The Instigator
Jsgraz
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
Anonymous
Tied
0 Points

Open Borders

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  
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: 9/17/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,083 times Debate No: 118249
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Jsgraz

Con

Good luck, My friend! I wish there were more people like us who debate in search of the truth because it is that that truly makes the world a better place. Happy debating!

Claims:
I favor an enforced U. S. Immigration system where there is legal immigration quotas based on the status quo. For instance, Now there are more jobs than people who can fill them, So there should be more immigration. Good immigrants and well enforced immigration are great for the United States; however, It is indicative of a certain degree of ignorance to suggest that all forms of immigration and immigrants are created equal, As as open borders pose threats to the economy, Culture, And national security of the United States. I will extrapolate using data from Illegal Immigrants, As this is by far the best means of comparison because with open borders, Immigrants would not be vetted just like Illegals because it is just not possible.

Economy:
It is estimated that there is about 8 million illegal immigrants in the workforce, Only 3. 4 million of which payed their taxes, [Source 1] paying around 12 billion dollars. Despite this, These illegals take 18. 5 billion dollars in Medicaid alone [Source 2], And California has expanded virtually every single form of entitlement program to everyone regardless of immigrant status. Based on data from the current system, It is reasonable to assume that extrapolation of this will help us understand the Economic effects this will have.

Since the government cannot regulate everyone who comes into this country, People can get away with crossing our borders, Getting jobs, Not paying taxes, And mooching off of citizens' benefits, It can be reasonably inferred that people can and will capitalize off of this if there were open borders.

National Security:
There are competing notions on how law abiding illegal immigrants are, So I will decide not to assert that they inherently more criminal, Although I could. Let us instead focus our attention on how this will affect international immigration and crime. There were nearly 2000 human trafficking arrests in 2016 by ICE, Identifying over 400 victims, And some portion of human trafficking is naturally a by product of sex trafficking [Source 3]. In addition to this, Criminals sometimes flee to countries such as Mexico; however, Because of our closed borders, This is increasingly hard to do due to license plate scanners and whatnot.

A result of open borders would be that there would be no ICE or federal regulation of the border, Making it infinitely easier for criminals to go back and forth across the border, And, Not to mention, Over time there could very well be thousands of victims of human trafficking that would never be freed. This would, In turn, Foster these crimes, Make them more expansive, And most likely contribute to a higher crime rate in both countries.

Culture:
America is a great place, And this is largely due to the western values it employs through the constitution and the bill of rights. We have a culture of tolerance, Freedom, And the American dream. It is not my intention to act as if other cultures are by nature bad or inferior; however, There is a unique dogma to the U. S. That makes it consistently one of the best countries. Mass illegal immigration today is already a problem in respect to culture. We are the largest English speaking country in the world today, And it is not even close [Source 7], But with mass illegal immigration primarily in California from Mexico, It is almost as if it is not America anymore because kids are being forced into classrooms where English does not need to be taught [Source 4], And some people can not even order fast food at Taco Bell because they do not speak Spanish [Source 5]. In addition to this, Other cultures such as like those of Islam have values that directly clash with those of America [Source 6]. Although many also don't, Many Muslims have positive attitudes toward things such as ISIS, Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, Suicide bombings, No separation of church and state, Honor killings, And very negative opinions of America.

Assertion:
Not all immigrants are bad, In fact most are not, Now, But if there were open borders, It is apparent that: the American economy would likely be taken advantage of and natives would pay the economic burden, There would be a decreased enforcement of crime that would inevitably lead to more fleeing of fugitives, International crime, And, In turn, More victims of human trafficking and other egregious, Inhumane acts; and, Finally the diminishing of American values that would lead to the collapse of America.

Source 1:
https://money. Cnn. Com. . .
Source 2:
https://www. Forbes. Com. . .
Source 3:
https://www. Ice. Gov. . .
Source 4:
https://hechingerreport. Org. . .
Source 5:
https://www. Dailywire. Com. . .
Source: 6
http://www. Pewresearch. Org. . .
Source: 7
https://www. K-international. Com. . .

Pro

My case for open borders is a moral argument from a libertarian perspective. Each paragraph is a reply to the claims that Con made.

Economy:
This particular argument is interesting because the problem isn't with immigrants themselves but with maintaining the welfare system.

It's true that it is not practical to have open borders accompanied by welfare for all for reasons you pointed out, Which is why socialists like Bernie Sanders advocate for closed borders. [1]

Seizing and redistributing wealth is immoral, Including when it is done to fund ICE and national borders. I want to do away with all socialist programs because they are an infringement of human rights.

National security:
The gun control argument is similar. If guns were legal, It would be easier for criminals to kill people.

The criminals who kill others with guns should be apprehended and similarly to the immigrants who participate in human trafficking, But we shouldn't punish people for actions they've never committed. Immigration control punishes the innocent by restricting their rights of freedom of association and freedom of contract.

The government has a way of convincing the people to support their tyrannical policies by using words like "safety" and "security. " People shouldn't trust the government to grow its power in the name of safety. Considering that governments used walls and border control against its people throughout history [2], It's not so unreasonable to suggest it could happen here at home.

Culture:
In American culture, There is a belief that all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights. These unalienable rights are life, Liberty, And the pursuit of happiness. The idea was that these rights were granted by God for all men regardless of their social class and nationality. The United States became a haven for all people to escape tyranny and to pursue a better life for themselves and their families. That was the American Dream. It is the antithesis of American values to restrict people to pursue the American dream solely on arbitrary terms like nationality. So for the United States to impose national borders, It won't preserve American culture or western values. It will actively change American culture by replacing the values of liberty with security and protectionism.

Culture and language are always changing regardless of immigration laws. For example, How we speak today is very different from how our founding fathers spoke, And how our founding fathers spoke is very different from the English writers of the 14th century. Today's values of gender equality is a stark contrast from the 1950s' values of stay-at-home wives and bread-winning husbands. So, While I can understand your point that immigration can change the culture in terms of demographic shifts, It doesn't take into consideration that culture is always changing.

When it comes to people who don't share your values or speak your language, Like Muslims or Spanish speakers, You have the freedom to not associate with them. Their freedom to speak their language does not interfere with your right to talk in yours.

1. Https://www. Newsweek. Com/
bernie-sanders-immigrants-silly-tribal-and-economically-illiterate-358369
2. Https://en. Wikipedia. Org/
wiki/Emigration#Emigration_restrictions
Debate Round No. 1
Jsgraz

Con

As someone who also has a fair bit of libertarian values, I do see where you are coming from and respect your arguments; however, I disagree with your lines of reasoning.

Also, I know your claims are correct, And I do not need the sources for confirmation, But I respectfully ask that we do not use sources like Wikipedia, As they can sometimes be untrue and unreliable.

To keep in line with the previously established format, My paragraphs will be in the order of Pro's assertions

Economy:
There is a great deal of truth to the claim that the welfare system may is responsible, But that does not mean we can dismiss this altogether. No matter how much we personally don't like welfare, It's not going away any time soon if ever. This is why money that goes towards welfare is called mandatory spending; it is literally political suicide to remove it. Because of this, We still do have to take this exploitation of hard working Americans' tax dollars in account, And in addition to this, You fail to take into account the unfair advantage they would have by just not paying their taxes in the first place.

Yes the confiscation of wealth to redistribute to programs and people may by immoral; however, This is a faulty analogy to border funds because it implies a blanket morality for every single program the government does. By your logic, Taxes for the military, Infrastructure, And the FBI are immoral. I do not believe this. Tax money used for border security and law enforcement are moral, Unless you want total anarchy where there are no taxes whatsoever.

National Security:
I understand your intent; however, Your argument of gun control is also a faulty analogy. There is one key difference between guns and land.

The second amendment to the constitution states that the people have the right to bear arms whereas the fifth amendment states no person's private property shall be taken for public use, Without just compensation [Source 1]

The Government cannot take guns away from you, But they can take your property through Eminent Domain by compensating you, And this has also been well established through key supreme court cases such as Gwathmey v. United States where the U. S. Seized land in order to build subways, Courthouses, And expand NASA [Source 2]. Therefore, Not only is this legal, It is a well established practice.

You also imply that immigration control punishes the innocent, But, From what I can see, Immigration control enforces the law, Not breaks it by restricting freedom. The fact of the matter is people have the right to immigrate legally, And that is a great thing; the fact of the matter is Americans can cross the American border pretty easily, The fact of the matter is that although people have intrinsic rights, Impeding on foreign property is not one of those.

I absolutely agree that the government does like to capitalize off of peoples' fears and yearnings to be safe in order to grow in power (which is why the Patriot act is, In my opinion, Egregious), But by immigration enforcement alone, Government cannot become tyrannical. Enforcing laws on non-citizens moving into this country is not government overreach. Enforcing how citizens move out of this country is, And I will stand alongside you to condemn this every step of the way; I just do not see harm in enforcing laws designed to protect America and Americans alike while respecting individual freedom.

Culture:
I agree with 70% of what you said, And that's why there are laws that protect and take in people of other nationalities. People escaping tyranny seek asylum in the U. S. Quite frequently. Just because I do not want open borders does not mean that I would like to shut off the rest of the world because I think America is nationally superior. Border security in regards to people seeking protection from tyranny means that I believe these cases should be assessed on a case by case basis rather than taking everyone in and having people exploit this law, Which I must say has great moral intent. As for your assertion that American culture would change in the respect that values such as liberty would be replaced with restriction as a result of closed borders, Once again, There is a great difference between enforcing existing law and establishing new laws that take away freedom. By enforcing laws, We respect American Culture by endorsing precedent and the rule of law; we do not tear it down and replace it with morally unacceptable values of tyranny.

Culture does change over time. This is indisputable, But there is a huge difference between gradual change and native Californians being turned away by Taco Bell because the employees do not speak English [Source 3], Californians being turned away at job interviews because they can not speak Spanish [Source 4], And Californian children struggling and failing in school because the class is mostly being taught Spanish [Source 5]. Yes there is freedom by association, And it is perfectly fine to have different values and different languages than other people, But the moment that I as a United States citizen can't get services, Can't get a job, And can't get a lesson taught in the language of my our country is when I have an issue.

We actually share a lot of common ground in the respect that we both place very high value in civil liberties, But just because we enforce the existing law in order to make the lives of Americans better, Does not mean we strip citizens of those liberties we both hold dear. It is an absolute pleasure to debate you, I just respectfully disagree on your lines of reasoning.

Source 1:https://www. Law. Cornell. Edu/constitution/fifth_amendment
Source 2:https://www. Justice. Gov/enrd/history-federal-use-eminent-domain
Source 3:https://wapo. St/2QvDfn9? Tid=ss_tw&utm_term=. Afe55a168a28
Source 4:http://forums. Sandiegouniontribune. Com/showthread. Php? T=85365
Source 5:https://hechingerreport. Org/bilingual-battle-brewing-californiaagain/

Pro

Econ:
Should I support the drug war until Medicare is abolished? I say no. I have to adhere to my principles even when it becomes costly to do so.

The tax itself is exploitation. The American people are being taken advantaged by the government. The immigrants aren't the ones who will imprison you if you don't pay their taxes.

Yes, I want total anarchy where there are no taxes. It doesn't matter if it's for military or welfare; FBI or public education; law enforcement or healthcare; taking money that you don't own is immoral, Where you funnel that stolen money is beside the point.

National Security:

There's no compensation when the government restricts who I'm allowed onto my property or who I let work for my company, So eminent domain doesn't apply to immigration unless it's seizing land for borders. Eminent domain is immoral because it seizes property from innocent people without their consent. I don't see much difference between eminent domain and socialism.

Many times throughout your response you make a logical fallacy called Appeal to the Law. [1] I don't care whether something is legal. Legality does not equal morality.

"Impeding on foreign property" the state does not have property rights because it stole its property.

"by immigration enforcement alone, Government cannot become tyrannical"
Yup, There's no possible way that checkpoints, Mandatory identification, Unclimbable walls, And police on borders and airports can ever possibly be used against its people. That's about as naive as liberals saying that nothing bad can happen when only the government has guns.

"Enforcing laws on non-citizens moving into this country is not government overreach"
If I invite my girlfriend from Mexico over to my house for dinner, What gives anyone the right to stop us? Shouldn"t free people be able to associate or not associate with whoever they wish so long as those interactions are voluntary, Consensual, And do not harm a third party?

Culture:
"By enforcing laws, We respect American Culture by endorsing precedent and the rule of law; we do not tear it down and replace it with morally unacceptable values of tyranny. "

Blindly enforcing laws is what leads to tyranny. The value of "endorsing precedent and the rule of law" is the value of arresting Rosa Parks for refusing to sit in the colored section because it broke the law. That value of "endorsing precedent and the rule of law" would be on the side of the British during the American Revolution.

"But the moment that I as a United States citizen can't get services, Can't get a job, And can't get a lesson taught in the language of my our country is when I have an issue. "
Learn Spanish. Wow, That was easy.

The idea that there are no English jobs, Education, Or fast food restaurants in America is just a fantasy, But even if that was the case, What rights does it restrict? How are your rights to life, Liberty, And property violated by Spanish speakers? If no one's rights are violated, It is not a crime.

1. Examples: "The Government cannot take guns away from you, But they can take your property through Eminent Domain [because it's legal]. " Guns are illegal in the majority of first world countries, And I'm sure you don't think that's right. Just because it's legal for the government to take your property doesn't mean it's moral.

"Immigration control enforces the law, Not breaks it by restricting freedom" Just because something is the law doesn't mean that it doesn't tread on individual liberty.

https://www. Logicallyfallacious. Com /tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/73/Appeal-to-the-Law
Debate Round No. 2
Jsgraz

Con

I think your anarchist beliefs are noble, And I agree that we generally should have less government, But let's be honest for a moment. We will probably never have an anarchy, And even if we did, It would not be any time remotely soon. We are operating on a premise where we have taxes and government services, Regardless of how immoral you think they are. That said, 'immoral' services such as the FBI exist and they do very good work and immoral services like medicare exist. Our job is to make the best of our world and just be real. We live in a time where we have an expanded government, So we should evaluate each program on its separate merits rather than dismissing everything they do as inherently evil, Even though that may be true. Just because something is immoral does not make it bad in general or in use. People often argue that eating meat is immoral because we are killing animals and devouring their innards. While this may be true, Meat is packed full of protein, Important amino acids, Tastes pretty good (damn it now I'm hungry), And it is definitely a net good. I think you would agree. I'm not here to argue how moral the government is in function. I'm here to talk about how closed borders are good for the American people because, Frankly, Immorality does NOT equal bad.

Economics:
We have both established that open borders allow for people to come over free will and take advantage of American citizens by not paying any taxes whatsoever and at the same time take in entitlements such as medicare, Medicaid, And social security even though they don't contribute any money. These programs may be immoral, But they are not just going to disappear once we open the borders.

National Security:
I was talking about getting the land for borders.

Morality of Eminent Domain does not pertain to the conversation of open borders. It has been around for about 250 years, And I don't think it is going away any time soon. (It's not socialism because you still own the same amount/value of property in theory)

The logical fallacy "Appeal to Law" as described by your source:

"X is illegal. Therefore, It is immoral"
"Y is legal. Therefore, It is moral"

I never claimed that closed borders were moral or not, And even if I would have claimed that they were moral, I did not say that legality somehow equaled morality.

In response to your comment on my "naivety", I stand by my comment fully. The solution may not be a border wall. There is merit in the argument against that, But I'm not here to argue about that. I was also talking about IMMIGRATION, The movement of foreigns into another country, Not EMIGRATION, The movement of natives outside of the country, So, No, IMMIGRATION enforcement alone cannot lead to a tyrannical government. They could potentially use materials from immigration enforcement to enforce emigration. That is a good argument against the border wall, But not with the officers because if the government truly does become tyrannical, There will be people waiting in lines for miles to pledge allegiance to the government so they can reap the benefits of power at the expense of people, And people could easily flee by water, But let's put this all aside. The argument is that closed borders with immigration enforcement are better than open borders. I do not have to argue how to do it, Just that it is possible and better.

If your girlfriend trespasses on private property on the way, People have plenty claim to stop her. The border is not public property; it is privately owned government property, And if it weren't, Eminent Domain could be used to make sure it is, Otherwise you would have a compelling argument. In addition to this, People can acquire visas would allow for this, So just because we would not have open borders does not mean we would shut off all travel into the U. S. From the rest of the world.

The fact of the matter as established before is that open borders would put people in danger by letting crime grow and become international. I wonder how many more 9/11s would happen if we did not screen for terrorists or regulate who crosses the borders. . .

Culture:
Blindly enforcing the law does lead to tyranny, But I'm not blindly enforcing the law considering I'm literally debating you on the merits of it. I assure you I've thought about this topic a couple times.

When referring to "endorsing the rule of law and precedent", I meant the BORDER laws because I do believe those respect and preserve American Values. Obviously it is foolish for people to blindly endorse all laws because that gives rise to tyranny, But not all laws are made equally. I'm simply arguing that border laws are good.

Easy for you to say. Tell that to the kid who can't succeed in English because his class is taught in Spanish. Americans should not have to learn another language to live in their community.

You can search it up or check my sources if you would like, And I never said in all of America; I just gave the evidence. My problem is not with Spanish speakers, It is with the illegal immigrants who think they have the right to illegally come to the U. S. (while legal immigrants responsibly wait in line) who dominate communities to the point where it's not even America anymore. Land doesn't make America what it is. There is no magic line on the border between Mexico and the U. S. That just makes everything better. People do not want to live here just because of our economy, They do because our culture is about tolerance, Respect, Free, And so many more great things that other countries do not have to offer. The fact of the matter is that there are so many illegal Mexicans coming into California that Americans may as well, Culturally, Be living in Mexico.

You're right, It doesn't violate a right. Neither does having sex at the nearest playground technically, But I'm sure we can agree that should be a crime. Instead it allows for people to capitalize off of citizens tax money. Instead it allows crime and terrorism to grow and run more rampant than it already is. Instead it promotes mass immigration that literally transforms America to the point that Americans can't live their life normally. It does not harm the individual directly, It does so by hurting the American people as a whole.

It was a pleasure to debate you.

*VOTE CON*

Pro

thanks for the debate
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Jsgraz
Indeed I do
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Do you want me to debate?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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