Mexico and Latin America and so on may not have the best education, But we could send people to change! We don't just have to let them in to our own country! America is the target of many immigrants. We should not make it so that anyone who wants to come will come. We should deport all illegal immigrants. I'm not being racist, Since I am born of immigrant parents (legal, Obviously). Obviously we should let immigrants in to the U. S. , But each and every one of them should be required to follow the rules just like everyone else


I belive that you are a big fat meanie and my mommy and daddy said that libtard is a nono word you r a big nono we should welcome everyobe cause that is nice and you are not a nice man
Debate Round No. 1


So dear friend. Whats your views on this then?


birdsaregovernmentdrones forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


LibtardCrusher forfeited this round.


birdsaregovernmentdrones forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by LOL98700z 3 years ago
I will have to agree with Michael here. I will post a debate on this and I hope you will accept. @libtardCrusher
Posted by K_Michael_Tolman 3 years ago
"Our immigration laws have not been effectively enforced for decades. "
This doesn't seem to be a problem to me. The USA is one of the most financially, Militarily, And scientifically superior countries in the world. If illegal immigration was a problem, We would be a floundering nation. Instead we prosper. You addressed this yourself, But still seem to hold the view that illegal immigrants can't be allowed.
But this is just a perception of society, One placed in a different time. There is no substantial evidence in your claim that illegal immigrants hurt our economy. So why do we insist on it being illegal? It doesn't have to be. The whole perception of nations and boundaries and separation aren't necessarily correct, Either. Boundaries have blurred in the settlement of America, And now that it's settled, Why do we insist on all of these imaginary lines, Symbolising the tiniest of differences within our species as a whole.
Posted by PlayfairAxiom 3 years ago
I am willing to accept the challenge, If you would like to repost this argument.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
"We must deport all illegal immigrants" is a fairly impractical stance don't you think?

You're missing steps. First we have to secure our borders, And stop people from abusing and overstaying visas. Once illegals stop getting in, You can start kicking people out. But even then, It's way easier and probably more efficient to just give them documents after we secure immigration, And then kick any new illegals out.

The best point you have, Whether you see it or not, Is that if we help Mexico improve stability and their economy, Much fewer people will want to come over. In fact, The illegal immigrant problem has been decreasing as far as stats tell us for the past decade or so.

So your argument is a bit all over the place.

Perhaps a more clear debate would be:

"Should we deport all illegals in our country, Or give them documentation? "

You seem to accept that illegals are a boon to the economy, And you may even know that they commit crime less than the native population outside of a few specific groups. Your only argument here seems to be whether or not the illegals that are here should be allowed to remain, So perhaps you should narrow the focus of your debate.
Posted by F100 3 years ago
I will accept the debate, But you must extend time allowed for making an argument to at least 1 day.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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