query: Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?

positive: We should allow illegal immigrants to stay Illegal immigrants are blood sucking from America. They are on welfare, they steal jobs, and kill our white race.

positive: Allowing Illegal Immigrations To Still Get Benefits Before I begin, your argument was fine. And thank you for posting, I thought you disappeared, ha ha. [1] The counter-argument Con is making that the plan established is incoherent was expected, and is relatively rinsed and repeated by the Right-Wingers. Thus, a generous rebuttal will be supplied to refute the points made:1a) Illegal immigrants coming into the country do not have to remain illegal immigrants. They can always gain citizenship. Barack Obama has become, as previously stated, more of a Social Democratic president and many of his foreign policies let free-flowing immigration occur, which has increased the amount of illegal immigrants significantly. However, the federal benefits in question that would be hypothetically given to "illegals" are already being given to "legal" immigrants and citizens. Yes, adding a couple thousand or even million more people into the country with these benefits would logically make the government spend more to be able to supply the higher demand for them. But this is a strawmen argument that is found easily debunkable by most: The benefits being given to people more since Obama's election into office are not even scratching the surface of the debt bucket the U.S now owns. In fact it doesn't even hit the top six causes of the U.S's debt. Bush Tax Cuts in 2003 and 2001 were the main source at around that time of deficit, adding an approximation of $1.6 trillion to the already built-up debt. And the other five reasons the economy is so trashy and in the negatives are; health care, medicare, war, economic stimulus [Obama's fault], Great Recession. All of these problems are nowhere near giving people who cross the U.S border "illegally" benefits. And the debt ceiling was rising even without that. While yes, it would wildly increase the amount of debt raining in to terrify the administration, it's not the only thing that would, and it has a minimal effect. And the numbers Con has supplied to state so are wildly over the top. [http://theweek.com...] Yes, what Con is saying about it adding to the debt ceiling is logical, but it would have the least impact. Taxes would have to be raised to keep up with the debt that would become added to the already horrible deficit staining the success of the American economy, but it would not add anymore than the current wars being faught in Iraq and Afghanistan are already costing the U.S. Well after reading quite a few articles, it has been retrieved that these numbers were much higher than most expected. Well, the government does have to sell war bonds, raise taxes and still pay for supplies such as food, armaments, water, rations, armour and vehicles that would be given to soldiers fighting on the front, so it is only logical to assume that the amount of money these wars since 9/11 have costed the U.S a lot of money. https://www.nationalpriorities.org... http://costsofwar.org... http://www.globalresearch.ca... 1b) It was described that the State is responsible for rounding up and deporting illegal immigrants back to their home land. Well, this logical does seem sensible. People coming across the borders to come into a country in order to save their lives from the tyrant rule and horrible, unbearable crime rates down south? Undermining the legality of those waiting to get their paperwork done? Hmm..Seems like a problem. Well that is, until it is examined closer. To go back to a point previously used, every American in the U.S with the exception of an extremely small minority (actually just 2%), is an illegal immigrant in one respect or another. European colonists (as mentioned in the first round) did come to the land and pillage it, killing people, raping them and exploiting natural resources and the weak technologies the Natives had to try and fend off the newly self-proclaimed enemy with. So if the U.S really wanted to eliminate the problem of illegal immigration, everyone would be kicked out and the Natives would be left to remake their civilization but now with these better technologies. Yes, this argument is almost viewed as irrelevant now, but all sides of the story must be considered when the word 'immigration' comes up. And again, a driving motive for many illegal immigrants to come to the U.S is to find conditions of better living. At one point, immigration should, yes, be trafficked better so over-population does not become an issue, but it's not the U.S needs to be surrounded by electric fences. And the U.S is nowhere near its maximum population. And on top of that, if illegals going to the U.S eventually found there was no space, there would be one more country they could turn to. A country that gets swept under the rug and labeled irrelevant to most new world events...Canada. Canada has a massive amount of land and an extremely limited national population. So, for what it's worth, immigrants coming to the country could literally be passing through to go to Canada because there is space. Work is more affordable there and in most provinces the weather is reasonable. In fact, just going to Nova Scotia, one could easily find available commercial jobs. The U.S is not the only country to be considered with Western immigrants travelling upwards, be it legal or illegal means of travel. [2] The point that providing illegal immigrants benefits would attract more in more significant numbers is actually quite laughable. Because the exact same thing could be said with normal citizens. Implemented Social systems like Welfare and S.S.I could easily draw more citizens to the programs. So the argument is applicable to even legal citizens, not just illegal immigrants. 2a) Illegal immigrants could become legal if they are given the time. Not everyone can afford to waste time waiting in line for a couple of papers to be stamped and approved of by the federal government and U.S border patrol, so sometimes urgency kicks in, and the people will do whatever they have to do to get across the border. Some empathy is needed here. Illegal immigrants should be given a considerable amount of time to get on their feet, then should be provided paperwork, fill it out, and be able to attain citizenship. And another thing, it was never stated that all illegal immigrants should be given these benefits. It would have to be monitored in the same respect that giving these social benefits to legal citizens works. It would just be different in the aspect of legality, because the citizens would not have citizenship for a certain period of time, because again, it is expensive to move between countries, and desperate times call for desperate measures. It would only be ethical to allow illegal immigrants some space at the table. And economically speaking, it's not the worst thing the U.S has gone through to just simply give some of them benefits, granted they are willing to go through the process. 2b) Illegal immigrants can work just as legals can and that was something considered in round one, but it was not necessarily touched upon to a very hard extent. All that was said was that the unemployment rate dropped below 6% for the first time since recession, and that should be able to speak for itself, because it happened upon immigration being made more a free-flowing thing by President Obama, but there's more to the work ethic these illegals provide that is beneficial to the U.S: Military service. Not only are the immigrants in so much of a hurry that they need to pass through the border unseen and without paperwork, but they are literally willing to die for the U.S, a country that would once turn them away. So going back to the point Con made about it being the federal obligation of the U.S government to deport these immigrants, that is false. Obama and the administration of the Pentagon are both allowing illegal immigrants to enlist in the military. Wars often raise taxes but also make countries richer because of that. Not to say that the U.S should constantly go to war until it's out of debt, but this certainly does help the economy push towards the positives. And the military soldiers would also be leaving the country overseas to fight in the Middle East, and it would not be until they had made it out alive that they would receive benefits such as checking into VA hospitals and checks for their service to the country (which those kinds of benefits have been cut anyways lately, which is unfortunate). http://www.politifact.com... https://news.vice.com... http://www.usatoday.com... [3] All immigrants to the U.S, even illegals, are more than capable of making a contribution to the success of the country. Contributions that legal citizens are no more capable of doing than their illegal counter-parts. Being completely honest, immigrants should not have to prove their worthiness to the 'holier-than-thou' U.S anyways, or any country for that matter. Humans should naturally have the right to free exploration, in which they may travel between countries without having to pay ridiculously expensive amounts of money, or proving their legality or anything of the sort, because it's marginalizing and demonizing. It's about as insulting as being referred to as a number tagged onto your chest in a prison.

positive: America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. Undocumented workers do not receive full Social Security benefits because they are not United States citizens " nor should they be until they seek citizenship legally. Illegal immigrants are legally obligated to pay taxes, and they owe the government for allowing them to live and work in this country. One must remember that, whatever their reasons, immigrants who have come to this country without legal documentation have broken the law. Just as criminals lose their rights when they break the law, so should illegal immigrants have to face the consequences of their actions. Granting illegal immigrants the same rights as citizens would encourage them continue to break the law instead of seeking the approved path to citizenship ("Is it...Illegal Immigrants?"). Obama's plan to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants involves awarding visas to immigrants who have waited patiently in their countries of origin and to those who broke the law to come here ("Is it...Illegal Immigrants?"). If we award illegal immigrants legal rights, then we are essentially condoning crime. Furthermore, it is inaccurate to assume that illegal immigrants are not benefiting from living in this country already - even without full Social Security benefits. For example, money sent home by illegal immigrants is one of Mexico"s largest sources of revenue after oil sales and exports ("Top Ten Pros and Cons"). This revenue drains money away from the millions of unemployed and poor Americans who need help, and proves once again that illegal immigrants should not automatically be granted legal rights and receive the same benefits as citizens. Works Cited "Is it a Bad Idea to Legalize the Illegal Immigrants?" Illegal Immigration Statistics. 2013. Web. 21 October 2013. http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org....... "Top Ten Pros and Cons." Procon.org. 2009. Web. 21 October 2013. http://immigration.procon.org.......

positive: Illegal aliens should not be given American citizenship at all Good luck. What is an illegal alien, or for the sake of political correctness, undocumented alien? An illegal alien is either an individual who has entered the United States illegally and can be deported if apprehended or an individual who entered legally but has fallen "out of status" and can be deported [1]. Generally, there's nothing much different between a legal and illegal immigrant so immigrants, both legal and illegal, will be mentioned in the points below since if illegal aliens are given citizenship, they will become naturalized legal immigrants. I am going to address Hillary Clinton's position on illegal immigration. She supports a pathway to citizenship for all illegal aliens who have not committed crimes and deport only the "individuals who pose a threat to public safety" [2]. She also defends President Obama's executive action which allowed almost half of illegal aliens living in the country a "temporary, quasi-legal status and work permits" [3]. Currently, many reports estimate that there are about 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States. This may not be entirely accurate as not all of them participate in surveys and the numbers could be much higher. Hillary Clinton will ensure that many illegal aliens will be given a pathway to citizenship as long as they are not convicted of violent crimes. I argue that giving them a pathway to citizenship or legal status diminishes the rule of immigration laws, raises the fiscal deficit on the long run, keeps the American-born citizens and minorities employment rates and wages lower. I will also add that it will obscenely benefit the Democratic Party because only the Democratic Party has supported this immigration reform. My first argument is that the rule of immigration laws are diminished if we give a pathway to citizenship or legal status for illegal aliens. The laws [4] are clear: "Any alien who at the time of entry or adjustment of status was within one or more of the classes of aliens inadmissible by the law existing at such time is deportable" and "Any alien who was admitted as a non immigrant and who has failed to maintain the non immigrant status in which the alien was admitted or to which it was changed under section 1258 of this title, or to comply with the conditions of any such status, is deportable. " All of the illegal aliens are liable to deportation as the laws specify, whether committed a violent crime or not. There is no any other crevices into this and the laws do not state that paying fines or any of that sort is the punishment. Indeed, unlawful presence of an illegal alien is not a crime but a civil offense which has deportation as its punishment [5]. Some states like Arizona, however, describes the presence of illegal aliens as a crime. It's either the rule of immigration law is eradicated or deportation as a punishment. The former yields anarchic results as well as encouragement of illegal immigration. Even if we change the laws, they will not apply to the illegal aliens as they are bound to the former laws like the ones posted above. My second argument is that there will be an immense fiscal deficit if illegal aliens are given citizenship or legal status. This makes sense as all four types of government benefits will be open to them: direct benefits, mean-tested welfare benefits, public education, population based services. The Heritage Foundation report [6] states that college-educated households tend to be net tax contributors, paying taxes that exceed the amount of benefits they receive. A well-educated household pays $54,089 in taxes and receive $24,839 in benefits, leaving a fiscal surplus of $29,250. It is the exact opposite for poorly-educated households and they are net tax consumers. The amount of benefits they receive exceed the amount of taxes they pay. It is reported that a poorly-educated household pays $11, 049 in taxes and receives $46,582 in benefits, generating a fiscal deficit of $35,113. This piece of information is crucial because half of illegal aliens have not completed high school and a quarter only completed high school. Not to mention the Social Security and pension plans that will be available to them. The Heritage Foundation also reports that granting them amnesty will raise the lifetime fiscal deficit to $6.3 trillion in fifty years ($126 billion annually). A piece of information that should not be ignored is that moderate to low-income earners can receive EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) and many illegal aliens are low-income earners, making them eligible if given pathway to citizenship or legal status. My third argument is that giving illegal aliens citizenship or legal status will keep the native-born and minority groups' employment rates and wages lower. Like what I wrote earlier, about 75-80% of illegal aliens have not received a college diploma and they either have high school diplomas or have not completed high school. This will make them more eligible for unskilled labour which do not require education. Businesses and companies are more likely to hire immigrants (both legal and illegal) because native-born less-skilled workers. which drags blue-collar jobs' wages down. Immigrants [7] depress the wages of blue-collar jobs between 1-3 percent but raise wages by 0.004% for less skilled native workers. Regarding the impact of giving legal status or citizenship to illegal aliens to the minorities, I will use a collection of reports [8] by the United States Commission on Civil Rights in which there are several findings:- 6 in 10 black males have a high school diploma or less - an individual who has a high school diploma or less earns less today than those of the same degree thirty-five years ago- illegal immigration increases the supply of low-skilled, low-wage labor available in the US labor market- illegal immigration tends to depress the wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens with black males forming a disproportionate number of themIt is also found by Professor Gordon Hanson's report that black high school dropouts' employment rate dropped massively from 72% in the 1960s to 42% in 2000s; white high school dropouts' employment rate also dropped significantly from 83% to 64%. He also questioned the notion that the lowering wages contribute to the black males quitting the job and turning to crime. His co-authored research suggested that in a 10% immigration-induced increase in labor markets is associated with a 4% decrease in black wages, 3.5% decrease in black employment rate and 0.8% increase in black incarceration rate. Final question is do immigrants (both legal and illegal) create jobs? The answer is yes, they do but most of the jobs they create are provided for other immigrants too. In other words, they take more jobs than they create. I will provide an example to show exactly what I mean. A fictional Chinese immigrant named Ms. Wong lives in a community where many first generation immigrants live in Los Angeles. Ms. Wong works as a hairdresser in a Chinese barber shop where a lot of her co-workers are also Chinese. After work, she goes to a Chinese grocery store and buys some noodles for dinner. On a weekend, she goes to a Chinese mall where she buys her clothes for a much cheaper price. All the places she goes to are owned by Chinese people that typically hires Chinese immigrants. Sure, she also helps the natives by subscribing on the Internet or visiting museums but she would need help from a Chinese speaker on translating the English words to her language. This will require one of the first to third generation immigrant on the job because from then on, fourth generation (or the native-born) is unlikely to grow up speaking the language. Now if we give citizenship to illegal aliens, it will obscenely benefit the Democratic Party. Why is this a bad thing? This is a bad thing because the party cannot even provide a reason why giving them citizenship will benefit Americans as well as deliberately ignoring the immigration laws in which all of the illegal aliens are bound. It is a perfect time to get rid of all illegal aliens and slow down the influx of legal immigrants for a balanced American society. SOURCES:[1] . https://www.irs.gov...[2] . http://uspolitics.about.com...[3] . http://immigration.about.com...[4] . https://www.law.cornell.edu...[5] . http://www.tolerance.org...[6] . http://www.heritage.org...[7] . https://www.washingtonpost.com...[8] . http://www.usccr.gov...

positive: NCFL/CatNats LD 2010 topic Thanks, Pro, for beginning this debate. Re: Contention 1 "[Illegal immigrants] live here, they pay higher taxes than most Americans, they fill up the jobs most Americans are too lazy to take. But yet we denie them citizenship. We denie them healthcare, insurance, voting rights, etc. Thats a violation of the foundations our country is founded on." -- Pro First, I would like for Pro to prove that illegal immigrants pay higher taxes than most Americans. Until this affirmation is cited and sourced, we have no reason to accept this statement. Further, the idea that immigrants take jobs that Americans are too "lazy" to do is based on Pro's opinion and again cannot be cited with factual evidence. Finally, the idea that illegal immigrants are denied health care is blatantly not true; illegal immigrants are indeed admitted and cared for in the hospital under a 1986 statute that cannot turn people away from the ER for treatment even if they cannot afford to pay, or are not citizens [1]. Re: Contention 2 Pro's second contention is acknowledging the U.S.'s involvement in the UN, and then noting some of the rules UN members must follow such as allowing one to leave their country and return, etc. However you'll notice that absolutely nowhere in those guidelines does it say that illegal immigrants from one country should be granted the same rights and privileges as citizens in another. Acknowledging that, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" does not translate to being considered equal in terms of legal rights and privileges in every single country. For instance, should I as an American citizen be able to vote for the British Prime Minister? Should German citizens overseas receive money sent to Americans in the form of a United States stimulus packages? The answer to all of these questions is obviously "no." ---- Con's Case ---- The resolution reads, "That the United States government has a moral obligation to afford the same constitutional rights to all people on American soil." First and foremost, this resolution is not specific toward illegal immigrants but rather pertains to EVERYONE on American soil. However, we already know that people are not all treated the same even if they are legal U.S. citizens. For instance, those under 18 cannot sign a legal contract; those under 21 are prohibited from purchasing alcohol; felons in many states cannot vote; gay couples do not receive marriage benefits; former criminals cannot legally purchase firearms; convicted criminals are restricted to jail premises; etc. Thus in order for the resolution to be affirmed, Pro has the burden of proving that ALL citizens should be treated the EXACT SAME under the eyes of the law regardless of their age, criminal record, etc. So far none of Pro's contentions have taken on this burden. Next I will address Pro's presented value of morality. He notes, "Most American documents have deep roots in Morality, and if not that, Justice, which is a branch of morality." On the contrary, many historical documents drafted by the U.S. government were NOT the pillars of morality Pro presents them as. For one thing, there was the 3/5 Compromise in which every 5 slaves counted as 3 people in terms of apportionment for the House of Representatives (found in the U.S. Constitution). Further, the Constitution also used to say that if slaves of one state escaped, they must not be freed by the laws of another state [2]. As you can see, the U.S. cannot rely on a "history of morality" but rather a history of greed, or as some put it, the virtue of selfishness. But let's move on. Pro continues, "The best standard to [achieve] this value will be non-discrimination. in other words, it doesn't matter what race, nationality, sex, or sexual tendency your are. Our government has a moral obligation to provide your constitutional rights." First, you'll notice that this description is not all-inclusive. While Pro notes you should not discriminate based on race or sex, he mentions nothing about age or criminal records - again, both of which restrict rights and privileges in this country. Further, you'll notice that Pro actually says that rights and privileges granted to citizens should be extended to everyone regardless of their nationality (country of origin). I negate this premise. In this country, citizens are forced to pay into social programs such as welfare, medicaid, social security, etc. via taxes. Non-citizens are NOT required to pay into these social programs. However, if non-citizens were allowed to receive the benefits of these programs, then essentially they would be "getting something for free" in other words stealing from American citizens. Robert Rector explains, "The average illegal immigrant family receives an average of $30,000 in governmental benefits, yet they pay only about $9,000 in taxes per year. That creates a $21,000 shortfall that the American taxpayer has to make up. That's like buying each of the illegal immigrant families a brand new Mustang convertible -- each and every year!" [3]. Pro has the burden of explaining how this type of blatant theft is moral using his own presented value of morality. On the contrary, I argue that since non-citizens are not obligated to pay taxes, then the government is not obligated to include them in extending U.S. benefits. Furthermore, I also do not believe that illegal immigrants should be able to vote in American elections. Once again, should I be able to vote in English elections simply because the U.S. and England are both a part of the UN? Pro, please show me where in the UN bylaws members are required to allow non-citizens to participate in the elections of any government for which they do not 'belong.' Additionally, Pro should provide evidence that by not allowing illegal immigrants to vote, we are somehow fueling hate crimes. Indeed hate crimes unfortunately exist; however, exist independent of voting rights. A recent FBI report on hate crimes indicates that black citizens and gay citizens were attacked more via hate-crime than non-citizens [4]. Therefore, we have no reason to accept Pro's claim in SPB from C1. In conclusion, I negate the idea that every person on American soil should be afforded the same Constitutional rights as the resolution implies. I am opposed to the idea of a 5 year old being able to sign a legally binding contract, for instance. I am also opposed to the idea of a non-citizen being able to take part in U.S. elections, or U.S. citizens being able to take part in the elections of any other country. Similarly, I do not believe that illegal immigrants who are not forced to pay American taxes should be able to receive benefits from American tax payers who ARE forced to pay taxes. I feel that this is stealing - in other words, non-moral. I also feel that using the standard of non-discrimination Pro mentioned is also faulty. Clearly we discriminate in this country; those convicted of a crime are restricted from buying guns, are forced to stay in jail, etc. Therefore we discriminate based on factors like conviction all the time. Operating under the basis that only citizens are subject to American rights, privileges and responsibilities is responsible discrimination that does not hinder morality; it enforces it. That's all for now, Pro. Back to ye :) [1] http://online.wsj.com... [2] http://americanhistory.about.com... [3] http://redblueamerica.com... [4] http://infidelsarecool.com...

positive: America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. Undocumented workers do not receive full Social Security benefits because they are not United States citizens " nor should they be until they seek citizenship legally. Illegal immigrants are legally obligated to pay taxes, and they owe the government for allowing them to live and work in this country. One must remember that, whatever their reasons, immigrants who have come to this country without legal documentation have broken the law. Just as criminals lose their rights when they break the law, so should illegal immigrants have to face the consequences of their actions. Granting illegal immigrants the same rights as citizens would encourage them continue to break the law instead of seeking the approved path to citizenship ("Is it...Illegal Immigrants?"). Obama's plan to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants involves awarding visas to immigrants who have waited patiently in their countries of origin and to those who broke the law to come here ("Is it...Illegal Immigrants?"). If we award illegal immigrants legal rights, then we are essentially condoning crime. Furthermore, it is inaccurate to assume that illegal immigrants are not benefiting from living in this country already - even without full Social Security benefits. For example, money sent home by illegal immigrants is one of Mexico"s largest sources of revenue after oil sales and exports ("Top Ten Pros and Cons"). This revenue drains money away from the millions of unemployed and poor Americans who need help, and proves once again that illegal immigrants should not automatically be granted legal rights and receive the same benefits as citizens. Works Cited "Is it a Bad Idea to Legalize the Illegal Immigrants?" Illegal Immigration Statistics. 2013. Web. 21 October 2013. http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org.... "Top Ten Pros and Cons." Procon.org. 2009. Web. 21 October 2013. http://immigration.procon.org....

positive: should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship i think that illegal immagrants should not be allowed citezship because they came to this country illegaly. they should have got a green card or a passport so they could come here legaly.

positive: Border Fence Thanks 32no. Here I go. I'm going to make an opening statement before I proceed. It is the U.S Federal Governments job to protect its citizens at all times, whether the threats are in our own country or from another country. This observation shows: The majority of our immigrants now sneak in through the "back door" that the federal government purposely leaves open. Thanks to the negligence of the federal government, far more people move into the United States illegally than come in through the legal immigration process. [1] So right now the U.S Federal Government is failing its job to protect, here's why: Point 1: Public Safety The U.S Federal Government has a job to fulfill which is (as I stated before) to protect its citizens, this obviously includes public protection. These statistics show: A substantial percentage of young illegal immigrants end up in gangs. U.S. authorities say that there are now over 1 million members of criminal gangs operating inside the United States. According to federal statistics, these 1 million gang members are responsible for up to 80% of the violent crimes committed in the U.S. each year. Latino gangs made up primarily of illegal aliens are responsible for much of this violence. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, some of the most notorious gangs in the country are made up almost entirely of illegal immigrants…. "Gang investigators in Virginia estimate that 90% of the members of MS-13, the most notorious immigrant gang, are illegal immigrants." [1] These statistics clearly show 1) How many gang members there are in the U.S 2) How much violence they are responsible for 3) A large percentage of these gangs are made up of illegal immigrants. If the U.S Federal Government doesn't build a Border Fence then it is not fulfilling its job of protecting its citizens from the public threat of illegal immigrant gangs. The Border Fence can prevent them from coming over or discourage a larger number of them coming over therefore reducing the amount of public danger from illegal immigrant gangs, and protecting its citizens. Point 2: Jobs Another job for the U.S Federal Government that falls under protecting its citizens is to ensure that they have jobs where they can work, earn money, and therefore support themselves. These statistics show: Illegal immigrants take jobs away from American citizens. According to a review of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau data, legal and illegal immigrants gained over a million additional jobs between 2008 and 2010 even as millions of American citizens were losing their jobs during that same time period. It was estimated that there were approximately 7.7 million illegal aliens employed by U.S. employers during 2008. [1] These statistics clearly show how illegal immigrants take jobs that U.S Citizens need. The U.S Federal Government has an obligation to its own citizens first which is why we need to build this Border Fence to ensure that U.S Citizens have a better chance at getting a job. When we build the Border Fence we will have less Illegal Immigrants coming across the Border. This results in less jobs being taken by Illegal Immigrants and give American Citizens a better chance at getting jobs therefore the U.S Federal Government will be upholding its obligation. Point 3: Economy This is a BIG issue. To make sure our economy is stable falls under the U.S Federal Governments job to protect its citizens because the country needs money to function. These statistics show: Illegal immigrants generally don't pay taxes. The vast majority of illegal aliens would never even dream of paying income taxes, but Mexicans living in America send billions upon billions of dollars out of the United States and back to Mexico every single year. Although illegal aliens pay next to nothing in taxes, they have no problem receiving tens of billions of dollars worth of free education benefits, free health care benefits, free housing assistance and free food stamp benefits. Many communities in the United States now openly advertise that they will help illegal aliens with these things. The cost of educating the children of illegal immigrants is staggering. It is estimated that U.S. taxpayers spend $12,000,000,000 a year on primary and secondary school education for the children of illegal immigrants. Thanks to illegal immigration, California's overstretched health care system is on the verge of collapse. Dozens of California hospitals and emergency rooms have shut down over the last decade because they could not afford to stay open after being endlessly swamped by illegal immigrants who were simply not able to pay for the services that they were receiving. As a result, the remainder of the health care system in the state of California is now beyond overloaded. This had led to brutally long waits, diverted ambulances and even unnecessary patient deaths. Sadly, the state of California now ranks dead last out of all 50 states in the number of emergency rooms per million people. Each year, it costs the states billions of dollars to incarcerate illegal immigrant criminals that should have never been allowed into the country in the first place. It is estimated that illegal aliens make up approximately 30 percent of the population in federal, state and local prisons and that the total cost of incarcerating them is more than $1.6 billion annually. [1] These statistics clearly show how 1) These illegal immigrants are more than likely to send money back to Mexico than to spend in the United States and increase our economy. 2) Illegal Immigrants pay almost nothing in taxes and they receive tens of billions of dollars in benefits. 3) Taxpayers pay close to $12,000,000,000 just for Illegal Immigrant children to go to public school, AND as my earlier statistics show that these Illegal Immigrant children are more than likely to end up in gangs. 4) California now has less emergency rooms/hospitals to help U.S Citizens because there were so many Illegal Immigrants that couldn't pay and received health care benefits. 5) Tax Payers spend about 1,600,000,00 a year to incarcerate illegal immigrants. This causes our economy to shrink by a rather large amount and it isn't even going to our own citizens. Thanks for reading my arguments and I look forward to 32no's rebuttal. :) 1. http://www.infowars.com...

positive: Resolved: The United States Should Adopt an Open Border Policy The US cannot sustain a flood of unskilled immigrantsPro does not dispute that there are 60 million refugees in desperate circumstances whose would benefit if they traveled to the US. He does not dispute that with open borders there would be no significant obstacle to their relocating to the US, or that there are amply resources to move them all to the US. The US will get 60 million predominantly poor, unskilled, poorly educated, and non-English-speaking refugees overnight. Pro says this will increase housing prices, of benefit to those selling houses. How will the refugees get the money to buy housing? Their only significant source is welfare paid for by taxes. Welfare paid by high taxes adds no value to society. It takes money that would otherwise be invested and uses it to boost prices with adding value. Consumption is increased for the immigrants, but all the money for increasing it is taken from people who can neither invest nor consume with that money taken by taxes. It's not remotely plausible that adding 60 million refugees would boost the economy.Pro claims 165 million would move to the US permanently. Those who would would like to move temporarily at least twice that. "More than one in four adults worldwide (26%) say they would like to go to another country for temporary work, according to Gallup surveys in 119 countries in 2009 and 2010. This figure is nearly twice the 14% worldwide who say they would like to migrate permanently to another country if they could and translates into roughly 1.1 billion adults." [15. http://www.gallup.com...] Some would prefer countries, but the premise for this debate is that only the US adopts open borders, so they would have no option than to travel to the US. Some would stay, put it's likely that many more than would travel to the US given it was the only option. Pro did not question my claim that air fare was an insignificant obstacle, so they'll just travel. Once everyone understands that there is immediate free education and emergency room health care, and a median $28,500 welfare package available within a few years, the numbers would likely increase.The resolution forces immediate open borders by the definition of open borders. Limiting immigration by setting up quotas for groups to prevent too many from coming is not an open borders policy; it is a policy of immigration quotas.Mostly unskilled jobs would come from to support 60 million plus hundreds of millions of others. Pro argued that immigration of unskilled workers (mainly from Mexico) has not been a problem because the immigration has reached equilibrium with the financial opportunities in the United States. That equilibrium is lower because the hazards of illegal immigration and the pain of separation from family work against immigration; both factors removed by open borders. Pro's economic argument is then that immigration from Africa, the Middle East, and the rest of the world into the US will slow when the economic opportunities in the US are as poor as those in very poor countries. So immigrants will stop arriving from Palestine when economic opportunity in the US reaches the income level of about $330 per year. Since the policy of providing a $28,500 welfare package after the few years needed for citizenship, that ensures that at least the 390 million immigrants on the low end of the estimates will arrive. Pro argues they would be self supporting by selling to each other. That's exactly what they were doing in their homeland, earning the very low levels of income that would bring them to the US.The results of legal immigration is not evidence for open borders Pro's case and the studies he cites to support it are built on false assumptions. The worst of the bad assumptions is that past immigration into the US is a good model for projecting what open borders immigration would produce. Past immigration includes screened and highly skilled immigrants legally admitted under H1B visa programs and other qualified immigrant carefully screened to be sure that they are self-sufficient or have good means of financial support. Another segment comprises illegal unskilled immigrants who seek low-skilled jobs that are available. The low-skilled illegal component is largely from Mexico and Central America, and tends to fluctuate as opportunities increase in Mexico or decrease in the US. The low-skilled workers the US gets are surely among the most enterprising, as they risk a dangerous border crossing and deportation in order to achieve greater prosperity. The studies, including the Cato studies Pro cites, claim there is a slight net positive economic effect from this mix, in which the high-skilled legal immigrants offset the costs of the low skilled ones. So why is it good policy to offset the gains of screened immigrants with the losses of unskilled workers?Pro presents a graph that shows, through 2007, that there is no correlation between immigration and unemployment. Every country used in the graph had policies to select and screen immigrants, so there is not a single example of open borders in the lot. The foreign population of the US is shown, for example, as about 13%, comprising about 3% from low-skilled illegal immigrants and 10% highly productive legal immigrants. I have never doubted that legal immigrant of screened applicants is beneficial. Another of Pro's graphs shows that wealth correlates with economic freedom. Since no advanced country has an open borders policy, the graph is drawn under the condition that there are no open borders, and is not evidence that open borders are beneficial.Pro argues that open borders would save a great deal on border security. That assumes that the money spent on border security is mostly spent on preventing immigration of job seekers and their families. That's not true. We are not x-raying luggage to look for job seekers. Pro said that we would still try to keep out criminals and terrorists, and that all the laws controlling imports and exports would remain in place. Costs could be expected to rise substantially, because now the government would have to check hundreds of millions of people for terrorist and criminal associations rather than the small number entering under visa restrictions.Pro points to the high rate of business formation by Latinos. That's due to only the most enterprising willing to risk illegal immigration and the motivation supplied by a lack of enough low-skilled jobs. They also have only limited access to welfare benefits, so they are forced to take entrepreneurial risks they could otherwise avoid. If it were true that people in the lower half of the economic strata more than paid for their costs, then there would be no need for an income tax on the upper half of incomes to pay for the government services provided to the lower half. That's clearly not the case. The lower half only pays about 2% of income taxes. If we have a choice to only admit people who can pay for themselves, why exactly would we choose to admit a large volume of dependent unskilled workers?The Example of EuropeEurope does not have open borders. They require that potential immigrants apply as either workers, students, or the families of those admitted to immigrate. For example, “The war in and around Syria has displaced 9 million people, with a third of those people seeking food and shelter outside of Syria. Since the war began in March 2011, only 150,000 have actually been allowed inside Europe.” Now a flood of illegal immigration is just started; 250,000 have crossed the Mediterranean this year. [16. http://www.japantoday.com...]Europe has had a poor experience with immigration, with Muslim enclaves and the Hebdo shootings in Paris, but they are still on the leading edge of the problem. With US open borders, the path to the US will be easier than to Europe. “... most Latin American countries are relatively stable. Several have reasonably vibrant economies. They are all predominantly populated by Christians, the majority of whom speak a language that was historically dominant in the part of the United States ... The fact is, Latin American immigrants can blend fairly quickly with U.S. culture because they have long been part of it. ..Europe ... hovers just above the great mass of Africa, a continent with a population of 1.2 billion — a number that is rising fast. The majority of African countries are poorly governed economic basket cases. Several, from Libya to the Central African Republic, are in the throes of anarchy and civil war. Add to civil strife and extreme poverty ... and it is hard to imagine African migration to Europe will not dramatically increase in the years ahead. Throw in the perpetual upheaval in the Middle East and it is clear Europe faces a crisis exponentially bigger than the immigration problem in the U.S." [17. http://www.latimes.com...] Immigration policies vary by country in Europe and the UK has more strict controls than the EU in general. “It found that migrants from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) made a negative contribution to the public purse of £117.9 billion because they consumed more in public expenditure – including NHS costs, welfare hand-outs and education – than they contributed in taxes." [18. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...] However, skilled immigrants entering the UK, mostly from Eastern Europe, made a net positive contribution.Controlled legal immigration works, not open borders Pro claims that controlling immigration is central planning. The premise of the debate, however, is that we are stuck with present welfare and benefits policies and with other nations keeping closed borders. Under those circumstances, open borders cannot be sustained.

positive: Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship Question: Should undocumented immigrants already in the United States, be allowed to become U.S. citizens? The answer is no, when illegal aliens come over they can only get small salary jobs at the risk of the U.S. government finding out about their presence. By taking these jobs away from a country whose unemployment rates are already over 7%(Bureau of Labor Statistics), they are stealing what could be a "bread on the table" job from hardworking American citizens. Aside from the fact that our jobs are being taken away, the thought of providing them with jobs, welfare, housing assistance, food assistance, and student loans is legally ridiculous. Why would we reward them for coming over illegally and stealing jobs and other resources from legal citizens? Common since dictates that if a person within your authority breaks the law, you don"t reward them for their actions. This year half a million fewer students nationwide enrolled in colleges, but the number of Latinos enrolled spiked by 447,000, 17% of those students were illegal immigrants from the southern border of the U.S. In 2012 the number of Latinos enrolled was at 3.4 million, an all time high, (NPR.org). By allowing illegals into the country, who are not only stealing government support or low class jobs, they are stealing education from students and taking even higher class jobs from people who are legal American citizens. Our country is funded by taxes. When illegal immigrants come into the picture our country as a whole loses money. Whether it is income tax, or health care our country is losing money for every transaction they make. While it may seem to be a useful way for businesses to save money by hiring unlawful immigrants, in the long run it"s a practice that is harming our country more than not, as 11% of all lower and middle class workers are illegal aliens (NPR.org), and giving them citizenship would only invite others to take more jobs. When it"s all said and done rewarding illegals for breaking our laws is counterproductive to our country as jobs are being stolen, colleges are being filled, and taxes are being dodged. To give these people citizenship would only harm the U.S. more then not. When illegals living in the U.S. get citizenship it only invites more people from other countries to come in illegally in hopes for free citizenship. Granting them amnesty may give the U.S a slight economy boom at first, but in the long run will lead to our demise.

positive: The United States should build and maintain a border fence Counterplan—"Easy citizenship, no wall" My opponent has suggested building an expensive 700 mile wall to "solve" border problems; however, I will propose a counterplan that is both more beneficial and less risky. HR-15 has shown that the US Congress is willing to strongly consider new pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and an easier access to citizenship for immigrants [6]. My counterplan would have congress pass a bill that would enact the following: (1) Offer citizenship and immunity from deportation to all non-criminal undocumented residents of the US, and (2) Change the major requirements of citizenship to include only a criminal background check and documentation of citizenship from another nation (as needed).Contentions: 1. Documented and undocumented immigrants benefit the US economy. Pro’s source of the cost to immigrants is a Fox News report of a study from an organization called “FAIR.” Both organizations are famously anti-immigrant. In fact, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a well-regarded organization specializing in identifying extremist groups labeled FAIR as an anti-immigrant hate group. [1]. Critics point out just after FAIR’s release that the study contains “critical errors,” including the fact that they don’t include the benefits of increased education in the workforce [2]. Adjusting for these errors, a 2008 report found that the then-current undocumented immigrants were responsible for a net of 8.1 million jobs and 1.8 trillion dollars into the government’s annual revenue [3]. Fighting immigration would have short-term and long term negative effect on the US economy, especially in states around the border [3]. Studies show that undocumented immigration increases the overall household incomes of US natives [4, p19]. In contrast, the wages of native-born citizens lowered as undocumented immigration slowed [4, p20]. Undocumented immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in government service expenses [4, p21; 5]. This is because they pay property taxes on their homes and sales taxes on their purchases. Additionally, many contribute to social security through their employers by presenting them with fake social security codes, and thus give $7 billion dollars annually to social security they can never collect [7]. Whereas stifling immigration of any kind would be detrimental to the economy, projections estimate that providing even a slightly-easier pathway to citizenship could provide an additional $500 billion in revenue over time [8]. 2. The Mexican government might make trade sanctions against the US. The Mexican government stated that the redirection of water resulting from the fence would violate a US-Mexico treaty [18]. Mexico may take serious action against the US as a result, including trade restrictions.Trade sanctions could be disastrous. Last year the US exported over $220 billion of products to Mexico and imported over $280 billion products [19]. 3. Cost of fence I will concede Pro's estimate of $16 B to construct and $1.1 B/y to maintain [see his point 2].However, I'd have to ask that Pro be more specific in explaining how the DHS will divert their funding to this program. Here's a link to the DHS budgets for 2014 and 2015 [22]. 4. Alternative use of money Billion(s) of dollars would be better spent improving the living conditions of American Indian Nations and veterans. I will elaborate on alternatives in R3. 5. The border fence runs through the territory of three Indian Nations (O'odham, Cocopah and Kickapoo) [17]. This fence would degrade their territories despite their protests. 6. The border fence devalues property surrounding boarder that is usually owned by poor minorities who are unable to afford a legal battle to secure appropriate monetary compensation. [20] 7. A border fence policy only adds to the stigma of “illegal” and subsequent racist attitudes toward “illegals” [11, 12]. Undocumented immigrants are afraid to report hate attacks due to their fear of deportation [11, 12]. My counterplan of Easy Citizenship would give immigrants access to protection from hate crimes, whereas my opponent’s plan would only aggravate anti-immigrant attitudes. 8. A more effective border fence would cause undocumented immigrants to take more dangerous routes. Border patrol recently found 1000+ bodies in a dangerous desert near the border. The number of deaths through this desert tripled since the initial fence construction and is growing [10, 14], and would grow even faster under Pro’s plan. In contrast, Easy Citizenship would virtually eliminate migrant-boarder deaths by making legal entry convenient. 9. The US sex trafficking industry depends on a difficult citizenship process. Sex traffickers persuade non-native workers into entering the US illegally or with a visa with a promise of a job. The victims cannot enter the US legally, and thus rely on the trafficker for an illegitimate position [21]. Whereas my opponent’s plan fails to protect other borders and airports from sex trafficking, my counterplan will nearly eliminate all sex trafficking in the US by eliminating the victims’ need to rely on the trafficker for entry, and thus frustrate the dealers' recruitment. 10. The border fence would harm the environment and possibly drive species to extinction. The fence hinders the mating, migration, and habitat of nearly all walking, slithering, and some flying animals who live nearby [15, 16]. Additionally, the border fence could eliminate three endangered species. It is vital that these species have connected populations, but the border fence divides their populations, limiting their breeding. Additionally, the lights from the fence and noise from the roads and guards interrupt their ability to breed, making it highly likely that they will soon go extinct if the border fence in my opponent’s plan came to fruition [15, 16]. 11. A more effective border fence indirectly incentivizes drug cartels A fence would reduce the supply of illicit drugs but not affect the demand, and thus increase the value of drugs. Drug running will have much higher returns, but the fence blocks casual dealers. These dealers would therefore be forced to rely on gangs and crime lords to successfully cross the border. 12. Fighting undocumented immigration perpetuates undocumented crime. Because they are hunted by the law, undocumented immigrants are sometimes forced to work outside the law to survive. Building a wall does nothing to fix this system. However, Easy Citizenship would reduce undocumented immigrant convicts and crimes long term, dramatically lowering prison and legal expenses. 13. A border fence won't improve security. Terrorists and weapons dealers are not limited to these specific 700 miles of the US-Mexico border. They would simply find other route like the other 1,489 miles not fenced, 5,525 miles on the Canadian border, 95,000 miles of coastline, or airlines [13]. This border fence would not protect against terrorism or gun smugglers. Additionally, organized drug smugglers will be further incentivized due to the border fence (see 11). Border Patrol does not inspect food-items for freshness—border fences will not improve food safety. By dramatically reducing the number of undocumented entries, the border patrol will be able to more effectively attend to real security concerns. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com... [13] http://tinyurl.com... [14] http://tinyurl.com... [15] http://tinyurl.com... [16] http://tinyurl.com... [17] http://tinyurl.com... [18] http://tinyurl.com... [19] http://tinyurl.com... [20] http://tinyurl.com... [21] http://tinyurl.com... [22] http://tinyurl.com...

positive: Illegal immigration Basically I am opposed to illegal immigration, I am totally for giving people better lives but i don't feel that it should be at the cost of others. If all of America's benefits and opportunities is a life boat and the people already on it are citizens, we can't just keep putting people on the life boat(illegal immigrants) because than it endangers the people already on the life boat. And I know feel that illegal immigrants probably haven't done anything illegal in their lives and they had good intentions when they got in the US but just the sheer act of them bypassing the usual protocols of becoming a citizen is what is illegal, and that is something we cannot look past, I feel America is not stepping up to the task and securing boarders, that they are almost aiding and abetting them in committing the crime of coming to the US illegally.

positive: We Must Deport Illegal Immigrants From The U.S.A. For 10 Major Reasons YOUR FIRST POINT'S REBUTTAL: THE AMERICAN DREAM The phrase, "The American Dream", was coined by a white man named James Truslow Adams in his 1931 book entitled, The Epic of America. Proof Link: https://en.wikipedia.org... In it, Adams waxed poetic about The Declaration of Independence and the unalienable rights of American citizens. Proof Link: https://en.wikipedia.org... I would like to ask you, 'What does that have to do with illegal immigrants residing in the United States of America?' They are called "illegal" for a very good reason and as long as they ARE in noncompliance with U.S. Law, they will be getting deported instead of the gift of amnesty and of white picket fences. https://www.donaldjtrump.com... A sonnet about the Statue of Liberty is just that. It is not U.S. immigration law. The fact that you stress that it is a "famous" poem, makes no difference. And, if you are an illegal alien, I doubt that the Statue of Liberty is "ours" . France gave the statue to the People of the United States. The Congress turned it over to the Parks Service, which owns and operates Liberty Island. https://en.wikipedia.org... "The New Colossus" is a sonnet that American poet Emma Lazarus (1849"1887) wrote in 1883 to raise money for the construction of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. In 1903, the poem was engraved on a bronze plaque and mounted inside the pedestal's lower level." https://en.wikipedia.org... Therefore, this sonnet was merely a subjective work of literary art and had no direct correlation or significance to any legislation, policy, or practice of the U.S. government. http://www.americanthinker.com... The fact that MILLIONS of Mexicans, etcetera, flood into this country without permission, says a lot about their fundamental lack of respect for this country. It also speaks volumes about their character deficits. http://hotair.com... They are in no position to be begging the United States for favors since they have given us a collective "F You" with their belligerent behavior. They will pay for it by eventually forfeiting their eligibility to "ever" get a Green Card and,this is their own fault. Not ours. https://www.uscis.gov... People can come to the United States from places like Cuba, Honduras, Mexico, etc. However, they had better come here legally and respect the laws and the people of this land. https://www.donaldjtrump.com... Comparing illegals who sneak across this country's borders to those fleeing the Communist Fidel Castro regime is like comparing apples to oranges. These are different groups of people who are viewed and treated differently by the United States government. https://www.uscis.gov... https://www.uscis.gov... You state that "Some illegal immigrants were sent through traveling with their parents". Sent through by whom? Could it be by officials from their country of origin? If that is the case, this is an outrageous effrontery against the U.S. and the American people. https://youtu.be... You state that the children are here illegally "to gain education", but, it's at the U.S. tax payer's expense. And, the illegal parents "should" be "sent away". http://amac.us... https://www.uscis.gov... The only person(s) leaving these illegal immigrant children "parent-less" in the situation that you described, is the illegal immigrant parent themselves. Needless to say, the American People are not at fault. Laws, barbed wire and fences are there for a reason. The assimilation that I am referring to has nothing to do with abandoning one's native language or religion. However, in order to become a Naturalized American Citizen, one must: "Be able to read, write, and speak English and have knowledge and an understanding of U.S. history and government (civics)." https://www.uscis.gov... Another citizenship requirement is that you assimilate to the values and ideals of the United States of America: see Oath of Allegiance http://cis.org... And, as far as illegal nimrods appearing on news cameras as they riot in U.S. streets, it's unreal.. Wrapped in Mexican flags while burning American ones, they chant, "Dump Trump" and "Not my President!!" These imbeciles should have been deported the very next day for sedition. http://www.nolo.com... Your statement about The First Amendment is incorrect. There are laws and ordinances against certain kinds of free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org... The Republicans now control the White House, The Senate, The House, and The Supreme Court. Trump will have fewer obstacles pushing through his immigration reform legislation. He already expressed an interest in creating an American Flag burning law --- violation of which would be cause for deportation. http://www.zerohedge.com... And, I am sure that it will become more and more difficult to remain in this country when the well of social goodies starts to run dry up and the government steps up its immigration enforcement. http://thecrimereport.org... https://www.msn.com... I am not going to debate with you the rights of or the atrocities against Native Americans since that has nothing to do with the basic premise of this debate. If you are interested in a discussion on the commons and land ownership, here is a good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org... "Now, I would love for the Pro to renounce themselves of criminality" I am not the ancestor of an "English settler". Furthermore, you can't steal something that you already own, nor can you squat on your own land. Stone-age Europeans were the first to set foot on North America, beating American Indians by some 10,000 years, new archaeological evidence suggests. http://www.independent.co.uk... Finally, insofar as the "innocent" Native Americans are concerned, there were tribes conquering tribes everywhere in the Americas, for thousands of years. Sioux conquered Kaiowas, Huron conquered Iroquoi, Shawnee conquered Pueblo's, etcetera ad nausea. Incas, Aztecs, Mayans were conquering tribes... You ignore the history of mankind. http://www.encyclopedia.com... http://www.nebraskastudies.org... YOUR 2ND POINT'S REBUTTAL : ECONOMIC GAINS FROM ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION Your Facts: $12 billion in taxes into Social Security w/ stolen SS#s(which illegals use for all forms of credit applications, too) and Individual Tax Identification Numbers (ITNS) $ 11 billion in state and local taxes: sales taxes and excise taxes on goods and services ===== $23 billion U.S. GDP input by illegals yearly... "Now, assuming the number of illegal immigrants is at 11 million" "Not only this, but the businesses "illegally utilizing" work pay them much less than legal citizens, even though LEGAL immigrants get paid 200% less than the minimum wage."... My Facts: Here is a tremendous article on how illegals are ripping the Amerian People off BIG TIME... http://amac.us... Here is one excerpt from the article: "In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar." Let's do some math based on your stated figure of illegal immigrants currently living in the United States in 2016 (soon to be 2017). Let's suppose that an illegal household is made up of 5 individuals... Mom, Dad, 2 kids, and baby on the way - or- 5 adults shacked up in one house. I will divide that $14,387 dollar debt into the number "5". The amount owed American tax payers AFTER each illegal pays their taxes is: $2,877.40 per illegal Okay. Now, according to you, there are: 11,000,000 illegals. So, let's now do the math! $2,877.40 owed per illegal "x" 11,000,000 illegals = $31,651,400,000 dollars per year OWED by all U.S. illegals EACH YEAR.. $31.6 BILLION This doesn't sound like illegals are doing American Citizens any favors, at all. Recap: (1) Illegals refuse to go back home and many claim unConstitutional Rights to this land, view themselves as citizens of another country, and are here to game the system https://youtu.be... (2) Illegals are eating up U.S. stock population resources like a swarm of locusts and they keep flooding over the U.S./Mexico border like there is no tomorrow (and there might not be) http://amac.us... (3) Illegals do not care about United States Government Laws because they feel that they are above the law http://hotair.com... (4) Illegals will wreck the U.S. Economy if they are given amnesty and allowed to tap into means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare http://amac.us... Seems pretty accurate to me and deportation (along with other immigration enforcement tactics) seems to be a very reasonable response to neutralize this particular threat. No one (in the United States) held a gun to their head and made them break U.S. Immigration Laws and SQUAT (Yes, SQUAT) in the U.S.A., live in a poo hole sanctuary city, and agree to a job that pays them less than minimum wage. That is the literal price that they pay to be a criminal in a foreign land; living under the radar. Also, if they had more than a third grade education, they could earn more. YOUR 3RD POINT'S REBUTTAL: PERSONAL ADVOCACY What does it MATTER whether or not the Border Patrol is corrupt? Under a Trump Administration, all of that corruption will be routed out and dealt with. It won't have any long-term negative impact on solving the illegal immigration problem. Attorney General Jeff Sessions will make sure of it. The same argument applies to other corrupt government agencies. A strong border wall/defense WILL be put in place and this will cut down on the influx of illegals considerably. Additonally, other deterrents will be used along with effective detection and apprehension tactics and technologies to stem the flow. Trump has fully stated what he plans to do with immigration reform on https://www.donaldjtrump.com.... In regard to your naturalization test sampler featured at this link: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... : I am a native born American citizen, I took the test once, and I obtained the highest score offered: "10". The test was easy for me and I am of average intelligence so, I am taking your argument and your article "proofs" with a grain of salt. Also, your argument is obsolete, since this issue has already been addressed: http://blogs.edweek.org... Furthermore, the last thing that we need is millions of functionally illiterate people in the interior of this country given amnesty when they can't even sign their name in their native language. "According to a 2007 report from the Migration Policy Institute, an estimated 400,000 legal immigrants and 350,000 illegal immigrants were illiterate in their native languages, much less English. This contributed to the first decline in literacy in California"s history. In 2003, its adult illiteracy rate of 23 percent"up 50 percent in 10 years"put it last among all states." https://www.newswithviews.com... That is the whole purpose of the testing protocol for U.S. Naturalization and Citizenship. The U.S.A. wants the best and the brightest to immigrate to this country to make it better and to make it competitive with the rest of the countries of the world. https://books.google.com... It doesn't want a bunch of dullards added to the population in mass to turn us into a Third World country. We have enough problems getting our own people to rise up, contribute, compete and do better. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

positive: should illegal immigrants ive in the Unites States They should live in the United States because, they come here to work, have baby with their wife in the US, and have a better life. I also think that they are a hard-worker with a good talet. If all of the illegal immigrant that make up 5% of the american population were gone tomorrow, accordingly about 5% of jobs would be left empty tomorrow. all of these niches would be UNFULFILLED. it is important that we not just send them all away. in fact, you admit this yourself by claiming that there is a problem because they take a lot of Jose from americans. on subject: you back up your argument by saying "the illegal immigrant our taking jobs from our impoverished that would love the job." anytime that anyone ever takes a job, they are destroying the hypothetical opportunity for another to have that job. these immigrants came here for reason. they came hereto make money because where they came from they were surrounded by poverty. they deserve those jobs, just as much as the next impoverished guy. most illegal immigrants are certainly in poverty.

positive: Illegal Immigrants As an born bred American Citizen I believe that allowing illegal immigrants into our country then giving them citizenship just like that is beyond wrong especially for those who are currently do the process right so that they may become a legal citizen of the United States. Now I don't want to hate on the Illegal Immigrants due to the fact that being human we strive to live better lives and most of us knowing that the U.S.A even in it's current condition is still very high on the scale for new opportunities, it's just that people have to want it bad enough, I digress but to my point if illegal immigrants were to enter the country it should be only on one term and that is to work. Now people are like oh those illegal are taking our jobs away but in reality if they were to pay attention in life rather than listen down the grape vine they would know that most illegal immigrants take jobs that most Americans wouldn't such as helping farmers pick food, they also pick up trash, and so on. These jobs are looked upon very unfavorably by the tens of millions of Americans. So to end my opinion, I shall state this, Illegal Immigrants under no circumstances should be allowed sanctuary in a country they do not belong to , only and mean only if they have a working visa and are monitored very closely to where they could not just fit into the populous and just disappear. There shall be tight restrictions to what they may do. As for the illegal immigrants that are currently in the country i feel they need to be found and deported to their home countries and be encouraged to become a U.S. citizen but there shall not be any automatic citizenship. You cannot just be forgiven and be granted something that you haven't earned. Only those that follow the rules shall get access and sometimes they don't even fit the standards.

positive: Americans oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants A 2010 CNN/Opinion Research asked, "Do you think the United States should or should not make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens of the United States?" Sixty-six percent of respondents said the U.S. should not make it easier. 33 percent said it should.[21]

positive: Path to citizenship encourages illegal immigration The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), in a Jan. 2007 www.fairus.org section titled "The Costs of Illegal Immigration to New Jerseyites": "The proposal to simply convert illegal alien residents to legal resident status with an amnesty violates a fundamental principle of immigration reform, because that will encourage rather than deter future illegal immigration. A policy that conveys the message that the country or any state or local government will tolerate and reward foreigners who ignore our immigration law invites the world to see illegal immigration as an accepted route to seeking a better life in our country and it will exacerbate the problem."[9]

positive: Mass deportation from US would be very expensive A Center for American Progress study released in March of 2010 concluded that a strategy aimed at deporting the nation’s population of illegal immigrants would cost the government approximately $285 billion over five years. (A deportation-only policy would amount to $922 in new taxes for “every man, woman, and child in this country).” In separate research released in January, UCLA professor Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that if undocumented immigrants were removed from the economy, it would reduce U.S. GDP by $2.6 trillion over ten years.

positive: Americans oppose the deportation of all illegal immigrants. A USA Today/Gallup Poll dated March 2007 asked, "Should the government deport all illegal immigrants back to their home country?" In response, only 24% of American citizens believed the government should deport all illegal immigrants. Furthermore, 59% of American citizens believed the government should allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens, but only if they meet certain requirements.

positive: Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants Thank you for the response. This is the last round so I shall be making my refutations and restating my arguments and telling why I believe that the Opposition has won this debate. Refutations "He claims that their children do not belong here, but gives no basis for why the 14th Amendment should be repealed." This is because my opponent's counter-argument had no relation to the children of illegal immigrants. The argument he presented was simply about illegal immigrants in general, but not the children. I have presented arguments for why the 14th amendment should be repealed and I'm sure my opponent knows that. "I ask CON how he proposes infants, babies, toddlers, and children apply for citizenship...?" They don't need citizenship at that age. Illegal immigrants like to have children in the United States because they automatically become legal citizens that can help their parents become citizens quickly. That's a benefit that attracts illegal here to have children. If the law is repealed, then illegal immigrants will not have children here. And if those children want to become American citizens, then they can when the become young adults or even older. "CON alleges that based on the disproportionate number of births places "exacerbate the concerns of immigrants that feel they are being put at a disadvantage." Here CON does not give any description of the "concerns" immigrants would have, and then completely neglects a criticial point in this debate." I have constantly stated a point that my opponent seems to ignore and not bother with. Wouldn't an immigrant, who worked hard to wait in the lines and learn about American history, who feels honored to even have the opportunity to become a legal citizen, wouldn't he feel angered that a child of an illegal immigrant, a bad person, could automatically be born as a citizen? These illegal immigrants should not be rewarded with citizenship for their child. That makes little to no sense in any circumstance. As I mentioned in the 2nd round, a Rasmussen poll found that more of the United States is against birthright citizenship for the children of illegals than those who support. Clearly, the true, legal citizens of the US have their own concerns. "How exactly can newborn infants apply for citizenship? If you don't want to deport them, but also not give them a legal status which they are entitled to under the Constitution of the United States, and they are too young to comprehend what citizneship (citizenship) evens means, what else would you have them do?" By repealing the birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens amendment, it deters illegal immigrants from having children here in the first place. That's one of the main reasons why illegals have children here. For the free citizenship. Now, about the child become a legal citizen. A child could not live by himself/herself, meaning there must be an illegal parent in the picture. The parent should then, as an illegal, get citizenship for herself and the child, or pack up and leave or suffer consequences, seeing as they are on our United States soil illegally. "CON states that had the Framers dealt with our current situation, they would not want citizenship for the offsrping of illegal immigrants. Historically, he is wrong. The Alien and Seditions Act of 1798 [1] made similar arguments until Thomas Jefferson strenusously fought against the unconstitutionality of it, citing the abridging of the 10th Amendment." The Alien and Seditions Act had nothing to do with the children of illegal immigrants. The act was about the power and right of the President to be able to deport any resident alien that could be potentially dangerous to the US, the duration of residence required for aliens to become citizens, and that it is a crime to publish false writing against the government and its officials [1]. What similar argument is there? Jefferson argued stating that it violated the 10th Amendment, where power is reserved to the people [2], legal citizens, not illegals. How does this have any relevance in any way? My opponent refutes my argument that birthright citizenship is outdated because back then there was a time of less immigration. He continues to support his refutation with two percentages. One stating that in 1990, the foreign-born population of the US was 8.5%. From 1860 to 1940, it was above 13 percent. Now, percentages can always be deceiving. Just because in 1990 the foreign population was 8.5% doesn't mean that there was fewer immigrants. Population of the United States has risen in the past years. This percent could be and most likely is a larger number of people than the 13% my opponent claimed. I also find it peculiar why my opponent mentioned a 90 year and 70 year spread and compared it to 1 year, 20 years ago. In 2005, just the Hispanic race made up 14.4% of the US population or about 43 million people [3]. Back then, I'm not even sure there WERE that many people in the US. "Here, CON posits that birthright citizenship is unfair to immigrants who come here legally. I say it is decidely more unfair, not to mention impractical, for infants who did not choose to born in the United States or anywhere else." How is it unfair to child, who gets free citizenship? His parents were the ones who illegally and secretly smuggled into the US and had a child! Again, it's unfair to the people who actually worked for their citizenship because they waited, learned, and passed a test. "I seek clarification for where these children would go, especially since they have a Constitutional right to be citizens who are treated with the same dignity and respect as he enjoys." They would return to their family and get true citizenship at an older age when they can care for themselves. "CON states that a poll indicates that the majority of Americans oppose birthright citizenship. This is an immaterial non-sequitur, and an Argumentum ad Populum [4]. " I've never known those words and thank you for adding that to my vocabulary. Anyway, isn't this a democratic republic? The people have spoken and they want these birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants ended. What happened to the 10th amendment that Jefferson defended? Don't the people have power? "But this is simply not true, because everyone who is in the United States, either legally or illegally, is subject to the laws and ordinances of the United States." If everyone is subject to the laws of the United States, as you say, then why do we have illegal immigrants, drug smugglers, robbers, troublemakers, and scams? "Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled, both in 1898 and in 1982, that the 14th amendment should be read inclusively to confer birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants." Well, that's what we're currently arguing and the topic has been brought up again, so I don't see the argument here. Arguments My opponent has constantly repeated that I have no actual reason to repeal the 14th amendment. I will try to make these points as clear as possible. 1. Birthright citizenship is unfair to the current legal citizens who worked hard for their citizenship. 2. We should not be rewarding the illegals with citizenship for their child. 3. Citizenship is something that should be earned. 4. It encourages illegal parents to have a child in the US. 5. Birthright citizenship is outdated and came from a time of less illegal immigration. For these arguments, CON should win this debate. I congratulate my opponent on good arguments and excellent vocabulary and near perfect spelling. Thank you for a wonderful debate. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.infoplease.com...

positive: Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants Refutations 1. I am slightly confused as to what my opponent is truly arguing. Instead of wondering about what my family roots are, or citing a movie, I would appreciate if you could make the argument more clear. However, correct me if I am wrong, I believe you are arguing that America is a land of freedom, free of prosecution, and free of religious intolerance. If so, I argue that these people are not American citizens and they realize it. They do not deserve to live in our extremely tolerant land when they themselves are not true citizens, but illegal immigrants. And their children certainly do not either. If you claim that America is so free, then why does the Constitution, the very document that defines America, contain the three-fifths slave law and the prohibition of outlawing the Atlantic slave trade [1]? I do not understand how my opponent refuted my argument and thus, it still stands. 2. So what's so problematic with legal children citizens of illegal immigrants becoming illegal citizens? All they need to do is become legal citizens, which is what true immigrants to the United States and other countries do. It's not that big of a deal. "According to the Pew Research Center, 8% of all newborns, 5.4% of the total workforce, and 4% of the total US population are attributed to illegal immigrants. " This debate has little to do with actual illegal immigrants, but more about the children they produce and their citizenship. I feel that most of my opponent's arguments are focused on illegal immigration in it's entirety. I personally believe that illegal immigrants are bad and have a negative effect, but that is useless in this specific debate. 3. No, it is not just about Hispanic immigration, but the Hispanics make up the largest percentage (more than half) of illegal immigrations to the US [2]. My opponent asks what the problem with a disproportionate amount of births is. Here is my response. Because illegal immigrants have the power to procreate in the United States and to bring new citizens into the union, they exacerbate the concerns of immigrants that feel they are being put at a disadvantage. "Why not simply get rid of the entitlement programs, but keep the people who have just come here to provide their family the best opportunity possible? Immigrants to the US in the past had to be self-reliant, learned to be self-reliant, and were some of the most enterprising individuals on the face of the earth. " We are not "getting rid" of or deporting the people who have birthright citizenship, but simply forcing them to obtain true citizenship instead of automatic citizenship of no charge. Plus, these are the children of illegal immigrants who have disrespected US' laws and immigrated here illegally, only to have a legal child who can put in a word for them when they are persecuted due to illegality. In the second sentence, the key word my opponent mentioned is "immigrant. " He never mentioned illegal immigrants and I would like him to cite any illegal aliens that became "the most enterprising individuals on the face of the earth. " "The welfare state, with the promise of instant subsistence, is the real enemy, not immigration itself. " I do not see why the welfare state should be eliminated. Sure, illegal immigrants will no longer exploit or take advantage of the public benefits, but the benefits are taken away from the legal citizens and public who need programs in public health and public housing and unemployment compensation. Illegal immigrant parents, not the United States government, are to blame for immigrating illegally and deciding to give birth to a child in the United States. The consequences to their children are a result of their folly, not of the government for deciding to end birthright citizenship. "Secondly, the United States is very selective with whom they'll turn a bind (blind) eye too, versus who they will allow to come in. " Well, this probably means we simply need to be more fair and less selective. But, this argument is, like the previous one, focusing on illegal immigration which is irrelevant to the topic, birthright citizenship. Arguments 1. The writers of the 14th amendment, if they had known of our situation, would not want birthright citizenship for illegals. If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not. 2. Birthright citizenship is outdated and came from a period of less immigration. The guarantee of birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment came in a time when our borders were wide open and international travel was more difficult. When a family came here they usually intended to settle and stay, not have a child to lay a foothold down and put in a word for them. 3. Once again, birthright citizenship is unfair to true legal citizens. What about those who waited in lines and worked hard and studied hard to learn U. S. history and pass the test to become a real citizen? Birthright citizenship is simply a slap in the face to them. The concept of a pair of illegals having a child in the US and having him or her automatically be born as a citizen is absurd and unfair. 4. The illegal behavior of parents should not be awarded. While it is true that denying the child of an illegal immigrant birthright citizenship is harmful to the child, it is also true that giving them birthright citizenship rewards a mother for having willfully broken US law. Such a reward is unjust and unfair, and undermines the US rule of law. So, this is not about punishing children, it is about not rewarding illegal behavior. 5. Birthright citizenship encourages illegal families to have children in the United States. I have already expanded on this in the previous round. 6. A majority of Americans oppose birthright citizenship. Rasmussen took a poll in June of 2010, asking people if they thought children of illegal immigrants should have citizenship. Fifty-eight percent said no and only 33 percent said yes [3]. My opponent has frequently spoken about illegal immigration and not the main subject of birthright citizenship. I would like him to focus more on the matter at hand and the topic I posted, instead of illegal immigration. If you would like to debate illegal immigration, PARADIGM_L0ST, I would be very happy to do so in the future, but not now. I look forward to the next round. Sources: 1. . http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://www.nationalreview.com...

positive: Republican Candidates Donald John Trump is an American businessman, politician, television personality, and a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in the 2016 election. Immigration: "As has been stated continuously in the press, people are pouring across our borders unabated. Public reports routinely state great amounts of crime are being committed by illegal immigrants. This must be stopped and it must be stopped now." "We want people to come into our country but they have to come in legally." He will send 50,000 immigrants out, "There going to have to go out, they can come back but they have to go out." "For many years, Mexico's leaders have been taking advantage of the United States by using illegal immigration to export the crime and poverty in their own country (as well as in other Latin American countries)," Trump said. In a rambling, defiant speech delivered in this border state that has been the epicenter of the nation's divisive battle over immigration reform, Trump declared: "These are people that shouldn't be in our country. They flow in like water." Trump said if he's elected president he will "greatly strengthen our border, making it impenetrable, putting a stop to illegal immigration once and for all. I will bring jobs back to the United States." In Monday's statement, Trump doubled down on his commitment to "strong borders" that would keep illegal immigrants from "pouring across our borders unabated. Public reports routinely state great amounts of crime are being committed by illegal immigrants," he said. "The root cause of all the welfare payments to illegal aliens is the so-called 'anchor baby' phenomenon," he explains. "We have at least 11 million people in this country that came in illegally. They will go out, they will come back, some will come back, the best, through a process ... it may not be a very quick process, but I think that's very fair and very fine," said Trump. "I've talked to the greatest legal people, spoken to the greatest security people. There's absolutely no way of saying where these people come from. They may be from Syria, they may be ISIS, they may be ISIS related," Trump said. Defending his plan to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, Trump warned that we will "become so politically correct as a country that we can't even walk. We can't think properly. We can't do anything." "The border is a disaster, Bill. People are pouring in, and I mean illegal people, illegal immigrants -- 300 and some odd thousand are in your state jails right now, according to Homeland Security." "We cannot allow illegal immigrants to pour into our country," he continued. Abortion: "As far as Planned Parenthood is concerned, I'm pro-life," Trump asserted on the debate stage at the University of Houston. Trump also wrote: "Public funding of abortion providers is an insult to people of conscience at the least and an affront to good governance at best." "I'm pro-life, but with the caveats. It's: Life of the mother (very important), incest and rape," Trump said. "Look, Planned Parenthood has to stop with the abortions," he told host Chuck Todd on NBC's "Meet the Press." Trump, explaining why he was inspired to change his position on abortion, spoke of watching an unnamed friend decide against ending a pregnancy: "It was going to be aborted and that child today is a total superstar. It is a great, great child." "I am against abortion... and that is a tremendous amount of the work they do," he said in regards to whether or not he is against defunding Planned Parenthood. Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" with Chuck Todd, Trump said, "Planned Parenthood does a lot, a really good job in a lot of different areas, but not on abortion." "I hate the concept of abortion," Trump said in the full clip. In an op-ed published on the Washington Examiner's website on Jan. 23, Trump wrote that his views on abortion were changed by a "personal experience that brought the precious gift of life into perspective for me." Again in 1999, Trump stated to the Associated Press, "I believe it is a personal decision that should be left to the women and their doctors." "I'm not supporting Planned Parenthood," Trump quipped back. Sixteen years later during the Fox News debate on Aug. 6, he said, "I am pro-life .... I hate the concept of abortion. And then since then, I've very much evolved. I am very, very proud to say that I am pro-life." Asked by Todd if he'd shut down the government over Planned Parenthood's abortion services, Trump said, "I'd have to think about it. It bothers me greatly that they're doing the abortions." Gun Patrol: "The right of self-defense doesn't stop at the end of your driveway. That's why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states," he wrote. During his kickoff speech in June, Trump vowed to "fully support and back up the Second Amendment." Trump says there's another way to fight crime - by empowering "law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves." "We love the Second Amendment, folks. Nobody loves it more than us, so just remember that," Trump said to cheers and applause from his supporters who were gathered at the Treasure Island Hotel and Casino on the Las Vegas Strip. "I support the ban on assault weapons and I support slightly longer waiting periods to purchase a gun," said Donald Trump in 2000 in his book, The America We Deserve. "We need to protect our Second Amendment right," he said while pointing out into the audience. "You have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. You have that right and they want to take it away," Trump said. "Well, I'm a big Second Amendment person, big, as you probably know," said Trump. "If you had more guns, you'd have more protection because the right people would have the guns," he said. Citing violence in Chicago and Baltimore, Trump said "a lot of the places where you have the biggest problem is where they have the strongest laws," but he demurred when pressed on national gun laws. In the wake of America's most recent mass shooting, Republican front-runner Donald Trump said, "It's not a gun problem, it's a mental illness problem." For the former, he stated, "I am very pro Second Amendment," referring to "just released papers" on the subject at donaldtrump.com. He called for an expansion of treatment programs, citing "red flags that were ignored" that led to recent shooting incidents, and noting that law-abiding gun owners are "blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen." "Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like 'assault weapons', 'military-style weapons' and 'high capacity magazines' to confuse people," Trump wrote Friday. "Trump told crowds, I was talking to some of the people before what would you like me to focus on and they said second amendment, second amendment," explained Trump. Taxes: However, Trump conceded, "I try and pay as little tax as possible, because I hate what they do with my tax money. I hate the way they spend our money." In terms of taxes, Trump has said, "I know people making a tremendous amount of money and paying virtually no taxes, and I think it's unfair." "By my calculations 1 percent of Americans who control 90 percent of the wealth in this country would be affected by my plan -- the other 99 percent of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes," Trump said in a statement introducing his plan in November 1999. "We will bring a lot of additional companies in because our tax rates are going way down," Trump said. Republican candidate Donald Trump said in a statement that "we need leadership in Washington to get the tax code changed so companies will be coming to America, not looking for ways to leave." "When you have a hedge fund guy who's making $200 million a year and ... he's paying a very low rate of taxes, it's not fair and I think it says a lot," he said. "Simplifying the tax code and cutting every American's taxes will boost consumer spending, encourage savings and investment, and maximize economic growth," added Trump. During a news conference at Trump Tower in Manhattan, Trump declared that his proposal will "provide major tax relief for middle-income and for most other Americans." As Trump noted (at about the 3:25 mark) in the same interview, support for a graduated income tax -- as we currently have -- "doesn't mean a raise in taxes. That means rich people might be paying less than they are paying right now." "If you make $200 million a year you pay 10 percent, you're paying very little relatively to somebody that's making $50,000 a year and has to hire H&R Block because it's so complicated," Trump said of a flat tax. On taxes he said he would "start off by simplifying our current system. Put H & R Block out of business ... make it nice and easy for people to understand and reduce taxes." The other Trump said on Fox News earlier this year that he favors "a fair tax, a flat tax or certainly a simplified code." He said he would raise taxes on unfair imports, then, "The lobbyists are going to come and see me, but I don't give a s-- about lobbyists." "No business of any size, from a fortune 500 company to a mom-and-pop shop to a freelancer living from gig to gig, will pay more than 15 percent of their business income in taxes," Trump said. "A lot of families go through hell over the death tax," Trump said. "I want the hedge fund guys to pay more in taxes," he said, as he worked the crowd on his way out of the event. Budget and Spending: "We are going to cut the Department of Education," Trump said when asked if he would cut spending to curb the national debt. Trump added that as a result of the funding plan, Americans will have to "absorb higher deficits, greater debt, less economic liberty, and more corporate welfare." Trump, asked for details of his budget plan, said, "We will cut so much, your head will spin." National Security Trump argued in a USA Today op-ed published last weekend that he "would support and endorse the use of enhanced interrogation techniques if the use of these methods would enhance the protection and safety of the nation. The military under Trump, he said, will "be so big, so strong, so powerful, nobody is going mess with us." "We need much tougher, much smarter leadership - and we need it NOW!" Trump said on Twitter. "I will build a military so strong that we'll never have to use it because they are going to be saying, 'I'm not going to mess with that guy,' " he said, without explaining how he would bolster America's defense. Mr. Trump said he would like to "build a safe zone in Syria, build a big, beautiful safe zone, and you have whatever it is, so they can live." "We have to have a strong military so people don't mess with us," Trump said. Economy and Jobs: "Raising the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs will force companies to give these coveted entry-level jobs to the existing domestic pool of unemployed native and immigrant workers in the U.S., instead of flying in cheaper workers from overseas," wrote Trump. H-1B visa. The US H1B visa is a non-immigrant visa that allows US companies to employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise in specialized fields such as in architecture, engineering, mathematics, science, and medicine. "This country is dying. And our workers are losing their jobs," Donald Trump declared. And last month, Trump slammed Apple's foreign manufacturing, vowing, if elected, to make the company "start building their damn computers and things in this country instead of in other countries." "You see our businesses moving over to Mexico. You see other people are moving into Mexico. Mexico is going to become the next China on a smaller level," Trump says. "I will bring jobs back from China, I will bring jobs back from Japan. I will bring jobs back from Mexico," Trump said. "If you're going to create 10,000 jobs for a town that's in trouble and you need a piece of property, I'll tell you what folks, I want to create jobs and I want to give the people that own that property more than it's worth," he said, suggesting a price structure at odds with the one he tried to use in 1994. In the Derry event referenced above, Trump went into a familiar riff: "China is killing us! They've taken so much of our wealth. They've taken our jobs. They've taken our businesses, they've taken our manufacturing." Trump said the numbers will work out as long as "the economy grows the way it should grow, if I bring jobs back from China, from Japan, from Mexico, from so many countries." Asked why, Trump responded, "Because it wouldn't work, because it's too much. You have to bring in jobs you have to take the jobs back from China, you have to take the jobs back from Mexico." "I will create jobs like you've never seen," Trump told reporters before his speech. He promised to "take jobs back from Japan. I'm going to take jobs back from Mexico. I'm going to take jobs back from Vietnam." In an op-ed piece in last Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, Trump asserted that "the worst" of Beijing's "sins" is the "wanton manipulation of China's currency, robbing Americans of billions of dollars of capital and millions of jobs." Health Care: "I would end Obamacare and replace it with something terrific, for far less money for the country and for the people," said Trump. "We're going to repeal and replace the horror known as Obamacare, it is a horror," said Trump. "I want to get rid of Obamacare and get you something great," Trump vaguely offered. Today Trump said there are people who desperately need care and "you can't let em die in the streets." But in the 2011 volume, Trump complained that Obamacare was a scheme by liberals "to drag America closer to a so-called 'single-payer system,' otherwise known as total government-run health care." Bot of course, Trump thinks Obamacare is "a big, fat, horrible lie" and "a total catastrophe," which he's promised "is going to be a disaster." Foreign/ISRAEL POLICY Trump said as president, "there's nothing I would rather do than bring peace to Israel and its neighbors, generally. I think it serves no purpose to say you have a good guy and a bad guy." Says Trump in a campaign ad: "I will...quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS, will rebuild our military and make it so strong no one -- and I mean, no one -- will mess with us." He said he wants U.S. troops on the ground in Syria, but more importantly, "I want other countries to get on the ground fighting ISIS." Frontrunner Donald Trump offered his own strategy for dealing with Islamic State extremists and President Assad: "Let them fight each other and pick up the remnants." "Israel is safe with this one," Trump declared, poking his chest. He termed Riyadh the "world's biggest funder of terrorism," complaining that "Saudi Arabia funnels our petro dollars, our very own money, to fund the terrorists that seek to destroy our people while the Saudis rely on us to protect them." Decades ago he called on the United States to "stop paying to defend countries that can afford to defend themselves." "He made statements over the last couple of days that are incredible, trying to justify the war in Iraq. It can't be justified," Trump said, pointing most notably to a "skin in the game" reference Bush made in a foreign policy statement. Civil liberties: LAST TIME TRUMP WAS TALKING ABOUT THIS HE ASKED THE PEOPLE TO RAISE THEIR HAND IF THEY WERE READY FOR THIS HE ROSE HE HAND AND EVERYONE ELSE DID THIS MADE PEOPLE THINK THAT TRUMP WAS TRYING TO BE LIKE HITLER. NEVER COMPARE ANYONE TO HITLER TRUMP'S DAUGHTER MARRIED A JEWISH MAN SHE CONVERTED SHE IS A RELIGIOUS JEW AND HE IS HAPPY FOR ISRAEL HE WANTS MUSLIMS NOT GONE BUT HE WANTS MUSLIM TERRORISTS GONE THANK YOU. "These people always hit me with eminent domain, and frankly I'm not in love with eminent domain," Trump said. Trump added that "when eminent domain is used on a person's property, they get a fortune. And if they're smart they'll get two or three times the value of their property." He also cites a 2000 interview in The Advocate, in which Trump emphasizes his support for workplace discrimination protections and "strong domestic-partnership law that guarantees gay people the same legal protections and rights as married people." "I'M READY FOR SURVEILLANCE ARE YOU" Energy: "I'm in favor of nuclear energy, very strongly in favor of nuclear energy," Trump said. "We are going to bring the coal industry back 100 %" Trump said. "Energy independence is a requirement if America is to become great again," Trump said Tuesday. Trump suggested clean energy policies to reduce CO2 emissions would "imperil jobs" and "the middle class and lower classes." He discounts the "negative impact of natural gas, oil, and coal." He writes that sources of "green energy" are "really just an expensive way of making the tree-huggers feel good about themselves." And Donald Trump said Ohio's prosperity under Gov. John Kasich was a stroke of luck, "John got lucky with a thing called fracking, ok, he hit oil," he said. "I consider climate change to be not one of our big problems," Trump said Thursday, when asked about the debate's concluding exchange on climate change. Crime and safety "If they make one mistake its on your newscasts all night, all week, all month. The police in this country have done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order," Trump said. "I have to say that the police are absolutely mistreated and misunderstood," Trump said. "Police and law enforcement, I will never, ever, let them down," Trump said at the candidate forum, according to the New Hampshire Union Leader. The video begins with the now infamous remarks Trump made last month during his presidential launch speech, in which he said: "When Mexico sends its people, they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists." The Washington Post's Charles Lane, a regular "Special Report" pundit, faced off against radio host Laura Ingraham over Trump's June 16 comments, in which he said, among other things: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best...They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists." "Our police officers have been treated horribly," Trump told ABC News aboard his private jumbo jet Wednesday.

positive: The solution to illegal immigration requires enforcement of our current laws "1. I'm not talking about the fence they show on CNN. I'm talking about this fence: http://www.usillegalaliens.com....... It is double-panel, with patrol in between. Not as easy to get through as the one shown on CNN. With regards to those overstaying their visas, no one method is going to stop all, but the fence will stop some" Reply: Just look at any project of public housing. After a few years, it falls apart. Why? Because the government maintains it, and given there is no incentive to keep things well maintained, it falls apart. So even if the government did build some future, high-tech fence, it would be falling apart in 5 years. People who want to come to this country would just find a way to cut-through it, dig under it, climb over it, or just blow up parts of it. The fence would be about as useful as building a giant escalator to nowhere, a la the Simpsons. "2. The cost is justified. Those who enter the country illegally threaten our sovereignty." Reply: How exactly? Unless they are coming here with tanks and plan on running over your house, I don't think they are threatening your sovereignty. "How about instead of having the federal government do all these things it's not supposed to be doing, let's have it do one thing it is supposed to do for a change: secure the border." Reply: Secure from whom? Foreign armies or people looking for a better life? "Besides, they're not just entering the country illegally. If they are working and paying taxes, they've committed fraud with American documents. If they are working and not paying taxes, they've committed tax evasion" Reply: They make hardly anything, at least not enough to be substantially taxed. We should be making it easier for these people to become citizens, not harder. "3. Money? Are you serious? We have illegal immigrants in our prisons, on health care paid for by government, and in our schools. All those things cost us money, so obviously that's not why. Reply: Deporting someone isn't as simple as just throwing someone in a van and then driving them to Mexico. You have to be sure you have a place in Mexico you can take them to, verify they are not supposed to be in the country, etc. Also, some situations are complex, such as if the child is born in America and is a legal citizen and the parents are illegal. So the cost of implementing some mass deportation policy doesn't pay for the little reduction in costs of schools, health care, and prisons. If it were really an issue about social services, you would be more concerned about reforming those instead of trying to demonize immigrants. So, the question is, are you serious in thinking that the immigration issue is about money? From what I can find, in 2003, 7.5 billion was spent on educating illegal immigrant children, K-12. That comes out to about $25 dollars for every American. But by having their cheap labor, we save way more to cover that cost. So it's not that immigrants are bleeding us dry. And if you want them to pay more taxes, you have to make it easier for them to attain citizenship, not build a wasteful fence. Using the numbers from Farius.com, an anti-immigration group, the cost of illegal immigrants in 1996 was 24.4 billion dollars. Using the increase percentage in spending on education for illegals as a guide, a calculated the current figure around 31.4 billion dollars. That comes out to barley over $100 dollars for every person per year. Now lets say you run a business, and you hire an immigrant to do a job for $12 dollars an hour and the going rate is $25. That saves you $26,880 a year. So to say that immigrants are bad because of money just doesn't make sense. But that's not the reason most people don't like immigrants. Also, how much will the fence cost? $49 Billion. (http://www.sfgate.com...) And given the law that anything the government builds costs more than is initially stated, it could be much higher. Then you have to pay people to guard it, maintain it, etc. All to stop a fraction of illegal immigration. "It wouldn't be a huge expansion of government, rather it would just involve requiring proof of residency to be shown if people wish to have access to the treasury," Reply: I live in Oklahoma, whose claim to fame lately has been passing one of the state's toughest illegal immigration bills. (http://www.cnn.com...) You can't get a drivers licenses unless you show proof of residency. The result? It takes days to get a drivers license. Because it is just more bureaucratic hassle, which costs time and money. And everyone now hates the law. "With regards to the idea that we need to treat them for emergency care, I ask this: why should a federal law requiring us to treat illegals in emergency care be followed, while another federal law requiring them to be deported should be vigorously ignored?" Reply: It's has to do with who is carrying out the laws: Hospital vs. Government bureaucrats. The reason that the deporting one isn't followed as vigorously is because a government bureaucracy is doing it and can't do anything efficiently as a private hospital. Just wishing they would doesn't change the fact that a bureaucracy can't do anything. The law isn't that you have to provide emergency health care to illegal immigrants, but to everyone, legal, illegal, tourist, etc. So I don't think it is feasible to ask an unconscious person to show their documents that they are legal. "4. It doesn't need to be the prerogative of business. But when employers enjoy being able to hide these guys and pay them $3/hour under the table, etc... they know exactly what they are doing and should be punished." Reply: No, they shouldn't be punished, because they aren't doing anything wrong. You want to punish the business for hiring someone you don't like. Why not punish business for hiring gay people who marry illegally or break sodomy laws? "If government is unwilling to enforce its current laws, I don't trust them to enforce any new law. The 1986 amnesty had a promise they would enforce a new and tougher law, and that didn't work out" Reply: You still haven't given any reason why the government will all of the sudden be able to change and enforce the current laws? Just closing your eyes and crossing your fingers isn't going to make it so. "You're talking about a guest worker program, and that's a different debate" Reply: My solution actually deals with WHY immigration is happening and works on that. The current law has no relevance to effects and causes. A fence does nothing to address the issue of willing buyers and willing sellers. It is just a waste of money. Just deporting everyone doesn't work because it is too bureaucratic. Besides, there is no immigration crises. It's the same trick that gay marriage was 4 years ago. Find an emotional issue that people don't think rationally about and use it to wedge the electorate to thrust yourself to power. Last election, it was gay people who made Americans feel yucky. This year, it's immigrants. Both facades used to distract people from issues that matter.

positive: Public Forum topic for September '09 Attrition is defined as: A wearing down or weakening of resistance, especially as a result of continuous pressure or harassment. To engage in attrition warfare is to wear down your enemy to the "point of collapse." While proponents of such a harsh sounding policy say that they are merely advocating for employers to require legal citizen status, and push for local law enforcement to discourage settlement of illegal immigrants, the New York Times describes the more accurate reality of what the policy aims to do: "Their one big idea is that harsh, unrelenting enforcement at the border, in the workplace and in homes and streets would dry up opportunities for illegal immigrants and eventually cause the human tide to flow backward. That would be true only if life for illegal immigrants in America could be made significantly more miserable than life in, say, rural Guatemala or the slums of Mexico City. That will take a lot of time and a lot of misery to pull that off in a country that has tolerated and profited from illegal labor for generations." In other words, the purpose of attrition through enforcement would be to rally American citizens in support of anti-immigration, in order to make life in America nearly impossible for the citizens who have escaped to live here in search of a better life. I am opposed to this ideology for several reasons which I will detail in the following arguments. 1) All of our ancestors came to the United States in search of a better life, or for certain freedoms and values not granted in the origin of their birth. Immigrants are flocking to the U.S. now for that very same reason. The only difference is that our ancestors used violent force and other malicious attacks to drive the original inhabitants of North America out of their homes, while immigrants are merely attempting to work hard for their money and live in a more effective and safe capitalistic, somewhat democratic society. I fail to see why it should be fair that we make their lives Hell for wanting to seek the same opportunities of which our ancestors came, simply because we have expanded our government enabling us to do so. 2) Amnesty, as defined by its opponents, has come to mean getting forgiveness for free. But under the Senate's current compromise, the path for illegals is not anything close to easy. Under the compromise, the 12 million immigrants would face a 13-year process including $5,000 in fines per person, benchmarks for learning English, and an onerous "touchback" provision that calls for the head of each household to leave job and family behind and return to his or her home country for an indeterminate amount of time to queue up for the final green card. Nothing free about that, notes TIME magazine. 3) Many opponents of amnesty also say that immigrants should work hard to enter this country legally if they wish to be accepted. However what they don't tell you is that many eligible individuals have been waiting patiently for citizenship for as much as 28 years. Our current faulty system obviously needs reform, and that reform would be addressed under the new proposed amnesty bill which I have described above. Without it, there is absolutely no incentive for immigrants to enter this country legally or even try. A further argument on this issue is that we simply cannot stop immigrants from entering this country and working, which is obvious by the sheer amount of people who enter and enter our workforce each day. We already have a Border Patrol; obviously they're failing (and many are corrupt). 4) With that in mind, I'd like Pro to realize that there already ARE laws about employers requiring their employees to verify their citizenship. There are also laws that require employers to have all of their employees on legitimate, legal pay rolls. That simply just does not happen. People break the law all the time. Consider the amount of jobs that work "off the books" -- I myself have worked several, and I'm not even an immigrant! The point here is that it would be nearly impossible to enforce complete compliance by employers. It's ultimately THEIR fault that immigrants work. Creating federal agencies aimed at this goal would just be another expensive, ineffective feat (like the DEA) or possibly even an illegal agency (like the IRS) and include an expansion of bureaucracy and cost. Additionally, many amnesty opponents often utilize the work of illegal immigrants to their economic advantage every single day... as do most Americans, who often benefit financially from their work and existence in this country as well. 5) Much of the anti-amnesty talk is about racism and xenophobia. For instance, FOX commentator Bill O'Reilly warns that amnesty would drastically alter a country that is already 1/3 minority. In other words, if you're not white, you're not welcome. This is an incredibly bigoted argument. Additionally, Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo vehemently opposed amnesty on the grounds that Mexicans speak Spanish, and a bilingual country would be detrimental to the United States. This is the biggest bunch of crap that I have ever heard. In fact, I think that Americans are HINDERED at our ability to only speak one language; many Europeans can speak several which works to their advantage both personally and in business. Think about it: The ability to speak more than one language often gets you AHEAD and is considered favorable on college applications, resumes, etc. Additionally, obviously Mexicans understand that they'd have to learn English in order to get ahead in this country. Let's be realistic. 6) In terms of wages and economics, journalist Nathan Thornburgh describes it best: For all the stresses of immigration, we are the only industrialized nation with a population that is growing fast enough and skews young enough to provide the kind of workforce that a dynamic economy needs. The illegals are part of the reason for that, and amnesty ensures that competitive advantage. 7) The plethora of immigrants who live here are already utilizing tax payer dollars in terms of ER medical attention, police protection (sort of) and other benefits such as the building of roads, etc. It would be in our economic interest to impose the same tax burdens on them as everyone else. It's also the most fair thing to do. Right now they're getting a free ride, and there's no way to stop it except to hold them accountable and give them the privileges AND responsibilities of citizenship. 8) Law enforcement is concentrating more on who's living here illegally in certain areas than on trying to fight real, dangerous crime (such as gang activity, violence, etc.). There are more important things that the law should have to worry about than immigration, especially at the local level. Pro said the fact that many immigrants have been convicted of crimes or have hepatitis C should be enough to kick them out of this country. She forgot to note the fact that this could possibly be because they lived in poverty, in bad neighborhoods, no medical care, etc. Moreover, suppose the majority of people who had committed crimes had brown eyes. Should we punish everyone with brown eyes? No, this is something that obviously has to be handled on a case by case basis. To punish the whole group would be entirely unfair. CONCLUSION: The reality is that immigrants are here to stay. The deportation of the millions of illegal immigrants is simply unfeasible. It is ridiculously expensive and obviously not cost efficient in terms of what we gain economically from immigrants vs. the cost of deportation, which is estimated at billions of dollars. Because this is therefore not an option, and the acts of attrition are not only morally questionable but also unenforceable, the resolution simply does not stand. We should focus on giving these people opportunities to succeed and BENEFIT our country rather than worry about the futile and unrealistic expectation of getting rid of them.

positive: This House Supports Free Immigration Many thanks Con for clarifying your stance, I must admit this is now going to be a difficult debate on my part. I shall have to martial my facts and evidence accordingly. Here goes. In Defense of free Immigration: Immigration is one of the most difficult and divisive issues for freedom lovers. Many believe in government restrictions on immigration, either for their own sake or as an interim measure so long as the United States has welfare programs that are presumed to attract immigrants, who then become net recipients of government revenue at the cost of taxpayers. Most arguments against immigration, coming from partisans of freedom, boil down one way or another to the notion that free immigration fosters socialism and moves American society away from the libertarian ideal. It is argued that immigrants use welfare programs and encourage their expansion; or that immigrants modify American culture generally for the worse, bringing from their native countries alien and socialistic ideas; or that free immigration itself constitutes a de facto trespass against the private-property rights of Americans; or some combination of the above arguments is advanced. C1. It harms the country they move from: There is no evidence to support this. If Cons argument on overpopulation in America is anything to go by then it would be hypocritical for him to state that the migrant"s home country would be benefited if said countries population would be larger. C2. Immigration harms the country they move to: Some pro-immigration libertarians have attempted to show that illegal immigrants actually receive less in welfare than they pay in taxes or even less than what native-born Americans receive, on average. This argument, as useful as it may be, circumvents the fundamental issues of immigration policy. (I, for one, think that if open immigration overloads the welfare system, causing it to collapse, so much the better.) In exploring immigration as a social service welfare issue, let us consider that it is not only opponents of social welfare who oppose open borders because of a perceived relationship between immigration and the welfare issue. European countries with socialist economies oftentimes have extremely strict immigration policies, and citizens of those countries oftentimes see that open immigration threatens their welfare state, which they strive to maintain. American advocates of social welfare policies also see the incompatibility between their pet programs and a free flow of immigrants. In a recent interview with Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader implied such an incompatibility, as well as a conception that the government should centrally plan the economy, when he said, "I don"t believe in giving visas to software people from the Third World when we have got all kinds of unemployed software people here." He went on to say, This is the reason the Wall Street Journal is for an open-borders policy: they want a cheap-wage policy. . .. [Illegal immigrants] should be given all the fair-labor standards and all the rights and benefits of American workers, and if this country doesn"t like that, maybe they will do something about the immigration laws. Nader is willing to bet that an expansion of labor regulations and economic socialism would lead to tighter immigration controls, which he appears to advocate. Conservatives have at times attempted to restrict the ability of immigrants to receive welfare benefits, such as with the notable 1994 Californian voter initiative, Proposition 187. This is surely a better method to reduce any problems immigration might have regarding the welfare state, when compared to giving the government more power and money to keep out immigrants who only seek work and freedom. It is more politically viable and more realistic, and reduces the activity of the state, rather than increasing dependence on it. (Ideally, of course, immigrants would be exempt not only from welfare but from taxes as well. Even more ideally, these exemptions would also apply to citizens.) All in all, any alleged relationship between free immigration and a growing welfare state is irrelevant to the underlying issue and lacks tangible evidence in regards to be destructive e.g the UK and Russia, as pointed out by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and is pro free immigration. As Hoppe explains, [The effect of immigration on social service welfare] is not an argument against immigration but against the welfare state. To be sure, the welfare state should be destroyed, root and branch. However, in any case the problems of immigration and welfare are analytically distinct problems, and they must be treated accordingly. In consideration of the United Kingdom, I am currently here and have just started school at Harrow. I can certainly advocate that the education here has not been affected by immigration, in fact if one considers the new 2012 international university survey they will find that the United Kingdom has 4 schools within the top 6, and from a country nearly the size of Florida that is a remarkable feat. http://www.guardian.co.uk... Therefore, I cannot accept that the education has been affected in the UK, I will go as far as to say that Harrow is far superior to the education I received back home in the US. Additionally, My father is English, therefore I have English family. My English Aunt who recently discovered she had cancer underwent emergency treatment and medication in 2010, she has since made a full recovery and has no bills to pay. Here it can be deduced that immigration has not affected the medical system as Con suggests. No welfare problem or attack on social services (as Con has pointed out) is ultimately the result of immigration. Therefore, I urges us to separate these issues conceptually. C3. It harms cultural relations: Some, including this writer, often argue that immigration is a blessing to the culture of America, which has always been a nation with a large immigrant population. The expanded variety in foods, music, art, and traditions is one of the things that makes America the great country it is. Con argues that immigrants bring with them foreign customs, practices, and ideas, which, on balance, compromise the tradition of American liberty embraced by native-born Americans, whose Anglo-European heritage provides them with an affinity for the rule of law and constitutional liberty or who simply have assimilated and come to embrace freedom over socialism. There are weaknesses with this argument, seeing that many immigrants come especially because they seek freedom, not the socialism or despotism characteristic of the countries from which they come. To the extent that they come for the socialism that already exists in America, it testifies as much against the socialist tendencies of Americans, who enact such policies, as it does against the foreigners who seek them. However, like the welfare/social issue, the cultural impact of immigration is really secondary to what kind of immigration policy is fit for a free country. Many libertarian policies will tolerate culturally and even morally questionable trends, but we who cherish freedom believe that such vices will pale in importance when compared with the moral virtues and practical benefits of maximized freedom such as America so bravely and stridently fights for, as well as the moral and cultural greatness that such freedom, on balance, nurtures. Open versus restricted immigration and employment: So the real question is whether open immigration or restricted immigration as Con may prefer, is the more appropriate policy for a free country. One argument against open immigration, given by some, is that in an ideal world almost all land would be private, but in the meantime illegal immigrants who use public space are essentially trespassing on what should be the privately owned land of native-born Americans. It is indeed true that we should maximize how much land is owned privately. If nearly all land were private, landlords, employers, merchants, and others would determine who could enter their property. Every property owner would have his own "immigration" policy. The fact is as Con skimmed, landlords, employers, and merchants currently allow immigrants on their land all the time, and in many cases would be more open to immigrants if they did not fear legal repercussions. The only question that remains is what to do about public property, including much of the land along the national borders. Whereas in a free society property owners along the border would be free to allow foreigners to enter their property, opponents of open immigration believe that the government must, in the interim, forbid people from allowing immigrants onto their own land. The philosophical case for prohibiting immigrants on public land " and by corollary, effectively keeping them out of the country and off the private land of willingly accommodating owners " as an extension of private property rights is highly problematic. Why would such a rationale not be fitting to limit, by law, the number of children a family can have? If a middle-class family has 10 children, certainly it takes up an amount of space disproportional to its income and what it pays in taxes. Every day we see the willingness of Americans to accommodate immigrants. The market supports them. They work, purchase goods and services, and pay for housing. Their use of public resources and land, if anything, is a problem with the status of so much property as public " just as their potential abuse of welfare is a problem with welfare itself. Continuing to shut out immigrants, or becoming even more restrictive with the borders, further reinforces the notion that so much public land should be protected by government, and takes us a step away from our ultimate goal of eventually privatizing it. Once most land is privatized, most immigrants would be able to find work and housing in the marketplace, and in the meantime the government cannot mimic the proper supply and demand for labor in lieu of market mechanisms. Furthermore, the use of the federal government to control borders contributes directly to socialism far more than the immigrants themselves. Just like all other federal government programs, immigration controls are a form of socialism. They involve bloated budgets, bureaucracy, central planning, taxation, abusive police powers, intrusions in the marketplace, and widespread corruption. Immigration controls are expensive, and they clearly don"t work that well. More than a million foreigners enter America illegally every year. A serious attempt to keep them out would require even higher taxes, a more militarized border patrol, and vast invasions of the privacy of employers and other Americans. It would potentially require a national ID card, as well as an army of border police and federal agents to round up and repatriate illegals. It would depend on central planning, which, as all free-market economists should know, simply doesn"t work. The border guards have already been implicated in a number of scandals, and the idea that the government can maintain efficiency and honesty in its border police, when the federal government does a poor job of preventing corruption and degradation among city police, prison guards, and even in the highly regimented military, requires quite a stretch of the imagination. As borders are tightened, a black market in immigration will expand, leading to increased violence and government corruption. The war on drugs has utterly failed to keep drugs out of the country, and yet has succeeded in draining away enormous resources and eroding precious civil liberties; a war on immigrants would yield similar results. Immigration, the Declaration, and the United States Constitution: Moreover, just like all the other socialist federal programs in America, free immigration is totally constitutional. Article I, Section 8 provides no authority whatever to the federal government to close the borders. It is a step in the wrong direction to violate the Constitution further, simply to allow one favored government program to slip through. Such leniency with the Constitution, after all, is how we wound up with so much socialism and freedom in the first place. This brings us to the question of the history of immigration control. Many Americans point to the 1965 amendments to the Immigration Act, which loosened restrictions on immigration somewhat, and associate them with Lyndon Johnson"s socialist Great Society programs of the same era, believing they are another indication that free immigration and socialism go hand in hand. This does not necessarily follow any more than Andrew Jackson"s opposition to central banking and his atrocious Trail of Tears, when taken together, demonstrate that free-market banking goes hand in hand with the brutal displacement of American Indians. Still, it is often useful to see the political movements associated with certain political trends and opinions. In the case of immigration, we can go all the way back to the Declaration of Independence, in which Thomas Jefferson cited King George III"s obstruction to immigration to the colonies as a grievance: "He has endeavored to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands." For most of U.S. history, there were virtually no immigration controls. Some northern states had Black Codes that kept free blacks from entering. Eventually, the federal government passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Therefore, in light of the evidence, I refer back to my original statement that it is anti American to go against free immigration; it is immoral, unjust, and hypocritical in light of American legislation, the Constitution, our history, and an insult to our military personnel who are currently at war in the name of freedom and said principles.

positive: Resolved: Immigration policies should be expanded to compensate for a growing U.S. society IntroductionAmerican inventor and engineer Charles Franklin Kettering was once quoted for saying, “We must all be concerned about the future, because we will have to spend the rest of our lives there.” We must assure ourselves and citizens that the future will remain prosperous and maintain beneficial attributes. As increased immigration would attack these principles, we must negate the resolution.Before delving into arguments too quickly, there are three questions of optimal priority: a) what immigration laws we have b) what purpose these laws serve and c) why immigration even happens.A. What Immigration Laws Do We Have?According to the Immigration Policy Center in 2015, “U.S. immigration law is very complex... The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), the body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members. Congress and the President determine a separate number for refugee admissions. Immigration to the US is based upon the following principles: the reunification of families, admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the U.S. economy, protecting refugees, and promoting diversity.” [1] Our U.S. immigration laws vary due to different circumstances, but the central law is an annual limit of roughly 675,000 immigrants each year. Take note that these immigrants are all considered legal.B. What Purpose Do US Immigration Laws Serve?Immigration laws are in place for many reasons, but primarily to avoid an excessive population without sufficient necessities (including housing, work, medical services, etc.). The Legal Information Institute of Cornell University Law School expands on the purpose by saying, “Federal immigration law determines whether a person is an alien, the rights, duties, and obligations associated with being an alien in the US, and how aliens gain residence or citizenship within the US. It also provides the means by which certain aliens can become legally naturalized citizens with full rights of citizenship. Immigration law serves as a gatekeeper for the nation's border, determining who may enter, how long they may stay, and when they must leave.” [2] Accordingly, these laws normatively prevent problems within the country itself.C. Why Does Immigration Even Happen?There are a variety of reasons as to why people immigrate. The Watson Institute for International Studies of Brown University published an article titled “US Immigration Policy: What Should We Do?” that described a little about this subject: “The idealism surrounding immigration explains in large part the deep feelings it evokes in the public policy arena. These sentiments have jostled with concerns about the economy, ethnic relations, social services, the environment, and other issues. In recent years, the debate over immigration has expanded to incorporate a broad range of foreign policy issues.” [3] Besides this, reasons for immigration can be reduced to four, which are as follows: “1. to be reunited with family 2. to seek a better financial situation 3. to seek freedom and safety and 4. to follow their faith.” [4]C1) Excessive immigration becomes a burden to society.Inefficiency of extensive immigration has been proven over time and, expanding the policy include more people, coming illegally, would only result in problematic and dangerous circumstances.If illegal immigration stopped now, the numbers would be permissible; however, the problems we see exist because illegal immigration is not stopping, or even slowing down; rather, it is accelerating. According to Peter Ketel of the University of Idaho, “More than 10 million illegal immigrants live in the US, and 1,400 more arrive every day.” [5] Refer back to the IPC [1] where they specified that immigration laws restrict access of legal immigrants at 675,000 annually. 1,400 new “citizens” every day calculates to a conservative estimate of 510,000 annually, all illegal. On average, that’s the US gaining in population by 1,185,000 yearly. Such an increase is positive to have detrimental effects.Considering the dilemma from a moral standpoint, Manuel Velasquez, professor of business ethics at Santa Clara University notes, “Because immigrants from less-developed nations are usually willing to work for less than citizens, employers hire the immigrants, pushing wages downward. At the same time, aliens take advantage of government services such as schools and health care. So nations have a moral right to exclude immigrants because they harm citizens by taking away jobs, reducing wages, and draining social services.” [6]Furthermore, illegal immigrants also unintentionally receive benefits that legal residents aren’t granted. Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark of Federation for American Immigration Reform explain, “Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. treasury.” [7]Furthermore, complications arise particularly for places already facing problems. Economist John W. Schoen explained for NBC News, “The recent surge in immigrants is overwhelming the social services of many border counties... especially in states with relatively small budgets where resources are already stretched thin.” [10]C2) Immigration expansion would foster further illegal immigration.Increasing the amount of immigrants who are granted entrance to our country would only facilitate further illegal immigration, the very problem the increase attempt to fix. Making the system more complex, and adding unnecessary facets to the system would have the opposite of the intended effect.Take, for example, the Visa Waiver Program, a tangent of immigration policies that is intended to be expanded. In short, it is a Visa free pass to allow tourists to come to the US for a specific allotment of time, and then leave. Abuse of this system occurs regularly, and would only worsen if expanded. U.S. Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, an area closely affected by immigration laws and policies, explains, “[Expanding] the VWP (Visa Waiver Program) facilitates illegal immigration. An estimated 40 percent of illegal immigrants came to the U.S. under the VWP or with temporary visas and simply overstayed their period of lawful admission.” [8]Allowing intended tourists to stay longer encourages illegal action. This shortcut provides a loophole for individuals wishing to enter the US. The expansion of these systems in particular prove to once again be detrimental to society.There is a common saying that “if you give someone an inch, they’ll take a mile.” Granting more immigrants to enter the US, legal or otherwise, is sure to continue by leaps and bounds, if not strictly regulated or prohibited. Further, this increase harms an already delicate job market. Economist Jan Ting explains this effectively. “What is the impact of an executive order adding 5 million or so additional workers to the labor work force in America? How does that affect the job prospects of 9 million unemployed Americans, 2.9 million of whom are considered long-term unemployed, and another 7 million officially recognized as involuntary part-time workers because they want but can't find full-time work, and another 2.2 million who want and are available for work and have looked for work in the past year, including 800,000 designated as discouraged workers who have given up?” [9]C3) Immigration is a detriment to the economy.Beyond moral obligations to negate and the burden immigrants place on the society to which they assimilate, the economy is also adversely affected by immigration. Senior editor for The Atlantic supports this notion. “1.5 million fewer native-born Americans are working than in November 2007… there are 2 million more immigrants—legal and illegal—working in the US today than in November 2007. All the net new jobs created since November 2007 have gone to immigrants.” [11] This means, in terms of employment, that employment is at least completely stalled due to immigration, if not increased unemployment levels. With less native people working, we find unemployment levels to spike.Researcher and economist Eric Ruark sheds light as to why employment is a concern. “the immigration system... is bringing in workers faster than jobs are being created. Only a small portion of admissions are based on skills or educational criteria, creating an enormous glut of low-skilled workers who struggle to rise above poverty.” [12] With expedited immigration causing more unemployed impoverished families, the US cannot effectively sustain its existing society while supporting others as well.Moreover, policy analyst PhD Jason Richwine notes, “unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion.” [13]ConclusionExpanding immigration would have an adverse effect on both the economy and the society as a whole. I have provided multiple reasons as to why this is true, and how it will become a burden to society, how it would foster further illegal immigration, and how it is economically unsound. Moreover, as Christian Science Monitor notes, creating a way for illegals to become legal would invite more illegal immigration. [14] Conclusively, we find that attempts to expand or increase immigration would be both a morally and pragmatically harmful decision. Thus, we must negate.Sources: [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com... [13] http://tinyurl.com... [14] http://tinyurl.com...

positive: Deport all Illegal Immigrants: Change my Mind I hate having to use cliche arguments, but we are a nation of immigrants. Do you dpeak a Nativ language? If you are not indiginous, you can trace back to immigrants. Many Honduran immigrant women are fleeing gang rape and slavery which is what human trafficing is. Mexicans are fleeing drug wars. Do we get rid of criminals? Yes. Do we keep everyone else. The reason I brought up the Bible is it influences my vote and says to do good unto the least of these. Are not the immigrants the least of these. I have a very tough question for you, sir: Do you want your mind changed, pr do you just want to share what you think? I see nothing wrong with either.

positive: Illegal aliens should not be allowed to stay in the United States I would like to begin by rebutting the three subpoints you made to establish your contention that there is no rational basis for keeping illegal aliens.Rebuttal1. Undocumented immigrants actually do pay the majority of the tax burden we place on them (almost all of state and local and the greater part of federal), contrary to popular misconceptions, while also receiving fewer benefits.The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy informs us that (http://www.itep.org...) undocumented immigrants already contribute a sizeable amount to state and local taxes. Furthermore, they are currently actually contributing amounts disproportionately large relative to their services from the government.The median household income of undocumented immigrants is approximately $37,000, according to Pew (http://www.pewhispanic.org...). However, on average, the government actually contributes more directly to those with incomes under $37,000 than it collects! Because of this, those undocumented immigrants who aren't meeting their income tax burden (that number is estimated around 25%) are typically costing the government less than naturalised citizens, as they are of course not able to claim federal services while not paying federal income tax. (http://taxfoundation.org...). This is related to the fact around 46% of Americans aren't required to pay income tax as-is (http://www.washingtonpost.com...), and statistics tell us the majority of undocumented immigrants are within this 46%. Similarly, undocumented immigrants contribute many, many times more to Social Security than they take out, as they pay for Social Security through their salary while lacking the Social Security card needed to receive benefits! (http://www.nytimes.com...)And, to bring the point home reiterating and directly attack your unsupported claim, the majority of illegal immigrants are currently meeting their tax burden, (http://www.itep.org...) thoroughly debunking your first subpoint.To connect it to my overall argument, I contend from available data that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants make a good-faith effort to pay all taxes whilst also having to deal with the extraordinary risk they are placed under should they be 'found out' and subsequently deported. However, were we to provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, it is very likely our overall tax receipts would rise even further. I contend that your first sub-point not only can be disproven with factual evidence, but it is logically irrelevant, as undocumented immigrants would be more able to contribute their full share of taxes (although many of them already do) if we didn't pursue a policy of deportation. 2. Undocumented immigrants (and particularly their children) have a relatively similar or in some cases lower crime rate compared to that of naturalised citizens. In fact, American citizens are as likely to traffic drugs as undocumented immigrants!This is another popular misconception that turns out to be largely unsupported by the data at hand. Four out of five busts for drug trafficing by the Border Patrol are by US citizens (http://cironline.org...). This is hilarious, as the Border Patrol exists in large part to prevent undocumented immigration, not serve as second fiddle to the DEA.Take a look at the incarceration rates of US vs Mexican young men without an high school diploma, as this demographic makes up the majority of serious offenders (https://img.washingtonpost.com...). Again, the incarceration rate for naturalised citizens is nearly ten times higher!The (right-wing and nativist) Centre for Immigration Studies, whilst pointing out that there is a somewhat higher rate of incarceration in Federal facilities for undocumented immigrants than for naturalised citizens, itself points out that this shaky data includes those incarcerated for the very offence of undocumented immigration (http://www.cis.org...)! The offence of undocumented immigration is the most common among undocumented immigrants incarcerated in federal facilities, as well, which appears to be more or less entirely for the marginally higher Federal incarceration rate.Your contention that they are here to 'corrupt our world' is unfounded and prejudicial - Emily Ryo, a sociology professor at USC, found that the majority of undocumented immigrants believe they are moral people immigrating only to benefit the US (http://www.latimes.com...). In short, the moral fibre of these people is closer to that of the settlers who made America what it is today (many of whom, I would like to remind you, were themselves literal criminals) than it is to some imaginary menace concocted by xenophobia.To once again more directly address your claim that deporting undocumented immigrants would reduce the crime rate, two law professors at the University of Chicago and New York University found that mass deportation had literally no statistically significant effect on the crime rate (http://www.nytimes.com...). To summarise, undocumented immigrants are not necessarily more likely to commit crimes and deportation does not positively affect the crime rate.3. Your contention that refusing to deport undocumented immigrants will lead to more undocumented immigration is logically unsound, as the majority of those who oppose mass deportation support a less restrictive immigration process.Unfortunately, there are no solid studies or statistics that can conclusively say the effect (whether positive or negative) that deportation has on undocumented immigration. I instead contend that your entire contention is flawed, as a scenario in which we would eliminate deportation would be one in which we have a true path to citizenship and a more open immigration process. My hunch is that there would be more immigration, however there would certainly not be more 'illegal aliens'.Finally, your overall argument that undocumented immigrants are a) bereft of a 'real job' and b) responsible for overall US unemployment is unsupported by both evidence and elementary logic.To address your concluding argument, we currently have no true path to citizenship (with the exception of the restrictive and marginal DREAM Act) making it functionally impossible to 'follow the system legally and become legal residents'. Your suggestion that they 'get a real job' is illogical and absurd, as you also suggest that they are simulataneously 'taking jobs that documented/legal Americans could have'. I would like to offer a rebuttal to your overly simplistic idea that undocumented immigration causes unemployment using some relatively simple economic principles.There are three types of unemployment: Frictional unemployment, or the unemployment of people currently between jobs. These are the skilled, in-demand people who currently don't have a job but are likely to receive one soon. This unemployment is not of concern to economists, and of course bears no relation to undocumented immigration. Note that typically this is the most reliable source of American unemployment. Cyclical unemployment, or the unemployment of people who were fired during the recessionary period of the business cycle. As recessions are thought to typically return to a macroeconomic equilibrium of growth, this unemployment is also not of grave of concern to economists. It also bears no relation to undocumented immigration, as no serious economist would argue that undocumented immigration caused the late 2000s financial crisis (largely a result of deregulation of the financial market). Note that most of the US' late 2000s and early to mid 2010s unemployment is a result of cyclical unemployment. Structural unemployment, or the gap between the number of jobs available and the number of unemployed people. This unemployment is an issue with the overall equilibrium of the economy. You could argue that undocumented immigration increased the number of unemployed people, but this ignores the relatively high (and constantly high) employment rate of undocumented immigrants despite employer screening and comparatively little education. Counterintuitively, this rebuts your argument, as this suggests that the majority of undocumented immigrants are taking jobs that naturalised citizens simply don't want (http://www.npr.org...). If you don't believe me, or Adam Davidson, I direct you to this WSJ poll of 46 economists (http://online.wsj.com...). When asked the question 'Illegal immigrants often benefit businesses by filling low-wage jobs that are difficult to fill with Americans. But illegal immigrants can add to the costs of U.S. social programs. On balance, has the U.S. economy benefited more than it has been harmed by its current population of undocumented workers?', 96% responded 'It has benefited more than it has been harmed'. Argument (introdution/summarisation)My argument is that the net benefit of undocumented immigration is positive as-is. Immigration bolsters the economy & population growth rate. However, the majority of the (comparatively small) harm comes from incidentals, such as fear of government, that would be reduced were they naturalised citizens. Therefore, we should end deportation whilst providing a pathway to citizenship and less restrictive immigration laws.

negative: Americans should stop slacking and work harder. It would be good if mexicans take our jobs because the Muricans wont need to work.

negative: In the US, illegal immigrants should not be deported. My opponent forfeited their round and as a result, should lose conduct points. My arguments still stand, with no rebuttals against them.

negative: Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship I accept your challenge Eric. Maybe this time you can win on your choice of topic.

negative: Due process for illegal immigrants Should illegal immigrants be given the right to due process before deportation from the US? No they should not, they are not citizens. US citizens have earned the right to due process or those that are visiting that are here legally.

negative: Illigal immigration we should not deport illegal immigrants after they have already arrived here.

negative: Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants Ending birthright citizenship creates an underclass in America

negative: Allow illegal immigrants amnesty. Good luck to you as well. A perfect utopian society is not perfect, but it's something we can aim for.

negative: Angering hispanics should not stop enforcing law, deporting illegals. David Sheets. "Start deporting illegal immigrants." DesMoinesRegister. July 1, 2010: "The U.S.-Mexican border is allowed to be porous because of misguided attitudes that border security will anger Hispanics in the United States and the Mexican government. Failing to act, regardless of who is angered by enforcing the law, is an abdication of government responsibility to regulate the flow of people into and out of this nation's borders."

negative: Illegal Aliens Hey, sorry I am not clarifying. I am still new to this, I made the mistake of not making the debate clear. I am debating with another person on this subject. But I am more clear. I wanted to go ahead and post this so you dont have to wait 3 days to win.

negative: Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants Birthright citizenship exacerbates dilemmas around illegal immigration.

negative: In the US, illegal immigrants should not be deported. Can't use this round. I wish i had paid better attention, and not missed two rounds. I can't blame voters for voting against me.

negative: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should build a border wall along the US-Mexico border Well thanks for a good debate, Lannan. Definitely interesting.Mexico s://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com...; alt="" />[1]This is not a "fence." These are several prototypes for Trump's wall, which can easily be placed in rivers if need be, yet when the worst case scenario is to have a couple dozen guards on a river, it isn't the end of the world. Your barrier would be significantly more expensive and would rely more on software than hardware given the sensors and whatnot, and considering water is a factor here, the electronics and electrical integrity of your border could be put at risk infinitely more than my wall.You say "most of this will be American companies and American infrastructure," yet that's the exact opposite of what your plan is. You're saying the Mexican government will build a border wall with loans from American companies, but that still makes it property of the Mexican government. On top of that, you haven't explained how this is even possible. What companies will invest in an expensive Mexico-owned wall instead of a cheaper American-owned wall? That makes no sense.If I countered a border wall with a GPS-guided satellite laser targeting system to incinerate anyone within a 100mi radius of the border, I'd have to explain how that would be feasible, I wouldn't just say "this idea is better." We aren't talking about only ideas, we're talking about practicality, implementation, feasibility, and so on. The fact of the matter is, no American companies will invest billions in a Mexico-owned border wall when they can invest less in a US-owned border wall. And even if Mexico granted them shareholder privileges and the wall was 99% owned by American companies, it wouldn't make any sense why any company would do that, as there isn't any profit to be gained other than minimal interest paid by the Mexican government (which would be quite low considering the country we're dealing with) and as it is, the US government could do it for cheaper.American companies will be hiring workers as it is to build the wall, jobs aren't a product of your wall only. And did you forget the part where Mexico doesn't want a wall to begin with? Mexico will not do what you want to do. That destroys your entire argument right off the bat. America will do what I want to do. Looks like the case is closed.HegemonyYou're right that there's a construction labour shortage, yet Mexico is in the same boat in a different sea. They don't want a wall. There is more chance of Mexicans being granted an American work visa to help with the wall than there is for Mexico to build a wall and hire Mexican workers. We all know how terrible wages are in Mexico, so they'd earn even more if they helped the US build a wall - and keep in mind these people don't have an opinion on the wall, as they just want to work, and will work for whoever pays them the most (which would be the US).Unfortunately saying "we'll get Mexico to do it" requires some reasoning as to why Mexico would build a wall in the first place. You can't just say "Mexico will do it" and leave it at that. Because in the end, Mexico won't do it, as I've stated before, so the best chance for the wall to be completed would be if it were built by the US the way they're planning now.Good point on STEM jobs. However you bring up that engineers and scientists are the primary focus of your wall, yet there are still a multitude of jobs in the area to be created with my wall. Engineers obviously having to construct through different land orientation and ensuring the wall is sturdy and is positioned properly. Scientists taking into account atmospheric elements and Earthly minerals throughout several different biomes, as well as marine and land life being displaced and evolving without being able to cross the border anymore. Your wall has more bells and whistles, but mine offers a multitude of areas to advance our knowledge and growth in STEM areas.Comparing space travel to border walls is like comparing apples to Jagerbombs. It's not the same thing. There are a plethora of reasons the Apollo space program boosted the economy, and a creation of jobs wasn't the only one. On top of that, your proposition seems to be helping Mexico significantly more than America, and the wall is being built for America, considering, well, Mexico won't build it.Tunnels are, in all honesty, not a problem. The efforts put into finding these tunnels and either sealing them up or arresting whoever comes out the other side is far less than the investment and manpower put into the electronic systems you wish to implement [2]. Only 80 have been found since 2006, which is on average less than 7 a year. The cost, time, manpower, safety risks and security risks that go into making smuggling tunnels for small carts used for transportation of drugs is significant enough - to put people in would take even more work. And even if one or two tunnels pop up for a week before being extinguished, the amount of illegals that would come through would be minimal. Implementing an additional $125billion for a handful of tunnels is a waste of money, to say the least.I'm saying there would be a mutual understanding between the US and Mexico if the wall were built to keep out criminals and illegals, and legal law abiding citizens were allowed in. The only people upset about this would be people who are either criminals or are looking to gain entrance to the US illegally. No bad blood with good people.US DebtSo when Mexico asks American companies for $150billion, you think all those companies will just write a cheque from their bank account? None of them will borrow any? An additional 0.12% added to the debt will not be enough to push the government over the fiscal cliff, and I cannot find a single source that has talked about it recently. The debt ceiling is being raised, taxes have recently been cut by Mr. Trump, so if they need to be raised slightly it won't have an impact, and I really do need to touch on this again - this border wall is a more likely option than a Mexico-owned border wall regardless of additional debt incurred. Cutting spending in other areas can lead to a very quick balance.I too have run out of space and I thank you for this debate.So to summarise:Your wall would be incredibly more expensive.Your wall would rely on software as well as hardware, which can malfunction.The practicality and feasibility of American companies investing in an expensive Mexico-owned border wall is significantly less than a cheaper American-owned border wall.Mexico has said many times that they do not believe in border walls and in no way would build their own.It is more practical for the US to build a wall and hire Mexican workers than it is for Mexico to build a wall and hire Mexican workers as Mexico does not want a wall to begin with.My wall will produce a lot of opportunity for development of STEM jobs.An additional $125billion to find a minuscule amount of tunnels is an absolute waste of money.0.12% additional debt will not push the US over the fiscal cliff.The main point against your argument is that Mexico does not want a wall. If you ask them to build one with American investor's money, they will say no. You have not provided a detailed explanation of who will invest in a wall, why anyone would do that to begin with, and how you'd propose Mexico build a wall that they've said numerous times they don't want. Mexico will not build the wall, leaving my option to be the only one, and therefore the United States federal government should build a border wall along the US-Mexico Border. Thank you, and goodnight.Sources[1] https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com...[2] http://www.newsweek.com...

negative: Repatriate all Illegal Immigrants The only way to stop the problem of illegal immigration is to take a hard-line stance and adopt poli...

negative: Resolved: A just government ought to prioritize civil liberties over national security. I'm going to start by providing a constructive then offer a short rebuttal to my opponent's case. Observation:I do have an amendment to offer to my opponent's analysis. My opponent's job is to prove that all civil liberties should be prioritized to national security, which I believe his case agrees with. As such I must only prove that some civil liberties can be bypassed for the sake of national security. After all, it would be ridiculous for me to argue that the nation should slaughter civilians during a food shortage to preserve a more viable population. I believe my opponent will find that agreeable, but I want to make that clear so the debate can have focus. Definitions:I agree with the definitions my opponent did provide; however, I'd like to contest the ones he didn't provide. For a proper understanding of the debate, we cannot simply rely on common sense to guide us through this discussion. When we're talking about civil liberties do we mean fundamental rights, basic human rights, or rights that we feel we should have? Is the living wage a civil liberty? Is the freedom of expression through the clothing we wear a civil liberty? Your answer may differ. I'd like to provide a fairly lengthy definition. I suggest my opponent reads it. This is an abbreviated version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights issued by the UN, which I believe provides a good list of basic civil liberties: . http://hrlibrary.umn.edu...'s not too long and not too short. I would also like to define national security and how it is to be understood in this debate: National security is a concept that a government, along with its parliaments, should protect the state and its citizens against all kind of "national" crises through a variety of power projections, such as political power, diplomacy, economic power, military might, and so on [2]. Now onto my case:Civil Liberties that we can Temporarily Forgo:Civil liberties are great. I love that we can have a debating site like this. However, there are many civil liberties to consider, and some of them are only practical during a peaceful state and are not unreasonable to temporarily retract during a state of emergency. Among these rights is article 13 - right to free movement in and out of the country. Imagine a food crises or a severe national drought in a smaller country. It may be practical to set up a travel ban in order to have a set population with which you're trying to work. Though the Trump travel ban was controversial, we weren't facing any such crisis. Imagine a food shortage so severe that a state of emergency must be declared. It would be reasonable that you would want a population to help the crisis, and you may want to restrict immigrants to not add to the problems you already have with feeding people. Now let's address article 22 - the right to social security. This is not the US social security program, but rather the right to develop ones own personality [3]. In what situations might this be restricted? In World War II, fabric and clothing material was rationed for the war effort. It made sense because there were a lotime soldiers on the ground and a lot of need for clothing for our military and the people. So clothing that used excessive fabric like zoot suits were technically under a ban and considered unpatriotic [4]. While the zoot suit riots are nothing to be proud of, the concept makes sense. If we need to restrict some fabric usage for the sake of aiding national security, that's reasonable right? You may be thinking this seems like a ridiculous thing to be part of the debate as a civil liberty. But if the government suddenly declared that wearing certain clothing was completely illegal, there would be some concern. Freedom of expression is part of freedom of speech, which is our first amendment to the Constitution of the United States [5]. Another example is the freedom of the press. During a state of emergency, it may be particularly harmful for the press to consistently criticize the government's attempts to remedy the crisis. Mandating perhaps that the media at least report from a more positive standpoint until a state of emergency is over may aide in speeding up the process, which ties to the right to assembly. To use the World War II example. During that time, women were required to get into the work force because most of the men were fighting overseas. What if the media had been overly critical, and the women had decided to start protesting instead of working? The country's industry would've fallen, and it could've significantly hurt the ability of the country to produce basic living supplies and military equipment. We wouldn't have gained anything by protesting, but consistently marching would've hurt us considerably. My final example will be the right to vacation time. It makes sense that people need a break every once in a while to spend time with their family. But often times during a state of emergency, that would be unreasonable. We wouldn't see our country significantly benefited by people taking their sick time and vacation time to wait out the economic or food or war crisis that's happening. That would only further the problem. Again, these rights can be found in the link I posted for my definition and source [3] has the actual declaration in full written form. I contest that these civil liberties may be abridged without significant harm to justice or liberty during a state of emergency or for the sake of national security. Rebuttal:My opponent moves from addressing how countries have used national security as a guise to saying that this was done for the sake of national security. I am not required to argue for situations in which national security is not the main consideration in abridging civil liberties it does not fall under my burden. On Effectiveness in the Digital Age:The NSA has become rather controversial but controversy doesn't imply something is bad, and the feelings we have about things also do not determine things like justice. For example, it may seem like a serious breach of privacy for the government to monitor phone calls, but take into account the following considerations:1) The government only cares who you are if you say things that sound like a threat to national security. They don't have the time to care about hundreds of millions of people for making jokes or sexual phone calls or other private conversations. They're not actually listening to you. The incident my opponent cites is unfortunate, but it does not affirm the resolution on its own. Especially since the action did not have to do with national security.2) The NSA is very effective. To this day, the NSA in 2013 stopped 54 terrorist efforts through their methods. They even cite that because they originally did not monitor calls in the US they were unable to find Khalid al-Mihdhar before he flew a plane into the World Trade Center. They knew where he was up until he made it to a safe house in the US [6]. Summary:My opponent does provide a convincing analysis, but at a second glance it doesn't necessarily hold up to the resolution. Upon further analysis of Civil Liberties, it may not seem unjust to abridge some of them in severe cases. Sources: [1] . http://hrlibrary.umn.edu...[2] . https://en.m.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://www.un.org...[4] . https://en.m.wikipedia.org...[5] . https://constitutioncenter.org...[6] . https://www.wsj.com...[6.1] (for the people without a WJS subscription) . https://www.feinstein.senate.gov...

negative: hunting should become illegal Please vote for the better debater and not your personal position. I standby everything I said..

negative: hunting should become illegal Well...It seems evident that you should loose the deabte. Any rebuttal now would be unfair because I would never get to respond. It's a shame that this debate was thrown away.

negative: Drivers licenses for Illegal immigrants in the US Illegal immigrants enjoy equal protection under US law

negative: Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. pls extend my previous arguments in the 1st and 2nd rounds

negative: Drivers licenses for Illegal immigrants in the US Denying illegal immigrants driver's licenses does not address the problem of illegal immigration

negative: should all illegal immigrants get amnesty Should all illegal immigrants get amnesty

negative: Resolved: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States Resolved: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States I stand in firm affirmation on this bill. I believe that it is unfair, unjust, cheating, and not what the creators of the 14th Amendment originally intended. Contention 1: This law allows illegal immigrants to cheat the system and immediately become US citizens. Birthright citizenship gives illegal immigrants a motive for cheating the system and finding way to become legalized citizens. In a recent study there were approximately 11.2 illegal immigrants in the United States. The 14th Amendment give motives for all immigrants to cheat there way into gaining US citizenship by having children. The process of becoming a United States citizen normally takes between 5 months and 2 years. A person who has a baby on American soil takes one. Because the baby is now a United States citizen the process is sped up immensely for parents. It is almost guaranteed that the parents will get citizenship because the government will not forcibly deport the parents away from the baby or remove a US citizen, this being the baby. Contention 2: It is unfair, unjust, and does not create an equal society. I believe that if we allow this bill to remain it gives people who have a child here illegally an unfair advantage. Think about the thousands of people that have to wait through the process for 2 years. The people who have to pay and study in order to become a US citizen. Also think of the people who were paying taxes and benefiting the US economy while the illegal immigrants were illegally in the country and used a leu poll in order to become a citizen. Does that seem fair. Our country is based on a place where we are all considered equal. Does a person who has no knowledge of our country and became a citizen over night deserve to be a citizen more than the hardworking man who has been struggling to gain citizenship for the past 2 years, or the man who has studied and payed for tests, or the woman who has been doing local jobs everywhere in order so that she can pay for the documents and tests in order to become a citizen? The answer is no. Convention 3: It is not what creators of the constitution originally planned. The 14th Amendment was created in July of 1868. The men who created it would have no idea what would happen 144 years later. It was originally made so that recently freed African Americans would have citizenship if they were born here. Present day this is a means for illegal immigrants to unlawfully sneak past the system and gain citizenship. There have been other countries that have corrected laws similar to this. In Ukraine, they recently got rid of their "Tourist Baby" bill. This bill now states that if you have a baby in Ukraine and you are not a citizen of Ukraine you will not be granted citizenship. So now back to us, I believe that if we abolish birthright citizenship we can create a new bill that is geared towards giving citizenship to babies born of legal citizens of the United States. This would create a more fair and just system and would also clear up the controversy that the original founders of the 14th Amendment could not foresee.

negative: Failing to remove illegal immigrants undermines public confidence in the government and its migratio... Governments need to rethink migration policies as a whole and make an attempt to communicate the benefits of immigration to their citizens. There need to be more opportunities for foreign workers to operate legally, allowing them to leave and re-enter the country as they wish. This will remove the current incentive for many illegal immigrants to stay in their host country for life, as at present they know they are unlikely to be allowed back in should they ever leave.

negative: Allowing Illegal Immigrations To Still Get Benefits Thanks, Pro. == PRO CASE == R1) Causes 1. This is just a moral case for allowing illegal immigration; that is not what this debate is about. In fact, Pro is actually hurting his case by showing that the US has such superior living conditions that simply allowing them to be here is a substantial improvement on its own, regardless of whether or not they are receiving benefits. I could agree with every word Pro has said here and it still would not prove Pro's position. Reject this argument because it is inapplicable to the resolution at hand. 2. Regardless of how much strife illegal immigrants may have to go through, the state is first and foremost obligated to serve the best interests of its own citizens, and I have shown with my C2 that giving benefits to illegal immigrants puts a significant strain on the government budget and, by extension, the citizens. Moreover, the majority of academic studies on immigration conclude that the presence of illegal immigrants is harmful to the well-being of America's poorest citizens by competing with them for the same jobs. Therefore, the government shouldn't do anything that makes it easier for illegal immigrants -- including the provision of federal benefits -- and instead take action to reduce their numbers. https://www.hamiltonproject.org... 3. I have no idea what point Pro was trying to make with his tirade about European colonization and Columbus Day. He's going to have to explain how that connects to the resolution for it to even be considered an argument. R2) Work 1. The part where Pro actually connects "immigration is beneficial" to the resolution is extremely ill-warranted. He provides absolutely no evidence that illegal immigrants "need" benefits more than native citizens do. Considering Pro's claims that immigrants benefit the economy by filling in high-demand jobs, we would expect that they would be making ample money to be financially self-sufficient. 2. I have provided actual academic studies demonstrating that illegal immigrants hurt the job security and wages of America's poorest. Pro has just noted a decrease in unemployment rate without making any attempt at linking it to immigration. Unemployment rate is affected by thousands of variables, so to just arbitrarily attribute it to increased illegal immigration is absurd. Prefer my evidence, obviously. == CON CASE == C1) Incoherent Pro's only response is that illegal immigrants can become citizens, and thus the government doesn't have to deport them. But that is NOT within the parameters of the resolution. If that is what Pro wanted to debate, he should have made the resolution something like "The USFG should grant all illegal immigrants amnesty". The resolution we are debating specifically states that *illegal* immigrants should be given benefits, implying that they would still be "illegal" when they are receiving benefits. Thus, my criticism stands -- Pro's plan cannot be implemented because of its paradoxical nature. Also, cross-apply (in advance) this counter to all other mentions Pro makes of making illegal immigrants citizens; the resolution is not about ammesty. C2) Cost 1. Pro essentially says that our debt is already so high that even 500 billion extra dollars makes little difference. That's nonsensical. We have to start paying off our debt eventually, and Pro's plan just makes it harder to do that any time soon. Pro's response is akin to a smoker who refuses to stop smoking because his lungs already seem to be beyond repair. It simply isn't tenable in the long run. 2. Pro is blatantly false in his claim that most Americans are illegal immigrants. Even the first settlers could not have been considered "illegal immigrants" because there was no state to "immigrate" into; Native Americans did not have the bureaucratic governments, citizens, or official immigration processes necessary for such classifications to exist. Pro's rebuttal fails. 3. Pro dismisses the notion of giving benefits attracting more illegal immigrants as being "laughable". However, I provided academic analyses demonstrating that it *does* happen. If anything, Pro's flippant dismissal of empirical evidence is "laughable". Pro says that if that were the case, having a welfare state would attract more legal immigrants... and he's right. It does. So, again, he has just hurt his own case. It is rather intuitive, really -- people respond to incentives. Providing benefits *does* attract illegal immigrants en masse. C3) Unjust Again, cross--apply the point that this debate is not about amnesty -- it's about providing federal benefits to immigrants who are currently classified as being here illegally. It is unfortunate that Pro has spent so much space on amnesty, because it is completely non-topical. == CONCLUSION == I don't feel like writing one. It's 3am again. Resolution negated.

negative: Birthright Citizenship Should Be Abolished In The US. I stand in firm affirmation of this resolution. I believe that it is unfair, unjust, cheating, and not what the creators of the 14th Amendment originally intended. Firstly, it is important to know that birthright citizenship is one of the most controversial issues in immigration policy. The topic rose to the forefront in April of 2010 when Senator Lindsey Graham caused a stir by calling children who obtained their citizen status through birthright "anchor babies." Contention 1: Birthright citizenship allows illegal immigrants to cheat the system and immediately become US citizens - Birthright citizenship gives illegal immigrants a motive for cheating the system and finding way to become legalized citizens. In a recent study there were approximately 11.2 illegal immigrants in the United States. The 14th Amendment gives motive for all immigrants to cheat there way into gaining US citizenship by having children. The process of becoming a United States citizen normally takes between 5 months and 2 years. A person who has a baby on American soil takes one. Because the baby is now a United States citizen the process is sped up immensely for parents. It is almost guaranteed that the parents will get citizenship because the government will not forcibly deport the parents away from the baby or remove a US citizen, this being the baby. Contention 2: Birthright citizenship is unfair, unjust, and does not create an equal society - I believe that if we allow this bill to remain it gives people who have a child here illegally an unfair advantage. Think about the thousands of people that have to wait through the process for 2 years. The people who have to pay and study in order to become a US citizen. Also think of the people who were paying taxes and benefiting the US economy while the illegal immigrants were illegally in the country and used a leu poll in order to become a citizen. Does that seem fair. Our country is based on a place where we are all considered equal. Does a person who has no knowledge of our country and became a citizen over night deserve to be a citizen more than the hardworking man who has been struggling to gain citizenship for the past 2 years, or the man who has studied and payed for tests, or the woman who has been doing local jobs everywhere in order so that she can pay for the documents and tests in order to become a citizen? The answer is no. Convention 3: Birthright citizenship is not what creators of the constitution originally planned - The 14th Amendment was created in July of 1868. The men who created it would have no idea what would happen 144 years later. It was originally made so that recently freed African Americans would have citizenship if they were born here. Present day this is a means for illegal immigrants to unlawfully sneak past the system and gain citizenship. There have been other countries that have corrected laws similar to this. In Ukraine, they recently got rid of their "Tourist Baby" bill. This bill now states that if you have a baby in Ukraine and you are not a citizen of Ukraine you will not be granted citizenship. So now back to us, I believe that if we abolish birthright citizenship we can create a new bill that is geared towards giving citizenship to babies born of legal citizens of the United States. This would create a more fair and just system and would also clear up the controversy that the original founders of the 14th Amendment could not foresee.

negative: This allows illegals to masquerade as normal immigrants. Allowing illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses is a security issue for America. Illegal immigrants are a threat to the US because they have not gone through the necessary background checks that all immigrants are supposed to go through before being allowed into the US to ensure that they are not going to harm American citizens. Giving illegal immigrants documents that- as proposition argument three says- could grant them access to state services and to a wider range of private services is dangerous[1]. There is no way for frontline state and business staff to determine whether drivers licence holders are migrants who have undergone appropriate police screening, or criminals with a history of dishonest or exploitative behaviour. The resolution may, therefore, allow disreputable individuals to falsely claim to be normalised American citizens. Alternatively, and more likely, the resolution will undermine the value and utility of state drivers licences – for Latin-American US citizens at the very least. As it becomes known that immigrants from the south bearing licences might be more likely to be dishonest, banks, stores and hospitals will become less willing to accept drivers licences as conclusive proof of a Latin-American individual’s identity. If the degree to which service providers will trust a driving licence is reduced, the improvements to illegal immigrants’ quality of life that the resolution brings about will be short lived. Moreover, legally resident Latin-Americans will find that their lives become much more difficult. Service providers will adopt a stance of suspicion toward Latin-American individuals, assuming that a Latino-American’s driving licence offers no useful indication as to his immigration status and background. Therefore, this policy constitutes a large security threat to America and its citizens, and a significant danger to the integration and lifestyles of thousands of Latino-American individuals. [1] "Position Paper: No Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens." News Blaze. Realtime News, 23 Sep 2001. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. http://newsblaze.com/story/20070923120657tsop.nb/topstory.html

negative: Immigration and Amesty Immigrants are not paying the income tax that all American citizens pay from their salaries. According to Jim DeMint, "An exhaustive study by the Heritage Foundation has found that after amnesty, current unlawful immigrants would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay more than $3 trillion in taxes over their lifetimes. That leaves a net fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) of $6.3 trillion. That deficit would have to be financed by increasing the government debt or raising taxes on U.S. citizens" (1). Illegal immigrants do pay property taxes; there is no way around that, but they are not paying income tax off of the money they make to support their families. Illegal immigrants take more money from the government than they do paying it back. They take advantage of social services for citizens, abuse them, and then create a deficit, which in turn will raise taxes even more for the citizens of the United States. Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would be unfair the the citizens of the nation. DeMint also expresses "People the world over are attracted to the United States because we are a nation of laws. Granting amnesty to those who broke the law and putting them on a path to citizenship would be unfair, would encourage more bad behavior and would impose significant costs on American families" (1). People in other nations are attracted to the United States because it is a land of laws and opportunity. By abusing this, illegal immigrants are making the lives of citizens more difficult and expensive to live. In order for someone to become a United States citizen, they should enter the country legally, pay taxes, and not be a reason that increases taxes for people already citizens of the nation. DeMint, Jim, and Robert Rector. "The Burden of Amnesty." Washington Post. 07 May 2013: A.17. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 24 Oct 2013.

negative: Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Hi! I am Lola and I would like to debate that immigration reform should not include a path to citizenship. On to my first contention, illegal immigrants have already broken U.S. Immigration law by crossing the border illegally. Title 8 U.S. Code section 1325 defines crossing illegally as: Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact. Why should we extend the right of citizenship in our country to a criminal who has willingly broken the law? On to my second contention, the people who crossed the border illegally should not get the benefits of citizenship. Those who entered legally should get the benefits, or at least the status quote. Those who crossed the border illegally should not be rewarded, or at most, get the status quote. They shouldn't"t get the benefit of citizenship in the US. While rights and dignity for these individuals should not be restricted, the path to citizenship is unfair to those who are legally entering and rewards the illegal behavior that enabled them to be living in the U.S. in the first place. On to my third contention, providing pathways to citizenship, especially new pathways, encourages people to migrate illegally to the United States and makes it easier for more people who earn citizenship through the new path to sponsor those who do not yet have it. More people in the US also means that there will be higher demands on social services and welfare. These increased demands on public services will fall particularly hard on state governments. Costs associated with criminal activity also strain government budgets (pay access). And since most undocumented immigrants already file tax returns there is not likely to be any significant increase in tax revenue. Any potential gains in economic activity are offset by a number of factors. First, as more workers become available wages tend to decline because there are more potential workers to hire, allowing companies to pay any interested worker less. Illegal immigrants reduce the wages of an American citizen by 1.6%, which was $90 billion in 2005. This is particularly true in the agriculture sector. Second, increased immigration arguably contributes to deflation because consumers cutback spending in fear that they will lose their jobs to immigrants. And if the lower wages argument is true, there will be even more deflation due to less money available to spend. Third, a central premise of the economy arguments is that we need to increase immigration because the US has a shortage of skilled workers, but this shortage is not significant . A new study claims that this is a myth that needs to be demolished. And, if necessary, workers could work in international waters " or simply be allowed to work in the US without becoming citizens! Conclusion: As a conclusion, immigration reform should NOT include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States because they have already broken the law and shouldn't"t get the benefit of citizenship for it, there is no justice for those who crossed the border legally, and providing pathways to citizenship encourages people to migrate illegally to the United States. So, please give a con ballot. Thank you. :)

negative: America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. The benefits of illegal immigration do not outweigh the negatives. First of all, illegal immigrant labor will depress American wages and keep the unemployed or underemployed out of the job market (Dann). Even with wage laws negotiated by unions, granting illegal immigrants a path to citizenship will simply make it more difficult for American citizens to find work and support their families. Proponents of amnesty argue that illegals take care of the dirty manual labor that "Americans wouldn't do," but this absurd assumption is false. There is no job that would not be filled by American citizens if all the illegals in this country disappeared (Hawkins). Even if the "jobs Americans wouldn't do" statement were true, unskilled workers eventually become a burden on society. When they become too old to perform the hard menial labor for which they were hired, the cost of taking care of them will greatly exceed what we pay in taxes (Hawkins). Greedy business owners want to maximize their profits and minimize spending. Therefore, they hire illegal immigrants over American citizens because they do not have to pay them what the job is worth. These employers exploit the tide of illegal immigration selfishly, and increase the hardships of already struggling Americans. Also, awarding amnesty will cause rampant identity fraud and a new surge of illegal immigration. In 1986, Ronald Reagan passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which granted amnesty to 1.5 million illegal immigrants that had entered the country before 1982. The law promised to tighten subsequent immigration policies and penalize employers who hired illegals over citizens. However, it merely welcomed another wave of illegal immigration as well as widespread document fraud. As a result, today there are more than 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country (Dann). If amnesty were granted again, it would invite even more aliens to enter this country illegally and be allowed to stay without repercussions. In conclusion, United States citizenship is a precious thing that should not be dealt out to just anybody, especially those whose first accomplishment within our borders was to break our laws. If we reward any and all illegal aliens with amnesty, we are compromising the value of American citizenship and the dignity of the country. Works Cited Dann, Carrie. "Humanity? Practicality? Amnesty? The arguments for and against immigration reform. " NBC News. 12 April 2013. Web. 27 October 2013. http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com.... Hawkins, John. "5 Reasons Illegal Immigrants Shouldn"t Be Given American Citizenship." N.p. 23 February 2010. Web. 27 October 2013. http://www.rightwingnews.com....

negative: The United States should construct a wall on the Southern Border. I contend that The United States should construct a wall on the Southern Border with Mexico. First, I will define “wall” as a physical barrier, typified by the wall prototypes recently constructed. The construction of a wall on the Southern Border is in the best interest of the United States for the following reasons:1. Any nation has the right and responsibility to protect its people first. The United States, specifically, has a responsibility to prevent the crime, economic hardship, and other negative effects caused by illegal immigration. The preamble to the United States Constitution, the framework for the Federal Government, which lays out the responsibilities and powers of the same, states the following: We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity Illegal immigration tends to contradict every single goal of the federal government listed in the Preamble. Specifically: “In order to form a more perfect Union” Illegal immigration, people simply walking over our border with no connection or loyalty to our country (or even legal documentation), does not help the United States to form a more perfect union. “Establish Justice” Illegal immigration is unjust to American citizens and also legal immigrants by allowing people who have violated our laws to obtain benefits reserved for citizens, and to, in many cases, commit crimes (including crossing the border) without punishment. “Insure Domestic Tranquility” Illegal immigrants commit crime and harm the social fabric of our country due to the fact that they, to a large degree, do not speak the language nor subscribe to the principles of the United States. “Promote the General Welfare” The General Welfare refers to the welfare of the United States and its citizens. Illegal immigrants cost America tens of billions of dollars per year, not to mention the other negative effects of illegal immigration which are obviously not conducive to the general welfare. “Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity” Illegal immigrants, by and large, do not, as shown by polls, believe in “liberty” as defined by our founders. Overwhelmingly, they support wealth redistribution and socialism. The blessings of liberty are intended for the “posterity” of America’s founders, not the entire world, and certainly not those who violate the law by illegally crossing the border. 2. Since the United States has a responsibility to protect its citizens by stopping illegal immigration, which is detrimental to American citizens, the federal government should use any and all legal and moral means which are prudent and effective. A border wall would be effective at stopping a large portion of illegal traffic on the Southern Border, and thereby saving, in the long run, billions of taxpayer dollars, not to mention American lives. Obviously, a wall would not be constructed in isolation. Border patrol agents would monitor the area to prevent tunneling and attempts to cross the wall with ladders. This debate should not be about the pros and cons of various types of wall, simply on the desirability of building a wall in general. The government has engineers talented enough to properly design a wall to make it reasonably effective against virtually all foot and vehicle traffic. Israel, Hungary, and numerous other countries constructed walls or fences on their border, virtually ending illegal crossings. As shown by examples from those countries, properly constructed walls are highly effective at preventing illegal entry. However, let’s assume for the purposes of argument that the wall would only stop HALF of all illegal immigration. (More likely, it would exceed 95%) The total annual cost of illegal immigration, when the taxes paid by illegal immigrants are factored in, is somewhere around $99 billion. A wall would cost around $25-30 billion. Therefore, the wall would pay for itself in less than a year even if it stopped half of illegal immigration. Since the United States has a responsibility to its citizens to prevent illegal immigration, and a physical wall is an important and proven part of preventing illegal immigration, the United States should construct a physical wall on the Southern Border with Mexico.

negative: Voter I.D. laws are constitutional and needed I would like to start off by saying that I also get tired of the identity wars. Black vs White. Christian vs Muslim. Republican vs Democrat. All are getting old, however, this is not a case of bigotry or discrimination. It is common sense. No other successful country allows illegal immigration. Mexico is one that doesn't. It is a felony, punishable with fines and a deportion, possibly imprisonment. And yet, we allow it. And as for your fact that the ratio for arrests from legal citizen to immigrant being 5:1, remember that there are 11,000,000 illegal immigrants, compared to nearly 310,000,000 legal citizens. According to a study [1] "of a sample of 55,322 illegal aliens, researchers found that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests." Also from this study, "About 45 percent of all offenses were drug or immigration offenses. About 15 percent were property-related offenses such as burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and property damage. About 12 percent were for violent offenses such as murder, robbery, assault, and sex-related crimes." So, yes, there are plenty of illegal immigrant criminals, who, if our immigration laws were enforced (they are there for a reason), wouldn't have been here to commit these henious crimes. And this study, as it says, involved only 55,000 illegal immigrants. Only 1/20 of all illegals residing in this country. As far as human rights are concerned, I consider the right to vote, a citizenship right, one that you get when you meet the requirements for whichever country you're in. For America, it is required that you be a legal citizen, at 18 years of age. To say that the right to vote is a human right would be wrong. It is the right of a citizen of a country that allows citizens to vote in elections. Otherwise, it could be seen a right for Americans to vote in, lets say the Russian elections, or French elections, when that is very wrong. We don't live in Russia, or in France, therefore we don't vote in their elections, and they don't vote in ours. And there is no doubt that they are criminals. It is a crime to illegally cross our borders, so the first act in this country is a crime. And I don't agree with the term "refugees". If they are desperate to get out of Mexico, fine. Sign the necessary papers and become either a citizen or get a visa, and reside here legally. Ask anyone living on the border of Mexico-USA how the crime is down there. They would tell you it is high, because of illegal drug runners and murderers who came over the border of Mexico.While I'm sympathetic for the innocent citizens who have to live in Mexico, it doesn't justify crossing the border illegally and not going through the necessary steps to become a citizen or receive a visa. If you don't agree with the steps of becoming a citizen, then don't live here. However, if you want to show us that you do wish to be a law abiding citizen, and just wants to provide for your family, then show use by becoming a citizen or applying for a visa. Otherwise, you broke our laws by crossing our borders, and should be punished for it, but being deported. Early in your debate, you quoted a Bryan Caplan, as saying anti foreign bias is the "tendency to underestimate the economic benefits of interaction with foreigners". I am not implying any anti foreign bias. Both sides of my family immigrated here from Europe, so obviously for me to be biased against immigrants and foreigners would be hypocritical on my end. I am not like that. I am against illegal immigrants, who are crossing our borders, taking our jobs that they have no right to (a right to a job is another right that belongs to a citizen of a particular country, not a human right), and want to vote in our elections, which is a right reserved for a citizen of a particular country. Once again, if you want to legally immigrate here, then I'm all for it. I have nothing against it. But do it legally. Doing otherwise shows a disrespect for our laws, and shows me you really don't want to live here. [1] http://www.renewamerica.com...

negative: The United States Government should immediately repatriate all illegal immigrants. Regarding the education of the children of illegal immigrants, unless the requirements of becoming a naturalization are rewritten (a topic outside the boundaries of our proposition of expatriating illegal immigrants as they are currently defined), any child born on American soil is guaranteed U.S. citizenship. The immediate expatriation of the parents of such children would have one of two effects: either the family would be split up, as there would be no legal grounds for forcing the child with citizenship to leave the country, and any economic costs their schooling would incur would be unchanged, or the child would return with their families to their country of origin, where in many cases the quality of education is much poorer. We would effectively be denying U.S. citizens access to the public education system on the basis of the actions of their parents. Were expatriation forced, the only way to eliminate these costs would be a gross miscarriage of justice, blaming children for circumstances they cannot control. In regards to community colleges, if we are discussing the U.S. born children of illegal immigrants, such individuals would ostensibly have to pay their taxes and the tuition associated with community colleges if they wished to attend. In the end, the drain they cause on the system is no different from any other citizen (never mind that educating such individuals allows them access to a wider variety of jobs, increasing their overall productive capabilities and having a positive effect on the economy as a whole). In the case of illegal immigrants themselves attending community colleges, the system here in the state of North Carolina has already found a way to take advantage of this. Illegal immigrants can be accepted to community colleges, but at the out of state tuition rate. This additional cost means that the colleges generate a $2000 profit for each illegal student (1). In the end, to immediately expatriate illegal immigrants would cause a loss of future taxes collectable from legitimate U.S. citizens as well as dry up a source of potential revenue for community colleges. In regards to the crimes attributed to illegal immigration, an immediate deportation of all the illegals that DHS could capture would do little to reduce their rates. Drug and arms dealers have demonstrated their ability to operate without being detected by the authorities. A new campaign to remove all illegals would tax already overstressed law enforcement resources that could instead be used to target these criminals specifically, removing a great number of immigrants whose only crime was entering the country at the cost of ignoring many of these hardened criminals. Instead of a mass deportation, we should instead focus on apprehending only these individuals, understanding the weaknesses in our border security they use to transport their goods, and endeavoring to close these gaps. (1) http://www.wral.com...

negative: America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. The solution to illegal immigration is not to grant aliens the same rights as United States citizens or immigrants who are here legally. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, illegal immigration costs taxpayers $113 billion every year, which amounts to an extra $1,117 per household ("Illegal Immigration...American Taxpayer"). Illegal immigrants do pay taxes, but this only yields $13 billion per year, leaving a net cost of $100 billion that must be made up by law-abiding citizens. ("Illegal Immigration...American Taxpayer"). Illegal immigration is clearly unhealthy for America. In fact, the money spent on education and welfare programs for illegal aliens exceeded the budget deficits of 18 states in 2009 ("Illegal Immigration...American Taxpayer"). If a "path to citizenship" were granted, tax revenues from current illegal aliens would certainly increase. However, this yield would be greatly exceeded by the cost of the full welfare benefits to which they would automatically become entitled ("Illegal Immigration...American Taxpayer"). Therefore, illegal immigration should be discouraged so that the U.S. can dig itself out of its fiscal grave and first provide law-abiding citizens with the care they need. Works Cited "Illegal Immigration: the $113 Billion Dollar Drain on the American Taxpayer." Illegal Immigration Statistics. 2013. Web. 18 October 2013. http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org.......