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

Should a green card still be required in the US?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,979 times Debate No: 49830
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




I believe that a green card should still be required and more strictly enforced to work and live in the United States.
Whoever accepts will be on the con side agreeing that a green cards should not be required.

1) First round will be acceptance
2) Second round will be first statement
3) Third round will be rebuttal
4) Fourth and final round will be finishing statement


I believe that the freedom of movement is more important than government controlling us through cards, licenses, paperwork and money. I'll be arguing the "Con" side to your question "Should a green card still be required in the US?"
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my argument and I would state my argument and that it is not a racial thing towards and race/ethnic group.
I would like to state the definition of a "green card"


green card

"" n official permit allowing the holder permanent residence and employment, issued to foreign nationals in the US insurance document covering motorists against accidents abroad welfare handicap register See also registered disabled (in Britain) an identification card issued by the Manpower Services Commission to a disabled person, to show registration for employment purposes and eligibility for special services card?s=t

Many people say that immigrants are not a issue in the United states. You can also say that the US is a country built on immigrants, yet there are an estimated 10 million unregistered immigrants in the US, though it is possible that there are way more. Social security registration has sky rocketed in the past ten years because of overpopulation and less jobs available. As the definition explains a green card is a work visa, which means that if you want to work and make a living in the US while living there you need one. It makes extraordinary sense because if they are not documented with a green card they are not in the system, and if they are not in the system they cannot be taxed fairly. It might sound like "wow they only make people get green cards so the government can make them pay taxes, but if people do not have a green card they can be making a certain amount of money and decide to apply for social security even if they don't qualify. That means that the government is paying them there employer is paying them and they are tax free while US citizens have to pay taxes and cannot get what they do not qualify for. So illegal immigrants are abusing the system. This isn't a freedom issue, it is a straight government issue. This evidence shows why people are deported back to their country of origin. The main reasons are fraud, not paying taxes, and of course, not able to show a green card. I know that many people do it to provide for their family, but there are better and legal ways to do it. It can be expensive but getting a job, any job in their country and saving up can make a bid difference because they will be able to get citizenship and get a better paying job and do better for themselves and/or their families. You say that it is a freedom of travelling, but I say that we should keep green cards because it helps more than people notice such as identifying citizens and when they get one they are also helping the country that they become a citizen of. Like I said in the beginning of my statement this is not about race, it is about strengthening our country, and not crippling it. I am looking forward to reading your statement.



Thank you for your opening statement. I accept your definitions.

For the sake of keeping my argument clear, concise, and easy for readers to follow I am going to post it for you in three points. In these three points you'll be able to read, do your own research, and then start to create your own better informed opinions. Immigration is the lifeblood of our nation right back to the earliest settlers and even fast forwarding to our future, it is through immigration that we've found innovation. With this consistent growth for our country the green card system has actually become inefficient and we are now living in a time where it is preventing skilled immigrants from coming into our country while watering it down to a matter of luck of the draw. Finally the right to freedom of movement is a basic human right and to deny that freedom to people is to alienate the moral tenants the free world is built upon.

Immigration is a constant stream of new ideas, new ways of life, and new talent into our country. We live in a time where immigrants are the ones starting businesses, creating jobs, and innovating our futures. Google, EBay, Intel, all have immigrant founders. According to Forbes 40% of our Fortune 500, the top businesses in the country, were founded by immigrants or their children. 33% of engineers, 27% of mathematicians, statisticians, and computer scientist, and 24% of physical scientists are all immigrants. As we start looking objectively at what immigration is doing for our country we also have to start looking objectively at the programs that bring them here; at our green card system.

Our current green card system is actually an archaic and inefficient lottery. We even have a category of green card where the government randomly awards green cards. Our system throws out green cards to random applicants while restricting fresh talent by placing quotas on who is allowed to enter. The wait times for most documented workers to enter our country is over a decade with many more waiting 20-30 years. It's scary to me, only being 24 years old, that there are people, who have legitimate reasons to be in the US and are applying through the legal routes, who have waited in line for more than my entire lifespan to come to the US. This isn't a night club, this isn't the Hunger Games, and we can't keep using a system that doesn't serve the interests of our nation. We can't keep using a system that does not work and restricts the freedom of movement.

Our Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." I'd like you to consider what these unalienable Rights are and then I'd like to tell you about one that our country agreed to. About one unalienable Right that the United Nations has held to be true, and that has actually carried significant influence in deciding immigration laws world wide. This is the freedom of movement. Our country has agreed to a declaration of human rights that states that as people we have the most basic right to live freely wherever we choose to live and that people have the BASIC HUMAN RIGHT to move and live freely here. If we cast aside this principle by upholding our current green card system then we're damaging the foundation our forefathers built our nation upon, and disrespecting the relationships we've built with every country in the United Nations.

Debate Round No. 2


Your argument was very enlightening and one of the best I've seen in my previous debates; Although you keep stating freedom and human rights these are some, "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." and, "Our country has agreed to a declaration of human rights that states that as people we have the most basic right to live freely wherever we choose to live and that people have the BASIC HUMAN RIGHT to move and live freely here." which I have to agree with is true, but the point of a green card isn't to restrict this freedom, it is made so that the United States can continue to build, including all races, religions, ethnics. All together a country of equals, just with different history. The main point is that people coming into the country illegally is disabling our country financially. Like I said before, Its not the fact that we don't want to restrict others to where they cannot come to our country freely, its that more money is being distributed to the people, but not back to the government. Many people may think that the government might want to just take everyone's money, they can think that but I just hope that they also take into consideration that our government helps out many others in other countries, If they bring in a act that is intended to restrict emigrating rights, why would they help other countries when they passed an act to avoid that? It is because they didn't. As you and me both know our country was founded on immigrants. During the early 20th century many people came to this country they went through the legal process and looked how far that got us it made us even stronger. So why should we take something away that has never had a huge negative impact? Though if we took away green cards people could use the system like many already are , and it could lead to a huge negative impact. There are reasons why people do, but there is always a better way that works out for everyone as a whole.


Your argument relies on two key factors. The first, which is the entire basis of our debate, is that the green card system is beneficial to our country. The second, which relies on your first point to hold value, is that without the green card system we would have undocumented workers not paying their taxes "fairly". Both of these points are false and in the rest of this round I am going to break down for you why.

Whilst I have taken a more liberal view on immigration rights with my assertion of freedom of movement I also have to agree that we do need some method of controlling the influx of people into our country. We don't want criminals, murderers, or anyone who is going to take advantage of the system we have created for the betterment of all. What you have completely failed to do in your statements was explain how the green card system is an effective system of doing this, or even an acceptable system.

In fact you stated there are roughly 10 million undocumented workers in our country right now. If our green card system is the method we're using to document workers, that actually sounds like a huge failure in our current system. My argument has never been that we must trash immigration laws, or that border control is inherently wrong, it has been that the green card system is not worth keeping and in your own arguments you have demonstrated why.

Now when we discuss taxation you never listed numbers, statistics, or gave a clear argument as to how immigrants are dodging taxes. The most obvious explanation for this is because you haven't researched the topic thoroughly and because the damage you think they are doing versus the reality of what is happening are not in alignment.

Allow me to explain.

Undocumented workers do pay taxes. They are also unable to take advantage of many programs the way documented citizens are. Did you know that the Social Security Administration keeps track of wages earned by workers that do not match up to real names and numbers in their system, and that many undocumented workers also possess tax identification numbers?

I'm choosing the year 2007 because it lines up with the one number you did quote of 10 million undocumented workers. In 2007 these 10 million undocumented workers reported earning wages totaling 90.4 billion. What's wonderful about that is the fact that they reported earning those wages. This means that 11.2 billion went to the Social Security Fund (a fund that an undocumented worker will never be able to collect from) and another 2.6 billion went to Medicare.

They also pay common taxes everyone has to pay when they live locally. When they go to the store, they pay a sales tax. When they pay their rent, assuming they are renting as home ownership is a challenge without proper documentation, the person they are paying their rent too is also paying taxes out of that money for the building and the land. What about cigarette, alcohol or food taxes? The very act of existing in our country requires them to pay taxes.

Now I'm aware you didn't say they don't pay taxes. You claimed they do not pay "fairly" but your wording, like your argument, is weak when you consider that many Americans don't pay fairly. In 2008 Wesley Snipes was sent to prison for 3 years for failing to file his taxes for three years. Millions of citizens fail to file every year. Even bigger is the legal tax avoidance that many corporations take advantage of. David Novak, the CEO of Yum! Brands, which includes Taco Bell and KFC, got a $48.8m performance-based bonus, which cut $17.1m from the company's tax bill. I'd encourage you to explore your own definition of "fair" since the one who you hold citizens to is not the same as the one you hold undocumented workers to.

In the end I'm not concerned with debating taxes. This was never a matter of who does or does not pay taxes. It's a matter of "Should a green card still be required in the US?" and since your only argument for keeping green cards also explains one of it's greatest inadequacies I would think it's obvious the answer based off your arguments would be "No".

Debate Round No. 3


I would like to start off with something that you said that pretty much fueled why people should go through a process to get into the country. If you say that millions of US citizens are not paying taxes, why should we let more people come into our country when we are already having issues on a subject that this falls into. you also said that My statement of over 10 million people in the US are illegally here, just to prove I am correct and if anything I understated the issue look at these pages before you continue to read.

If you read over at least one you will find out that my statement was all but false.

You also said that billions of dollars were reported and over 11 billion was given to a social security fund and 2.6 billion was given to Medicare and you say that they are paying for things that they are unable to get you might not believe me but if you also look at this link it shows that illegal immigrants can get medicare and how much money would be saved if the country was more strict with qualifications to get Medicare.

If many of my sources, which are government sources, were saying that illegal immigration is having a negative affect how could one person say that it isn't having one, let alone saying that it is a positive. You stated that they do pay taxes such as cigarette, alcohol, and rent, but those taxes, especially rent because that mostly goes towards the person who is renting out the house and then some towards the government do not give the government a proper source of income they might be paying a couple of dollars at the grocery store, a little bit of their rent towards the government, But if they are not paying yearly taxes, which adds up to thousands of dollars each and every year, which has a greater impact on our government spending and receiving of money? So just think.

You claimed evidence from years ago even know this issue has been increasing over the past 6-7 years and you say that my information is not in alignment? All of my sources, not just my recent ones are up to date while you state what you collected from sources, not any sources, but from the dates you chose they are outdated sources. I am not trying to bag on you per say. I am just saying how and why my information lines up when yours is lined up but not updated.


Round 4 is for closing statements. My opponent chose to waste his with an additional rebuttal that still failed to address the key problem with his entire argument. I'm not going to proceed with my closing statement and summarize this entire debate for you.

In this debate my opponent's argument relies on us assuming one key point to be true. This idea is that the green card program is a good program. What we know to be true is that the green card system is inherently broken and this is evidenced by two key points 1. By my opponent's own admission we still have millions of undocumented workers entering our country and 2. Based on the information I provided, we have talent that is unable to enter due to our draconian lottery and quota system.

In my argument I pointed out three critical reasons for getting rid of the green card program. Those reasons are that the program doesn't actually stop or prevent illegal immigration, it does however prevent the good kind of immigration that brings innovation and economy into our country, and finally that it is not a morally sound program based on the freedom of movement outlined by our human rights agreement as a member of the United Nations. At no point did my opponent actually discredit any of these arguments.

Should a green card still be required in the US? No. It's time for a better program.

Now it's your turn as a voter to make up your mind not only about which side you agree with but which side presented the most clear and reasonable arguments. Thank you so much for your time and thought in discerning the information I have presented to you.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by xmagpiex 6 years ago
Ialwayslosedebates, I want to point out that the debate is over. You don't need to continue it through the comments. But since you did I want to say that I did not go back on anything. My objective was never to say that we don't need an immigration program. My objective was to explain why the green card system is flawed, and it is.

I believe my opening statement hinted that we needed a better program, and my rebuttal and closing statement followed through on that idea. I was very consistent in my arguments and reasoning.
Posted by IAlwaysLoseDebates 6 years ago
xmagpiex you said that there needs to be a BETTER program on your closing statement, yet you accepted this debate to say that there should be freedom to move wherever you want. You can say a "freedom" Program but how would that make it better? It would not solve a single thing except maybe a smaller budget, but if more people get the freedom to come into the United States, it will just add up and totally demolish that possible budget. I wanted to post this because you totally went back on your first statement by posting your closing statement.
Posted by Relativist 6 years ago
the usual www. would be good to make sources more accessible.
Posted by rolemodel-JFK 6 years ago
O am talking to BIN LADEN, I just had to smack myself for putting his name
Posted by rolemodel-JFK 6 years ago
OK why do you have that s.o.b. as your icon? Please get back to me ASAP
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by rross 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was very strong I thought. She pointed out flaws in the green card system, called for a better system and criticized Pro for failing to substantiate his assertions. Pro had the Bop, and although his arguments were interesting, he struggled to back then up properly.

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