Instigator / Con
7
1488
rating
10
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#1746
U.S Southern Border Wall
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
logicae
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
2
1526
rating
5
debates
70.0%
won
Description
Now I suppose a general description of the rules.
Rules:
(1.) BOTH sides have a burden to prove their positions. (I have noticed this kind of burden swinging in far too many debates. It is a tactic to merely win a debate, not to find truth.)
(2.) Sources are NOT everything. (Something that is also misunderstood is the nature of facts. Facts are NOT automatic guarantees that what you say is true. Facts can be: 1. Wrong 2. Misinterpreted 3. Misapplied to your argument. Lastly you can have a fallacious argument, which is one consisting of logical fallacies, such as contradictions that are unable to be defended by mere facts)
(3.) Basic etiquette. (No character/ad hominum attacks,... etc)
In this debate I will obviously be defending the side that a southern border wall is a bad idea to say the least. I would like to use the weighing mechanism (as we call the scale in debate) to be net benefits or who ever shows the greater number of benefits should win. Another weighing mechanism can be used however, but I think for this debate this is the most concise. For further clarity here are the sides laid out clearly:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For side Pro (For Border Wall): To support (build evidence on) and defend the Southern Border Wall.
For side Con (Against Border Wall): To support (build evidence on) and defend against the Southern Border Wall.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This debate is set up to be quick. We will have three rounds and 24 hours each turn to post your speech, so be ready to respond!
To Truth!
-logicae
Round 1
Con
#1
“Make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit, then while they’re working, and earning here, they pay taxes here. And when they want to go back, they go back.”-Ronald Reagan
The importance of the Border region and refugee
crisis
(Citation 1)
Economic Significance:
Number of people who live on the border:
The border, and more broadly how the United States defines its relations with Mexico, directly affects the 12 million people who live within 100 miles of the border (Brookings, Citation 2)
USC puts the total trade value between Mexico and U.S at “an estimated $671.1 billion in 2018” (Citation 3)
The problem with Mexico is summed up like this: “Those who are born poor remain poor and those who are born rich remain rich,” (The 2018 Mexico: Social Mobility for Wellbeing,” published by the Espinosa Yglesias Study Center (CEEY)) (Citation 4)
History of the Wall:
The very first fencing was brought into place by president Bill Clinton, who, in 1993, built 13 miles of wall on the San Diego border (Citation 5). The most recognizable and more recent border wall policy was instituted in the wake of 9/11, where president Bush signed the 2006 secure fences act which in addition to extra funds and increased border agents, called for 700 miles of barriers and vehicle fencing.
(Citation 5) To date, according to the wall street journal, “654 miles of the 1,991-mile border already had some kind of fabricated barrier when Mr. Trump took office.” (Citation 6) Since trump has become president, 100 miles of wall has been built according to Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf. (Citation 7)
History and Context of the Immigrants:
The question of course becomes why would all of these people want to come over to the united states and beyond the obviousness of the wealth of the united states, many of those people coming over, originate from countries that are in contrast impoverished. Of the estimated 11 million illegals in the country today, the Migration Policy Institute estimates that 53% of the illegal migrant population is from Mexico and the rest mostly coming from Central and South American countries like Guatemala. (Citation 8) To understand why these people, risk death (7505 from 1998-2018 from numbers sited by the Border Patrol, though this number only reflects deaths at the border itself), we need to look at their status (I will focus on the greatest contributor and most relevant to this debate:
(Citation 9)
Mexico
The greatest source of immigrants, Mexico is an important study to understand why immigrants leave their homes. We have all heard of the problems Mexico faces, it should not surprise anyone that the poverty rate, according to an analysis by the World Bank, is up to 32% of the population using the figure of income under $5.50 per day. (Citation 10)
Comparing that to the rate of poverty in the U.S using the same metric, we get 6.5% of the U.S population in poverty. (A difference of nearly 5 times the poverty of the United States!) But poverty is not all that the country faces, corruption in the state and gang violence continues to be a killer: “More than 135,000 people have been killed since 2012. More than 1,300 clandestine graves have turned up since 2007. More than 37,000 people are reported missing. More than 600 soldiers have been killed in the drug war. At least 130 politicians and nine journalists were killed preceding the elections in July […] All told, the government reports 33.6 million crimes with a victim in 2017, an all-time high […] Only one in 6,000 crimes ends in a conviction.” (Manhattan Institute 2019)(Citation 11)
The moral here is that Mexico is a desperately dangerous and poor place. The reason why people risk to come here to the U.S is quite obvious. And where this debate begins.
Why is there a problem with people migrating in you may ask? Why not let these desperate people flee the crisis that they find themselves in? I have heard many reasons including fears that these people will harm us or they will be a financial drag. The first reason is not founded by statistical fact, but rather anecdotal example as the Cato Institute highlights, “Illegal immigrants are 49 percent less likely to be incarcerated than native‐born Americans.” This means that fears of immigrants are overblown.
(Cato March 4, 2019) (Citation 12)
Professor Gordon H. Hanson of the University of California, San Diego stated that “By focusing on the economic costs and benefits of legal and illegal immigration, stemming illegal immigration would likely lead to a net drain on the U.S. economy”
1 percent increase in immigrant employment per state leads to a 0.5 percent increase in income per worker.[…] Approximately 90 percent of the U.S.-born labor force gained from immigration (Citation 13)
Significance:
Though this is not my main argument, it goes to say that a two thousand mile wall is simply ineffective without proper security to enforce it. There are many ways to circumnavigate a wall including digging, climbing, going around (by boat), and simply sneaking in or over staying visas.
(During fiscal 2017, the Department of Homeland Security found that the number of immigrants that overstayed their visas was more than double those apprehended at the border during the same time frame” (Citation 14)
According to the Congressional Research Service, officials have noted that “most illicit drug smuggling attempts occur at southwest [border] land POEs(Ports of Entry).” 34 Consistent with this testimony, CRS analysis of OFO drug seizure data indicates that, on average, over 65% of the illicit drugs seized by OFO from FY2014 to FY2018 were seized during inbound inspections at land POEs within the jurisdiction of the OFO field offices along the Southwest border.35 (Citation 15)
Harms:
(1) Security Compromised
Taking from more important places. I’m not one to argue that much of what the government takes is important, but I know that the first and main reason we have a government is to protect the people. The wall has currently diverted 6.2 billion from “The departments of Homeland Security and Defense, and the Treasury Forfeiture Fund.” (Citation 16)
(2) Contribution to Federal Taxes:
“undocumented immigrants are taxpayers too and collectively contribute an estimated $11.74 billion to state and local coffers each year via a combination of sales and excise, personal income, and property taxes” Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy)(Citation 17)
(3) Decreased Jobs
Findings by the National Foundation for American Policy state viewing data from 2005 to 2013 state that: ““A 1 percentage point increase in the share of the labor force comprised of immigrants appears to reduce the unemployment rate of U.S. natives in the same sex-education group by 0.062 percentage points, on average.
“A 1 percentage point increase in the share of the labor force comprised of immigrants appears to raise the labor force participation rate of U.S. natives in the same sex-education group by 0.045 percentage points, on average.”
People are valuable no matter what prejudices view them, that is why these results come to no surprise. (Citation 18)
(4) Harmed Relation With Mexico:
For Mexico in the words of the Baker Institute: “Since the beginning of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, U.S.-Mexico relations have been in crisis. Trump’s criticism of Mexico and its people, his threats to deport millions of undocumented Mexicans by ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, his desire to build what he calls a “beautiful wall” on the southern border, and his expressed intention to abandon the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) all have created serious friction in the bilateral relationship.”
(Citation 19)
Trump’s threats to make Mexico pay for the multibillion-dollar wall does not help either.
(Brookings, Citation 2) https://www.brookings.edu/essay/the-wall-the-real-costs-of-a-barrier-between-the-united-states-and-mexico/
(Citation 3) https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/mexico
(Citation 4) (https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/In-Mexico-7-out-of-10-Born-in-Poverty-Will-Die-in-Poverty-20180509-0008.html)
(Citation 5)http://www.worldstir.com/history-u-s-mexico-border-wall/
(Citation 6)https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-border-wall-mile-by-mile-11550152535
(Citation 7) https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/01/13/homeland-security-officials-tout-100-miles-of-new-border-wall/
(Citation 8)https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-population/state/US
(Citation 9) https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2019-Mar/bp-southwest-border-sector-deaths-fy1998-fy2018.pdf
(Citation 10)(https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=poverty-and-equity-database
(Citation 11)(https://www.city-journal.org/mexico-corruption-violence)
(Citation 12)https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/criminal-immigrants-2017-their-numbers-demographics
(Citation 13)https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/immigration-helps-u-s-workers-economy/#ixzz6Bfj30BGs
(Citation 14)https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/08/despite-trumps-claims-most-illegal-immigration-is-not-at-the-southern-border.html
(Citation 15)https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45812.pdf
(Citation 16) (Politifact August 30th 2019) https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/aug/30/donald-trumps-border-wall-how-much-has-really-been/
(Citation 17)https://itep.org/immigration/
(Citation 18)(https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2018/05/17/new-research-shows-immigrants-may-boost-employment-of-natives/#3832020f1600)
(Citation 19)(https://www.bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/45e26afb/mex-pub-twocrises-080318.pdf)
Pro
#2
Arguments:
The whole purpose of any border wall is to make it harder for people to come here illegally. Multiple different countries, not just the United States, have border walls, and they are successfully making it harder for people to enter those countries illegally.
A border barrier is a separation barrier that runs along an international border. Such barriers are typically constructed for border control purposes such as curbing illegal immigration, human trafficking, and smuggling. [1]
Even most of the Democrats who are supposedly against the idea of a southern border barrier such as Barack Obama will at least have some kind of barrier, wall, or fence around their own home. [2]
Thousands of migrants for the past 3 years have attempted to come to the United States from the south. Without a border wall, they would have all been able to easily pour into the country and overwhelm people. [3]
Rebuttals:
We have all heard of the problems Mexico faces, it should not surprise anyone that the poverty rate, according to an analysis by the World Bank, is up to 32% of the population using the figure of income under $5.50 per day. (Citation 10)Comparing that to the rate of poverty in the U.S using the same metric, we get 6.5% of the U.S population in poverty. (A difference of nearly 5 times the poverty of the United States!) But poverty is not all that the country faces, corruption in the state and gang violence continues to be a killer: “More than 135,000 people have been killed since 2012. More than 1,300 clandestine graves have turned up since 2007. More than 37,000 people are reported missing. More than 600 soldiers have been killed in the drug war. At least 130 politicians and nine journalists were killed preceding the elections in July […] All told, the government reports 33.6 million crimes with a victim in 2017, an all-time high […] Only one in 6,000 crimes ends in a conviction.” (Manhattan Institute 2019)(Citation 11)The moral here is that Mexico is a desperately dangerous and poor place.
This actually sounds like an argument in favor of a border wall. If it's true that Mexico is loaded with violence, corruption, gangs, crime, and all sorts of other chaos like you say it is, then it would make sense to have some kind of barrier, to keep out some of that bad stuff, and keep some of those bad people from making their way over the United States or something.
Why is there a problem with people migrating in you may ask?
There is no problem with people migrating as long as it's done legally.
Why not let these desperate people flee the crisis that they find themselves in?
This is a loaded question. It assumes that the vast majority of people trying to come here illegally are "desperate" people trying to "flee" something somewhere. We need to make sure they go through the legal process to make sure they aren't a criminal or something. There are criminals that will sometimes try to flee their countries to avoid the police and then try to seek "refuge" in another country. This can happen in the United States, where a criminal here flees this country to seek "asylum" somewhere else, and it can happen outside our country where a criminal flees to try and live here. [4]
Besides, anyone can come here and make up a story about how they're trying to "flee the crisis" in their home country. We need to make sure they're telling the truth before we let them in.
I have heard many reasons including fears that these people will harm us or they will be a financial drag. The first reason is not founded by statistical fact, but rather anecdotal example as the Cato Institute highlights, “Illegal immigrants are 49 percent less likely to be incarcerated than native‐born Americans.”
There are websites such as illegalaliencrimereport.com dedicated to documenting instances of illegal aliens committing crimes and harming people in this country. [5]
This means that fears of immigrants are overblown.
Not fears of any immigrants. Fears of illegal immigrants specifically, and with a website like that documenting the various illegal aliens that harm people, I would argue that fears of illegal immigrants harming us or the ones we love are justified, and for all we know, there could be plenty more crimes committed by illegal aliens that the website doesn't document.
stemming illegal immigration would likely lead to a net drain on the U.S. economy”
Stemming illegal immigration means that the jobs they steal can go to American citizens.
a two thousand mile wall is simply ineffective without proper security to enforce it.
But we do have security to enforce it. We border agents and things like motion sensors, cameras, and vehicles to help catch some of these illegal aliens that try to get in illegally, and even then it still isn't perfect as so many people come here and overwhelm the border patrol. [6]
There are many ways to circumnavigate a wall including digging, climbing, going around (by boat), and simply sneaking in or over staying visas.
It's going to be very difficult to dig, climb, or boat your way into this country illegally. All 3 of those things carry various risks, such as the risk of being easier to catch by border patrol.
The wall isn't meant to stop people from coming here legally through a visa and overstaying it. It's meant to serve as an extra layer of security against people who are trying to come here illegally through the southern border, without a visa.
The wall has currently diverted 6.2 billion from “The departments of Homeland Security and Defense, and the Treasury Forfeiture Fund.”
Well, of course it's going to cost money. Plus if we spend this money on the border wall to keep some bad people out of this country, then it would be better than not spending that money on the border wall, allowing those bad people to come in easily, and then having to spend that money to track down and get rid of said bad people.
“undocumented immigrants are taxpayers too and collectively contribute an estimated $11.74 billion to state and local coffers each year via a combination of sales and excise, personal income, and property taxes
Where exactly is this "estimated $11.74 billion" going? I ask this because places like California were giving free health care to illegal aliens since 2016, at the cost of California citizens' tax dollars, while you have so many homeless sick people there, [7] so why isn't that money being used to pay for peoples' health care and for more housing instead of the citizens' hard-earned tax dollars?
A Washington Examiner editorial noted, “California wants to look after its people, so it keeps expanding its social safety net. It also wants to welcome all comers and so embraces illegal immigrants and protects them in sanctuary cities. To see how this is working out, visit Skid Row in L.A. or neighborhoods in San Francisco or elsewhere where homeless camps are spreading. … Just as California lacks enough homes to house its inhabitants, so it also lacks enough doctors to care for them. The additional budget bloat on health care will worsen that shortage.”
And how will state officials pay for this? They will be instituting their own state-based individual mandate, slapping an extra tax or fine on Californians who do not have health insurance.
(4) Harmed Relation With Mexico:For Mexico in the words of the Baker Institute: “Since the beginning of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, U.S.-Mexico relations have been in crisis.
The only people border walls "harm" are illegals aliens trying to come in illegally through the southern border because it makes it more difficult for them to enter this country illegally.
In fact, Mexico itself has border walls/fences of it's own, [8] so why is it somehow okay for them to have border walls but when Trump wants a border wall it's harmful to relationships?
Trump’s criticism of Mexico and its people, his threats to deport millions of undocumented Mexicans by ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, his desire to build what he calls a “beautiful wall” on the southern border, and his expressed intention to abandon the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) all have created serious friction in the bilateral relationship.”
Trump is right to criticize Mexico. They aren't working hard enough to keep bad people from pouring through. He absolutely should end DACA as that is pretty much a loophole for people to come here illegally and then potentially bring their whole families here. [9] The North American Free Trade Agreement had all sorts of problems too, which he has renegotiated. [10]
Trump’s threats to make Mexico pay for the multibillion-dollar wall does not help either.
Mexico is helping pay for the wall through the USMCA trade deal though. This allows America to make more money off of Mexico, which is able to go towards the wall, and he didn't "threaten" anyone either.
Sources:
[9] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/24/obama-daca-loophole-gives-paroled-illegal-immigran/
Round 2
Con
#3
"He who has a why to live can bear almost any how."-Friedrich Nietzsche
When we take the context that immigrants are looking for refuge from disaster, we must remember that nothing will stop them, you, me, or anyone from achieving the safety of human dignity no matter 'how' big the obstacle. A quick response from Christian, many thanks for this continued dialog. I do have a question though. May we use the usual and neutral term “immigrant” and “illegal
immigrant” when we talk about migrants? The term illegal alien is a dehumanizing term and I think we are above that.
In this round I want to discuss the problems with our 'legal' entry for immigrants and why there is effectively no way for them to escape using legal entry. First though I want to touch on the weighing mechanism I presented in the first round of net benefits. Here is what I gathered from both opening speeches so far: (feel free to correct or add Christian)
Net Benefits
Side Pro: Stop immigrants from over whelming us, some immigrants are criminals and thus pose a danger to us, wall stops this.
Side Con: Security compromised (Money diverted from our defense), economic disadvantages (Prevents billions in taxes and decreases jobs and pay for native Americans), harmed relation with Mexico, not solution to problem (Does not target or stop main areas of entry and still requires border enforcement to keep immigrants out).
Before I get to my rebuttal of Christian's last speech, I will present the case of our true immigration problem:
"There is no problem with people migrating as long as it's done legally." -Christian
Immigration Quota Failure
You can’t find many Americans without a rich past of
immigration to the land of the free. Immigration has been a key foundation of
our culture since its very beginning. Currently we have an immigration quota which means only a small fraction of immigrants are allowed to enter legally.
(1) Historically low admission rate
The Cato Institute
highlights, “Since 1820, the United States admitted on average 30 percent more
legal immigrants per capita (0.45 percent of the population per year) than it did
in 2017 (0.35 percent of the population)” (Citation 1, Cato Institute)
“Since 1990, Congress has not updated the quotas for the
legal immigration system. During that time, the population of the United States
has increased 30 percent and the economy has doubled.” (Citation 1, Cato Institute)
(3) Impact: Immigrants Wait In Line For Decades.
“Those who are applying for their green cards now will die
before they reach the front of the line because so many applicants have piled
up in the backlog since 1998. Immigrant workers from India have had decade-long
waits, but those applying right now will wait more than a century.” (Citation 1, Cato Institute)
(2) Current Quota Not Updated Since 1990
According to the U.S. Bureau of Consular Affairs over 4 million immigrants on the quota waiting list. (Citation 3, Bureau of Consular Affairs)
(4) Further limitations
There are even more further limitations on immigrants, for
example the “quota for immigrant workers without college degrees is only 5000”,
who, as pew research estimated in 2016, “the vast majority have no college
degree or U.S. citizen family members who could sponsor them for green cards.” (Citation 1, Cato Institute)
In addition those who run from oppression have it no easier. The refugee limit in the united states is 30,000 (which was cut down from 85,000 in 2016). (Citation 4, Pew Research)
In addition those who run from oppression have it no easier. The refugee limit in the united states is 30,000 (which was cut down from 85,000 in 2016). (Citation 4, Pew Research)
"Although historically the U.S. has resettled more refugees than any
other country, its resettlement program has not kept up with increase of the
global refugee population that has increased by about 50 percent over the past
five years." (Citation 2, National Immigration Forum)
(5) The Real Solution
Coming in legally is simply not an option, as immigrants are
not allowed in. The only way to fix the problem is to do as Ronald Reagan
said, let them work for their needy families, pay taxes, and return when things
alleviate. This will stop Pro’s problem with illegal immigration, help those
immigrants in need, and continue to boost our economy with a work force of immigrants
who are quite literally starving to thrive. What doesn't help however to set up a 2 thousand mile wall, which, though does not stop desperate refugees, does take important defense funds, damages the image of our desperate neighbors (and U.S-Mexico relations), and loses valuable hard working citizens who provide billions in taxes and increase our quality of life by increasing jobs and job pay. Since this is a debate, I will break my rebuttal into two sections:
(1) Rebuttal of Pro's arguments for wall (As seen in net benefits analysis)
(2) Rebuttal of Pro's response to my case against the wall.
Rebuttal (1)
The whole purpose of any border wall is to make it harder for people to come here illegally.
Response:
1. Not targeting the problem: a. Failed immigration quota is the problem. b. Most illegal immigration not effected by wall (see argument on Significance)
2. Remember by the net benefits criteria both you and I need to show why the wall is net beneficial given the harms and benefits.
Thousands of migrants for the past 3 years have attempted to come to the United States from the south. Without a border wall, they would have all been able to easily pour into the country and overwhelm people.
Response:
1. that's just the thing, there was no all encompassing border wall for the past century, but yet we have not yet had this crisis you speak of.
2. This argument against migration in turn is harming the great majority of migrants who are fleeing from disaster by preventing refuge.
3. Once more a border wall does not target or solve the problem. (See past arguments on how most illegal migrants enter)
Rebuttal (2)
This actually sounds like an argument in favor of a border wall. If it's true that Mexico is loaded with violence, corruption, gangs, crime, and all sorts of other chaos like you say it is, then it would make sense to have some kind of barrier, to keep out some of that bad stuff, and keep some of those bad people from making their way over the United States or something.
Response:
1. By no means, because you are assuming that the immigrants will bring crime, though this is a popular political sentiment.
2. As proven earlier illegal immigrants have have the crime rate of U.S citizens.
There are websites such as illegalaliencrimereport.com dedicated to documenting instances of illegal aliens committing crimes and harming people in this country.
Response:
This is the part to whole fallacy because you use a few anecdotal examples of bad immigrants in an attempt to prove the rest to be the same. But, as I just mentioned, the fact remains that American's are twice as likely to be criminals. Using this logic even American citizens should be deported and prevented entry.
Not fears of any immigrants. Fears of illegal immigrants specifically
Response: Semantics. Just because our laws are bureaucratically inept to process all of the immigrants (see quota problem above), it doesn't make the immigrants unable to come legally any different.
Stemming illegal immigration means that the jobs they steal can go to American citizens.
Response:
1. Assertion. You haven't yet brought evidence to show immigrants take away jobs from citizens.
2. You did not respond to the evidence laid out by the National Foundation for American Policy showing that immigrants actually increase the number of jobs. The reason why according to the Case Foundation: "60 percent of the most highly valued tech companies were co-founded by first or second generation immigrants. These include Steve Jobs, a second generation Syrian immigrant, and Sergey Brin, the Russian immigrant who co-founded Google." In addition, "25 percent of all companies are founded by immigrants and Entrepreneur reports that more than 40 percent of businesses on the U.S. Fortune 500 List are launched by immigrants or children of immigrants. This is especially remarkable given that the overall percentage of immigrants in the US is only about 13 percent." (Citation 5, Case Foundation).
Immigrants create business and jobs, it goes without saying that our nation is one of immigrants and so it makes perfect sense that stemming immigration actually harms business, jobs, and innovation.
Well, of course it's going to cost money.
Response: But to what benefit? Is not your goal to increase security? Then why divert billions from it?
Where exactly is this "estimated $11.74 billion" going?
Response:
1. I agree with your argument here on welfare, however this problem can be simply solved by ending the welfare state (A wall does not solve this problem).
2. 11.74 billion in extra taxes is still a benefit, just because our government wastes some of it in welfare does not mean the money itself is a negative.
The only people border walls "harm" are illegals aliens
Response: Assertion, you overlooked my analysis for what the wall negatively implicates for our relationship with Mexico.
This is a ton to think over, so I encourage Christian to paraphrase my rebuttal to save room. (I should have added more characters ;(
To Truth!
-logicae
Citations:
(1) (Cato Institute, July 10, 2018) https://www.cato.org/blog/why-legal-immigration-system-broken-short-list-problems
(2) (National Immigration Forum, January 25, 2019) https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-u-s-refugee-resettlement/
(3) (Bureau of Consular Affairs, November 1, 2017) https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Immigrant-Statistics/WaitingList/WaitingListItem_2017.pdf
(4) (Pew Research, October 7, 2019) https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/07/key-facts-about-refugees-to-the-u-s/
(5) (Case Foundation, Aug 18, 2017) https://tinyurl.com/vpw36hs
Pro
#4
Side Con: Security compromised (Money diverted from our defense
What do you mean we're "compromising" our security? A border barrier improves our security and aids in our defense against illegal immigration through the southern border. Diverting some money from our defense to improve our defense is somehow a bad thing?
economic disadvantages (Prevents billions in taxes
The cost of keeping out illegals from simply walking across our border will pay for itself so we don't have to invest that time money and resources into tracking them down and getting rid of them after they freely walk across our border and enter the country illegally due to us not having any barrier.
harmed relation with Mexico
We need to prioritize our country over Mexico. We keep worrying too much about what other countries think of us and not enough about solutions to our security. If Mexico has a problem with Trump trying to make our country safer from illegals that want to come in from the southern border that's too bad. It's also hypocritical since they have various border walls and fences of their own and aren't afraid of how those barriers affect relationships. They know how useful barriers are, yet they don't like it when we have barriers.
Does not target or stop main areas of entry
It's not meant to target or stop main areas of entry. It's mean to target certain places that are not main areas of entry and make it harder for people to sneak across those places and into this country illegally.
still requires border enforcement
Which we already have, along with cameras motion sensors and other technologies.
Currently we have an immigration quota which means only a small fraction of immigrants are allowed to enter legally.
There has to be some kind of limit on how many immigrants can come here. Our country doesn't have enough housing, doctors, supplies, money, and resources to accommodate all these thousands and thousands of migrants. Our detention centers are already overcrowded. We've reached a point where we must say enough is enough. [1]
Coming in legally is simply not an option, as immigrants are not allowed in. The only way to fix the problem is to do as Ronald Reagan said, let them work for their needy families, pay taxes, and return when things alleviate.
What Ronald Reagan wanted was a middle ground solution to the issue of illegal immigration. He may not have specifically advocated for a border wall, but he never advocated for people to be able to freely come here illegally either. He supported both policies that helped immigrants become legal citizens to promote legal immigration, and policies that make it easier to enforce immigration laws to make it harder to enter this country illegally. [2]
“Border enforcement was a concern, as it had always been, but it was a period where the president supported efforts to change laws in ways that would strengthen the immigration system and make it possible to enforce immigration laws more effectively,” Meissner said. “It was an era where immigration was a bipartisan issue, in which both parties worked at coming together to find solutions despite hard-fought policy disagreements. And President Reagan signed those bills."
In fact, Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law in 1986, which made any immigrant who entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty.
“I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here, even though some time back, they may have entered illegally,” Reagan said during a 1984 presidential debate.
Two years later, the Immigration Reform and Control Act also made it illegal, for the first time, for an employer to knowingly hire an undocumented worker.
“Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders,” Reagan said at the time, “and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people — American citizenship.”
Those who are applying for their green cards now will die before they reach the front of the line because so many applicants have piled up in the backlog since 1998.
Like I said, we are getting more and more overcrowded with immigrants. The number of them are exceeding our space and resources. Because of this, the lines will naturally get longer and longer. If they don't want to wait in a long line, they are free to go seek refuge elsewhere. I know how much you want to play the superhero and save them all, but we can't save or accommodate them all, at least not until we can drastically increase the supply of our resources and housing. Some will die, sure, but it is what it is.
What doesn't help however to set up a 2 thousand mile wall, which, though does not stop desperate refugees
Even if it doesn't stop certain refugees it will at least slow them down or force them to take alternate routes to get into this country, which can increase their chances of being caught trying to get in illegally.
Most illegal immigration not effected by wall
Even if illegals come here and overstay their visas, at least they had to go through some kind of checkpoint and be checked to make sure they weren't trying to smuggle anything or bring disease, and that they aren't criminals who are already banned from the country. The ones who sneak across the southern border on the other hand are going to be far more dangerous since they aren't checked at all, they can't be screened for diseases, and they can smuggle in any dangerous little thing they can carry.
there was no all encompassing border wall for the past century, but yet we have not yet had this crisis you speak of
Well, times have changed and now we do have this crisis so we need some kind of barrier for those coming through the southern border illegally.
is harming the great majority of migrants who are fleeing from disaster by preventing refuge.
The fact that they "are fleeing from disaster" cannot, does not, should not be used as some kind of shield to protect them from having to follow our laws like everyone else. If they want legal entry into this country, they must be checked first. They must go through the legal process, or go away and seek asylum elsewhere. It's not our responsibility to blindly accept every immigrant just because they are going through something or trying to flee something.
you are assuming that the immigrants will bring crime, though this is a popular political sentiment.2. As proven earlier illegal immigrants have have the crime rate of U.S citizens.
Even if they're doing half of the crime that citizens do, they're still doing crime regardless; crime that could be prevented from being committed by those who enter illegally through the southern border with some kind of barrier to make it more difficult for them to come in illegally. If there were 1.2 million crimes committed in 2018, [3] and illegals committed half the amount of crimes American citizens commit like you said, then that means that American citizens have committed at least 800,000 crimes in 2018 while illegals have committed at least 400,000 crimes in 2018. (800,000 + (800,000/2)) = 1.2 million
And if the 1.2 million crimes does not include crimes committed by illegals, and instead all 1.2 million of those were committed by American citizens, then that would mean that illegals commit at least 600,000 crimes. (1,200,000/2) = 600,000
So technically, illegals committing "half the crime" is still too much crime that's being committed by these illegals. A barrier will make it harder for some of them to come in through our border and commit those crimes.
This is the part to whole fallacy because you use a few anecdotal examples of bad immigrants in an attempt to prove the rest to be the same.
No. I used that to show why stronger border security is necessary, to make it harder for those kinds of bad people to just walk across the border and into the country without being checked first.
Plus, how many more crimes do illegals who come across the southern border have to commit in order for stronger southern border security to be necessary? Why do we have to wait until the "few" anecdotal examples grow into millions of anecdotal examples to finally do something about our southern border and make it more secure?
Just because our laws are bureaucratically inept to process all of the immigrants (see quota problem above), it doesn't make the immigrants unable to come legally any different.
Not being able to come here legally does not automatically mean that you get, or should get, to come here illegally freely.
You did not respond to the evidence laid out by the National Foundation for American Policy showing that immigrants actually increase the number of jobs.
Because that article was mostly referring to legal immigrants, not the illegal ones. The legal ones are fine because they went through the process and were checked to be safe to allow into the country to work.
You haven't yet brought evidence to show immigrants take away jobs from citizens.
At least 8 million illegals were working illegally as of 2018. [4]
The idea is that they work low paying jobs because American citizens don't work those jobs, but if they were removed, the employers would have more money left over to pay American citizens, which would make them want those jobs more again.
1. I agree with your argument here on welfare, however this problem can be simply solved by ending the welfare state (A wall does not solve this problem).2. 11.74 billion in extra taxes is still a benefit, just because our government wastes some of it in welfare does not mean the money itself is a negative.
I didn't say anything about welfare specifically. I want to assume you're referring to their free health care, but again, the money used for that is coming from citizens' tax dollars, not that 11.74 billion, so again where is that 11.74 billion going?
Sources:
Round 3
Con
#5
In this final speech I want to do a quick recap of the major issues and give several voting issues based on net benefits.
Final Responses
What do you mean we're "compromising" our security?
I mean just what I said. The wall is diverting 6.2 billion from "The departments of Homeland Security and Defense" *See Harm 1 of round 1*
Throughout this debate there were two main assumptions by Christen. First he assumes that the wall will accomplish the prevention of immigration:
A border barrier improves our security and aids in our defense against illegal immigration through the southern border.
However he did not provide any evidence to this assertion and to the contrary I have pointed out several weaknesses that undermine this assumption. Firstly and most importantly, that most illegal immigrants and drug traffic do not come in through areas without a wall. Let that sink in. As I also pointed out also in round one, the main problem is found at the points of entry (which are the entry points between the wall) and the over staying of visas. A wall misses the point of the problem, failing to target the problem areas. Secondly there is the issue of enforcing a 2 thousand mile wall (which still needs to be accounted for). Not only can a wall be scaled, dug under (as drug cartels often do), but so often walls provide a false sense of security (a great example is the Great Wall of China which China blindly thought was their solution to the mongol threat) *See significance point of round 1*.
Secondly Christen assumes that immigrants can come through legally. However despite this popular political sentiment, as I have shown in the last round, the outdated immigration system and quota ends this possibility.
We need to prioritize our country over Mexico.
Harming our relations with Mexico is a harm to ourselves in trade, war, and other times of need. The only prioritization here is that of harm.
It's not meant to target or stop main areas of entry
That is the point of having a wall. If it does not target the main problem, it is insignificant and thus a waste of money. No one advocates to spend money on a minor problem, but to spend billions from necessary defense funds? This still needs justification.
Which we already have, along with cameras motion sensors and other technologies.
Yes, but only on current walls.
There has to be some kind of limit on how many immigrants can come here.
Agreed, but the current limit, as I showed, is outdated.
Our detention centers are already overcrowded. We've reached a point where we must say enough is enough.
I agree actually. This further adds to my point that legal immigration is approaching impossible.
What Ronald Reagan wanted was a middle ground solution to the issue of illegal immigration.
He argued to lesson the burdens on immigration to give immigrants a chance to work here. You missed the point of the quote.
Even if it doesn't stop certain refugees it will at least slow them down or force them to take alternate routes to get into this country, which can increase their chances of being caught trying to get in illegally.
Assertion. You have not provided evidence for the wall's effectiveness.
Even if illegals come here and overstay their visas, at least they had to go through some kind of checkpoint and be checked to make sure they weren't trying to smuggle anything or bring disease, and that they aren't criminals who are already banned from the country.
You made the contradicting point earlier that our system is not set up to handle more immigration. You are ignoring the problem immigrants have of legally immigrating. A wall does not solve this problem, only a reform of our immigration system and quota can fix it.
Even if they're doing half of the crime that citizens do, they're still doing crime regardless
You did not respond to my conclusion: "Using this logic even American citizens should be deported and prevented entry."
It is human nature for some people to be evil (this is obviously unavoidable), but to say that you reject helping the vast majority of innocent immigrants for the crimes of a few is a part to whole fallacy at best and a dangerous precedent. To think that these immigrants are actually two times less likely to be criminals then the very people in your neighborhood...well it puts this whole thing into perspective.
If they want legal entry into this country, they must be checked first.
Again they can't be. You have yet to connect the dots here. If they could they would, but as shown they cannot.
how many more crimes do illegals who come across the southern border have to commit in order for stronger southern border security to be necessary?
The answer here is simple. Keep it consistent with our crime rate. Same level of crime, same level of precaution. Half crime rate? Not a big problem.
The legal ones are fine because they went through the process and were checked to be safe to allow into the country to work.
You missed my response to this. This is an argument of semantics. The only difference between legal and illegal immigrant is a piece of paper.
At least 8 million illegals were working illegally as of 2018
Yep, but still not evidence of taking away jobs from citizens. The only evidence given was that of immigrants creating more jobs and increasing job pay.
I didn't say anything about welfare specifically. I want to assume you're referring to their free health care
Call it what you like, the answer I gave still stands.
Voting Issues
"One of the greatest mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results" -Milton Friedman
V(1) Security
To begin with, I understand the position that Christen takes here. Many people like the idea of being safe, but we must examine reality to see what our ideas actually mean when they come into fruition.
Christen makes the mistake of judging the wall by the intentions of it and not the evidence for its effectiveness or need.
Net Benefits
For security a wall does not target the problem, wastes needed defense spending, and distracts us from the real problem derived from the immigration quota. We need to be able to process to protect. This is of course a net negative for security
V(2) Not The Problem
As stated before the problem is not the areas without a wall (in most cases there is a natural barrier such as a desert instead), but is the lack of attention to the legal admission process including an outdated quota system.
Net Benefits
Once more we can see a net negative as we waste resources, time, and effort on a non issue. Christen still has yet to show why our resources are necessary to be poured into a Great Wall of China like project.
V(3) Harming not Helping
This voting issue is simple. There is a ton on the line for desperate immigrants, our economy, and security.
Net Benefits
While I still have yet to see evidence of any concrete benefits from christen, I have shown numerous sources showing the significant importance of immigration ( more jobs created, billions payed in taxes, and net gains in citizen's income. Diverting our focus into stopping immigration is harmful at best and certainly shouldn't be considered when it has only been shown to be beneficial.
To Truth!
-logicae
Pro
#6
What do you mean we're "compromising" our security?I mean just what I said. The wall is diverting 6.2 billion from "The departments of Homeland Security and Defense" *See Harm 1 of round 1*
You did not explain how using money to build a border wall harms or compromised our security or defense, and neither does your source. Both you and your source simply state that 6.2 billion is taken to pay for the wall but never explain how this harms or compromises our overall security. If anything, it helps improves our security and defense against illegal immigration through the southern border, at areas that are not ports of entry where the wall is set up, by making it harder for people to go through those places illegally.
he did not provide any evidence to this assertion
I listed various countries that use border walls and explained how they make it harder for people to enter those countries illegally.
wall misses the point of the problem, failing to target the problem areas
They may not target all of the problem areas, but they do target a pretty big chunk of the southern border that people go through. I don't know the exact distance that the wall covers but you did say in round 1 that it was at least "1,933 miles long".
Not only can a wall be scaled, dug under (as drug cartels often do), but so often walls provide a false sense of security (a great example is the Great Wall of China
If the wall is revealed to have flaws that people exploit too much, you don't give up on the wall because of that. You work on fixing those flaws, or at least making those flaws harder to exploit.
If people are scaling a certain part of the wall, you either make the wall higher, or you have more/better security, surveillance, motion sensors, and/or agents to monitor those areas more often to stop them if you can.
If people are using tunnels to get in illegally, you find those tunnels and destroy them so they can't keep using those tunnels anymore.
If people are using hacksaws or something to cut through the wall at certain places, you fix the wall, make it stronger so it's harder to cut through, and/or monitor those areas more often.
That goes for China's Great Wall of China as well.
If people come in illegally through the main ports of entry, you focus on improving those main ports of entry to make it harder to get through there illegally as well. You don't just give up on that.
Even if you do all that, and people still find a way in illegally, you still shouldn't give up. You send Immigration and Customs Enforcement to work on tracking them down if you can and get rid of them as opposed to giving up and letting those illegals roam free, but at least then you've make ICE's job easier since, with better border security at ports of entry and areas that are not ports of entry to make it harder for some people to enter this country illegally, and even stop other people from entering this country illegally, that's less illegals for them to track down and get rid of.
the current limit, as I showed, is outdated
You didn't show that it was outdated, and none of your sources about this said that it was outdated. All you showed was that you didn't like it. I went through each of your sources that talked about our current limit and typed Ctrl+F "outdated" ... nothing.
In fact, despite claiming multiple times that it was outdated, you didn't even first explain what you meant by "outdated" and define how many years, months, weeks, or days old it had to be for you to consider it outdated. Like, does it have to be over 10 years old to be considered outdated? What about 5 years? 2? 1 and a half?
You don't explain any of this before claiming it's outdated so we have no way of measuring how "outdated" it is. You can argue that you don't like it and that you want to see it changed now. You can argue that it's unfair, or that it's mean or something. You can even argue that you outright hate it, but you can't argue that it's outdated since you didn't first establish how much time it needed for it to be outdated and why that amount of time was the best amount of time to judge if it was outdated.
The more we get overwhelmed with immigrants that we can hardly afford to care more, the stricter our immigration standards will have to be. That doesn't mean it's outdated nor does it make it outdated. It just means that we're trying not to get overwhelmed with far more migrants than we can handle.
Donald Trump himself has made it clear that "The United States will not be a migrant camp and it will not be a refugee-holding facility". He says this not because he hates all immigrants or something, but because America realistically can't save or take in every single migrant that wants to come in. We're already being generous enough taking in and taking care of the amount that we already do take in. Now we need to slow down the amount of migrants that come in so we don't get overwhelmed.
You did not respond to my conclusion: "Using this logic even American citizens should be deported and prevented entry."
No, American citizens who commit crimes should be punished according to the law, and illegals who commit crimes in this country should be punished and deported.
to say that you reject helping the vast majority of innocent immigrants for the crimes of a few is a part to whole fallacy at best and a dangerous precedent.
Here you've committed 3 fallacies yourself.
First you commit the strawman fallacy by saying that I am rejecting helping the vast majority of innocent immigrants for the crimes of a few, which I am not. I am simply advocating for better border security and giving examples of what happens both with and without better border security.
Then you commit the fallacy of begging the claim by making that argument assuming that the vast majority of them even are innocent who don't break any laws, even though they are already breaking the law by entering through the southern border illegally, which would be harder to do with various improvements to our border security, including a physical barrier, and not only that, but we can't even verify that they're truly innocent if we let them come in illegally, which would also invalidate your argument that they are even innocent to begin with.
Finally you commit the not as bad as fallacy by saying we should not have a border wall to make it harder for people to enter illegally because more crime is shown to be committed by American citizens.
On top of all that, I've shown that illegals have committed at least 400,000 crimes in the United States.
Those are some really big numbers and percentages. It's definitely not "a few" crimes we're talking about here like you claim. We need to make it harder for people to enter this country illegally and cause such harm, and one of the many ways to do that is with a physical barrier.
Conclusion
My opponent:
- Failed to clarify how using money to pay for the wall and other forms of better border security harms and compromises our security when I have shown that it does the opposite.
- Did not clarify where the billions in taxes supposedly contributed by illegals go towards.
- Repeatedly confused illegal immigrants with legal immigrants throughout the entire debate, and proceeds to cite sources talking about the good things that legal immigrants do while I was focusing mainly on illegal immigrants, and then, when I called my opponent out on this and clarified the difference between legal and illegal immigrants, my opponent accused me of "semantics" and still refused to properly distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants, saying that the only difference "is a piece of paper" when in reality, legal immigrants were examined and confirmed to be safe to allow into the country, while illegal immigrants were not, and then my opponent continues to talk about, and cite sources talking about, the good things that legal immigrants do such as increasing jobs, thinking that it successfully rejects the need for the border wall, even though the border wall is meant for illegal immigrants, not legal ones.
- Downplayed and disregarded the hundreds of thousands of crimes committed by illegals because according to my opponent the massive amount of crime they are committing isn't "enough" to warrant tougher border security.
- Argued in favor of allowing more and more so-called "innocent immigrants" to pour into the United States even though they cannot be proven innocent if they come in illegally.
- Ignored that America is already taking on more migrants than it can handle.
- Complained about how better border security would affect our "relationship" with Mexico without explaining exactly how, cited a source that does not explain exactly how, continued to complain about this throughout the debate even after I already pointed out the hypocrisy and double standard where Mexico has walls and barriers of their own, and did not explain in detail why our arbitrary "relationship" with this foreign country is more important than making the United States more secure from illegals that want to come in through the southern border.
- Argued that because the border wall isn't 100% perfect, has some flaws, and does not target something it isn't meant to target, then it must be "insignificant and thus a waste of money" even though many other countries have them.
- Used lots of appeals to emotion to justify more immigration and less border security, using emotionally charged words and phrases like:
Why not let these desperate people flee the crisis that they find themselves in?
The term illegal alien is a dehumanizing term
It is human nature for some people to be evil (this is obviously unavoidable), but to say that you reject helping the vast majority of innocent immigrants for the crimes of a few is a part to whole fallacy at best and a dangerous precedent.
There is a ton on the line for desperate immigrants
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IpwSqIEbJLVUv3YArZ02Bzg0yCzc4IHMt8LDM492Y7Y/edit?usp=sharing
I agree, you make good points on how corona is worse. I too think it has a far worse potential based on its ability to spread and the number of people who have died already. But the main point when it comes to immigrants is whether this is a world-wide phenomenon or if it applies to southern immigrants specifically. Since even you have seen it spread to the New England area, I think it is safe to say the virus is already here and in addition it had not come from immigration from the southern border, but started and spread from China. This means stopping immigration does not logically follow unless we quarantine ourselves completely off from the rest of the world, as the whole world has the potential to spread the virus. I think because such an action goes too far at the moment, we should let the idea rest.
To Truth!
-logicae
There are at least 3 reasons I can think of as to why this new coronavirus is scarier than ebola.
1. Ebola has existed for at least 40 years, which means we've had plenty of time to develop treatments and/or cures, so not as many people will die from that nowadays, whereas coronavirus has only been around for a couple months, so we haven't had much time to develop treatments and/or cure yet.
2. It's not fair for you to compare the number of deaths without looking at the death rates. Even though ebola technically did kill more people than coronavirus, coronavirus is killing people at a much faster rate. 40 years is equal to 480 months. In 480 months, ebola killed 11,310 people. In 1 month alone, coronavirus killed over 2000 people. Multiply 2000 by 480, and that means that, in 40 years, unless a cure or treatment is created soon, coronavirus will have killed off at least 80 times the amount of people, that ebola killed off in 40 years:
(2000 * 480) ÷ 11,310 = 84.8806366047745358090186
Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-toll/
3. Coronavirus is also spreading faster than ebola, and has infected more countries than ebola. I live in Queens, New York. The virus has already made it here, and I, or any of my loved ones, could catch it, die, and be added to that list of victims.
I apologize if I came across as someone who does not value any immigrants at all, but allowing more and more people into this country is getting riskier and risker every day. We need to be more cautious and careful, especially around those who recently traveled here. Nobody wants their own loved ones catching this and dying, and the decisions of countries like the United States to allow more and more people into said countries is the reason it's spreading to begin with.
3000 deaths world wide (though mainly in China [2,912] where it originated from). Compare to Ebola which had 11,310 deaths.
I will end the conversation here as I fear it will take up too much of our time. It seems to me then that you do not value immigrants or, correct me if I have it wrong, people in general by intrinsic value but only by their practical use. If we cannot see the value in immigrants as people, we justify apathy to our own community here in the U.S. So then people become practical tools not for our good, but only for our convenience.
This reaches a dangerous precedent because people become expendable to our own preferences and to what we like. I do hope you do not mean you see no value in immigrants other then what the could be used for, else we must start talking also of our own worth. Worth such that an American is only worth in so as much as he is labeled an American.
Whatever it may be, I wish you well. Keep searching for truth, as it is the best thing we all can do.
To Truth!
-logicae
Yes, your source confirms over 3000 deaths... in only a few months.
It's bad enough that we have Americans committing so much crime, I get that, so we can at least cut down on the crime involving the illegals so we don't have more crime on top of the crime we already have, and also figure out why Americans are committing so much crime too, if that helps
I suppose legal immigrants would be valuable if they had skills and higher forms of education that were in high demand, and would be productive, but it's tricky for me to answer "by how much?"
Even if they somehow could pay for a home, there's still the issue of homes being in low supply with a high demand at the moment, meaning that many people would have to wait until either new housing is constructed, or until some people move out of their homes.
"We already do lock down citizens who are suspected of carrying the corona virus into quarantine, or at least we try our best to."
Then we can have the same standard for immigrants, but that does not discount them from coming.
"Many of them may come from areas where they may not have proper immunizations and stuff from other common diseases."
True, I'm not sure how big of a problem this is, but assuming that it is significant I still cannot see how you discount them based on that. If some states in the U.S for example have much higher levels of diseases, we don't ban everyone from those states from moving around.
"How is anyone supposed to "be open to letting them work here to support their families" when there isn't enough affordable housing for their families, and not enough health care or other resources for said families?"
I will do you one more, that their situation is dire at best. Who needs healthcare when they are going to die in a week? And as far as living prices go here, I don't think they will have a problem paying with the wages that we have. We are only the richest and most productive society in the world.
"As for whether or not they are valuable, you have to take into account the law of diminishing returns."
Are they valuable or not? And by how much?
"Then there's also the fact that people who come in illegally through the southern border can smuggle drugs, guns, women, and children, without any of us knowing about it"
Yes and there could be a crime wave in your neighborhood. Since American Citizens have twice the crime rate, I think we will live.
"There's just too much risk"
I have to hold you to what I have found so far, that many of these points you give are exaggerated and so over inflate the risk. We do many risky things in life, but it is no way comparable to letting desperate people have the same opportunities as we do. Put on the immigrant's shoes (or lack there of) and you see a whole different story.
To Truth!
-logicae
Here is my source for the corona cases count: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Good Night,
To Truth!
-logicae
We already do lock down citizens who are suspected of carrying the coronavirus into quarantine, or at least we try our best to.
The coronavirus is deadly and is killing off thousands of people and infecting millions. It most certainly is not overblown.
It isn't even just coronavirus that these people could be carrying. Many of them may come from areas where they may not have proper immunizations and stuff from other common diseases.
We don't let them in if either we don't know if or think they can be trusted, or if we are too low on resources for it. We already have lots of homeless people living in tents on the sidewalks and you want us to bring in more people when we are already struggling to care for the people already here.
How is anyone supposed to "be open to letting them work here to support their families" when there isn't enough affordable housing for their families, and not enough health care or other resources for said families? Unless you want them "work for their families" while living on the streets and have little access to good quality health care and other valuable scarce resources.
As for whether or not they are valuable, you have to take into account the law of diminishing returns. Having legal immigrants is important, but having too many immigrants becomes a problem since it requires more and more resources to care for them, and it becomes harder to manage. Too much of any good thing tends to be a bad thing.
Then there's also the fact that people who come in illegally through the southern border can smuggle drugs, guns, women, and children, without any of us knowing about it.
There's just too much risk and too many problems with blindly accepting every immigrant without making sure it's okay to let them in and that we have the resources necessary to help them and our own people.
The corona virus idea is a non-sequitur (an argument that is not consistent or is a logical double standard). Mexico has only 5 active cases while the U.S has 73. Using this logic we should lock down U.S citizens into quarantine. Though you are right about the harms of the virus, it is simply overblown by the media, just as Ebola was.
But to be honest it seems like you are finding any reason to keep out refugees. Even this small minority of immigrants that come though the un-fenced regions, what do you have against them? Why can you not at least be open to letting them work here to support their families (keep in mind this means through legal means. If we make it legal to work here and thus keep track of immigrants coming here to work and return home, we can make the illegal problem dissipate)
Again I must press you with the question of value, why do you not want to answer it? Do you not think that immigrants are valuable? Please answer this.
To Truth!
-logicae
“Thats not what I'm stating. You're making a claim that it's immoral for ANYONE to lower their standard of living to help other people, even willingly.
Also my political beliefs don't have any relevance”
Morality has no limits. If you say we have an obligation to help people, we have an obligation to help ALL the people. Saying that we have an obligation to help AS MANY as we can inherently means that I will suffer to help someone else. It’s like two extremes meeting in the middle. The poor gets richer and the richer gets poorer. Now as the provider of my family that works to enrich my family, it would be immoral for me to decrease my family’s standard of living.
Thats not what I'm stating. You're making a claim that it's immoral for ANYONE to lower their standard of living to help other people, even willingly.
Also my political beliefs don't have any relevance
Now that we have new diseases and stuff like this new deadly coronavirus that's been popping up all over the world, it's even more important now than ever, that anyone we allow into this country is checked to make sure they didn't pick up this virus. Any illegal immigrant that enters this country illegally who turns out to have this virus is putting our entire nation at risk, even if they're just "the small minority" like you claim.
At this point, I'm more afraid of people sneaking in illegally than people who first come in illegally but then overstay their visa, since anyone sneaking in illegally without being first checked for this virus risks infecting our people with it, whereas we can at least know that those who came in with a visa weren't bringing the deadly virus with them.
Yes, my obligation is to enrich my family, not make them poorer. And your “moral” proposal is basically socialism at that point.
I wonder why you focus on the small minority of illegal immigrants coming in through the border?
"since the Jews' country had their government which was the Nazi party that blamed Jews for the problems"
So are you blaming Jew's for the Nazi's and evil African leaders for the evil done by slave drivers? It is a well known fact that the Jews actually opposed Hitler, which is why (as many dictators tend to do) he killed them off. Also it makes no sense that slave owners have no stake in their own crimes (namely buying, beating, and killing African people as they were forcible enslaved on plantations).
Why are you trying to make this defense? I would agree though, as analogies permit, that these are different situations to immigration, but where both sides share the important similarity is at the moral ground. Both people are dehumanized (slaves and Jews killed and called animals and immigrants deemed illegal (as if a person by their nature could be illegal) and alien) Also both are treated inhumanly (Slaves and Jews in the most direct way and Immigrants by being turned down their only chance at life, outside of their perilous position in their degraded and often war torn and drug lord driven home country)
"Fixing those countries will ultimately address the root of the problem"
Agreed and this is not an either or situation. Until such situations alleviate, the refuges still need a home, a place away from the violence they are escaping from. Any sensible person sees this with the outbreak of a tornado or fire where we give refuges of these crises aid to help them now as they rebuild. When people require help it is our obligation fulfill their needs with what we can. (and I don't think that being the most powerful and prosperous nation in the world gives us an excuse, do you?)
"Changing the immigration quota alone while ignoring those bad countries is a band-aid solution."
I can make a similar claim: Declaring that whole countries need to get better while ignoring the thousands of helpless migrants is at best like a doctor instructing a smoker to stop smoking while he is dying from a stroke.
I think for the sake of simplicity I will end our conversation soon and I thank you for having it with me. It was a civilized and thoughtful one and I hope our generation can gain these useful skills and respect for each other as I think we have.
I do have one last question that encapsulates all the rest and the issue as a whole:
What, if any value, do you grant an immigrant?
To Truth! -logicae
You believe it would be immoral to willingly lower your own standard of living to make other peoples easier?
Morality has a limit. It is moral to help people. But it is also immoral to make yourself and your families standard of living go lower to help as many people as we can.
There are a variety of ways to address illegal immigration. It's only a matter of figuring out what the best or most optimal option is.
Getting rid of free health cares and other services for illegals, and fixing the terrible countries they come from, would reduce the incentive to come here illegally.
Feel like a more effective way to reduce illegal immigration would be to reduce the incentive to come here illegally
The ones that enter through the southern border illegally were not checked, so the question becomes can we address the issue of those overstaying their visas, and if so, how?
Ironically, now that I think about it, the countries of the Africans and the jews are partially to blame for slavery and the holocaust respectively, since the jews' country had their government which was the nazi party that blamed jews for the problems, and I don't know why the African governments allowed their people to get taken and brought somewhere else to be sold as slaves in the first place. The Africans probably didn't have governments at all, and instead had tribes and tribe leaders, so they would have been more vulnerable overall. Regardless, It's still difficult and tricky trying to compare them to illegal immigrants.
You'll have to ask someone else why we don't have enough of those things I mentioned. We don't have enough of it because we didn't create enough of it yet. That's the best answer I can give at the moment.
The terrible countries are the main problem because if you fix those countries, people won't have to leave them to try coming here in the first place, plus some of the immigrants who are already here would likely self-deport and go back home once their home is fixed, which will free up resources and space, thus allowing us to accept more immigrants that want to come here, thus resolving the issue of people not being able to come here. Fixing those countries will ultimately address the root of the problem, which will result in our immigration quota being able to accept more people. Changing our immigration quota alone does not address the root of the problem. Changing the immigration quota alone while ignoring those bad countries is a band-aid solution.
Fixing those countries fixes the source of the problem. Letting more immigrants in to use up more of our resources without fixing those countries only addresses the surface of the problem they are having.
I had to take a break, I apologize.
You say that the difference is,
"legal immigrants were examined and confirmed to be safe to allow into the country, while illegal immigrants were not"
-While this is partially true, because, according to the center for migration studies, two thirds of illegal immigrants are actually visa overstays. So the problem on the whole is not that illegals are not checked, but that they are deemed "illegal."
Link- https://cmsny.org/publications/warren-reverse-migration-022620/?gclid=CjwKCAiA7t3yBRADEiwA4GFlI0qS32T2TElkZYZZUvDK-PyRlkZKxZcJtUSkdNk-5F_5RVAgD8ZaUhoCtswQAvD_BwE
"living in your country voluntarily not the same as leaving your home to voluntarily"
-That is the point of an analogy, the comparable part is what is voluntary or not. Both of these situations are comparable because they are both voluntary actions.
"We don't have enough food, water, housing, space, doctors, nurses, hospitals, medicine, prisons, and equipment to care for all our people plus all these migrants."
-Why?
"the burden of proof is still on you to prove that these countries caused these slaves and jews to be killed and not the governments that allowed slavery and the holocaust."
-I totally agree here, this is why blaming Mexico for the immigrants is absurd. The immigrants had nothing to do with the evils in that country and so should not be lumped together with them.
"Going after our immigration quota ignores the main problem: that some of these migrants are having to voluntarily flee their terrible countries in the first place."
-Why is this the main problem? (I understand this is the reversal of my original statement, but you have not given a reason for it) The immigration quota makes it so that perfectly good and needy immigrants cannot come in. It has not been updated in 30 years to meet the current demand (this is why we have a backlog). Simply update the quota to meet the new demand and the problem ceases to exist.
To Truth!
-logicae
I answered you on the difference between legal and illegal immigration: legal immigrants were examined and confirmed to be safe to allow into the country, while illegal immigrants were not
We don't have enough food, water, housing, space, doctors, nurses, hospitals, medicine, prisons, and equipment to care for all our people plus all these migrants.
Even if you slightly change your nazi and slavery analogies, not only is living in your country voluntarily not the same as leaving your home to voluntarily go become a slave or a member of a comcentration camp, but then the burden of proof is still on you to prove that these countries caused these slaves and jews to be killed and not the governments that allowed slavery and the holocaust.
Going after our immigration quota ignores the main problem: that some of these migrants are having to voluntarily flee their terrible countries in the first place.
What is the difference between illegal and legal immigration? I responded to this in the debate.
"Our lack of the necessary resources"
What lacking?
"No, the Jews and Africans did not voluntarily leave their homes"
Did they live there voluntarily?
"Instead of blaming our immigration quota and saying it's being "used immorally to kill" immigrants, blame the terrible countries that these immigrants come from"
I think I will bring back my analogy to respond here:
Scenario 1: Nazi Germany
"Instead of blaming Hitler and saying Nazi German law is being "used immorally to kill" Jews, blame the terrible country that these Jews live in" -Nazi Sympathizer
Scenario 2: Colonial America
"Instead of blaming our legalization of slavery and saying it's being "used immorally to kill" slaves, blame the terrible countries that these slaves come from" -Pot Plantation Owner
Once again, you're mixing legal immigrants with illegal immigrants. I call you out on this and you still keep doing it. You have shown that legal immigrants help us increase our prosperity. The sources you cite talking about the benefits of immigration refers to legal immigration specifically.
If our resources are increased to the point where we are able to afford to care for more migrants, then I suppose we could consider talking about allowing more and more migrants in to help us. Our lack of the necessary resources to take in and care for all of them should be enough "evidence" that we can't do such a task, at least not at the moment.
No, the jews and Africans did not volunarily leave their homes and go out to get themselves killed and enslaved in other places. They were taken from their homes and brought to those places to be killed and enslaved.
Instead of blaming our immigration quota and saying it's being "used immorally to kill" immigrants, blame the terrible countries that these immigrants come from, with their terrible governments who are too lazy to properly address the crimes and violence in these places that causes many of these immigrants to flee in the first place.
"In need, in this case, means they are truly looking for a better life, and that they cannot get it anywhere else, and that they are not simply claiming they're looking for a better life just to be allowed in so they can cause trouble."
That's just the thing, the places they are escaping from (the trash pit that Mexico is now), the length that they go to get away (risking it all), it cries out desperation, does it not?
Also I agree we are not unlimited with our resources, but I also think you discount our resourcefulness and that of the immigrants as they actually help increase our prosperity. (see economic argument about increased jobs and job pay) Assuming that they cannot take care of themselves in the short term, why do you hold so strongly that we cannot care for these immigrants (what evidence shows we can't?)
"It makes little sense, if any, to allow migrants into this country who "come with nothing""
That's were I would redirect you to my earlier question: "what is "too much time, money, or resources" and are these things more valuable than human life? In other words, why do you think "us" matters so much and "they" matter less?"
"Your slavery and holocaust analogies don't work, since the slaves were kidnapped from their country and brought here to this country against their will, and the jews were rounded up and taken from their homes and put into those camps against their will, while illegal immigrants voluntarily leave their country and come here to this country against our will."
Using this line of thinking the Jews lived in Germany voluntarily and the slaves lived in Africa voluntarily and so their deaths were voluntary. The problem here is that you talk only of the actions of the refugees but not that of our immigration system. The analogy I made shows how law can be used immorally to kill. In the case of our immigration system, it is holding refugees against their will, who die as a result.
To Truth!
-logicae
In need, in this case, means they are truly looking for a better life, and that they cannot get it anywhere else, and that they are not simply claiming they're looking for a better life just to be allowed in so they can cause trouble.
There is a limit on how many migrants we can take in and care for. We don't have enough time, money, space, housing, medicine, and resources for all of them.
It's not about which is "more valuable". It's that we don't have enough for all of them. We cannot provide what we lack or don't have to every migrant.
We can't take care of "they" if we don't take care of "us" first. "They" need "us" to take care of them, so we have to care for "us" so "us" can in turn help care for "they".
It makes little sense, if any, to allow migrants into this country who "come with nothing". This means that we have no way of figuring out what their real names are, where they could have come from, or why they are here, since they won't have any form of identification. The only thing we will have to go on would be their testimonies, which often aren't reliable, if ever.
Your slavery and holocaust analogies don't work, since the slaves were kidnapped from their country and brought here to this country against their will, and the jews were rounded up and taken from their homes and put into those camps against their will, while illegal immigrants voluntarily leave their country and come here to this country against our will.
Thanks for your answer,
Now what does "in need" mean to you? Also what is "too much time, money, or resources" and are these things more valuable than human life? In other words, why do you think "us" matters so much and "they" matter less?
You said later that we should be able to verify genuine asylum seekers, while it does seem to me at first like a fair question, I realize we don't ask this question to anyone else in immediate need, this is a guilty until proven innocent mentality. This means that immigrants escaping death can be denied life simply for not having the right government document or for none at all as many come with nothing.
Why do you think that immigrants risking their lives to come here, don't want to come here? I explained why they have to come illegally earlier with the immigration quota problem (they simply aren't allowed in legally). Further, when your life depends on escaping death through illegal means (as in slavery times for a slave or for a jew in Hitler's execution camps), would you think that to be wrong?
Louis Brandeis puts this beautifully, "If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable" -Louis Brandeis
I think our current border practice is deeply flawed, and a simple change in admitting immigrants can fix this whole mess, but we need to understand that law is not morality, it can and does change, and should be reviewed for flaws.
To Truth!
-logicae
Darn. Only 1 vote so far. Should have requested a longer voting period.
To answer your first question: It depends on what exactly they are "in need" of, and how many of them we can reasonably afford to take in. If we can confirm that they are truly in need of genuine safety from some bad things bad home, and we can reasonably afford to take them in without costing us too much time, money, or resources, then we will have them sent to a court where a judge can review their asylum applications and make the final descision as to whether or not we let them in. However, a lot of these migrants will claim or pretend to be "in need" of safety when they really just want to be allowed into this country to cause trouble, or if we can't afford to keep taking in more migrants, then we cannot and should not "help" them. We must put our country, our safety, our security, and our people first.
To answer your second question: It's not about whether or not we "think that these immigrants are fleeing opression". It about whether or not we can verify their stories, prove that they're actually fleeing opression, and confirm that they're not bringing in any dangerous diseases, or lying or making things up just so they can be allowed into the country. We cannot be too trusting towards those who claim they're "fleeing" something, because then, liars will be able to come and take advantage of the same trust that we give to innocent genuine asyluk seekers. When they enter illegally through the southern border, we are running the risk of having them turn out to be bad people, or having them infect our people with a foreign disease we don't know about, since we cannot possibly verify their claims or check them for diseases or drugs or anything they might be carrying. If they enter this country illegally, they obviously aren't seeking a better life. They are obviously looking to cause trouble, since if they wanted a better life, they wouldn't enter illegally and put themselves (and their children, if they have any) at risk of being arrested, deported, and/or separated for doing so.
Once again thanks for taking the time to debate me Christen. I wish this type of conversation could be more regular among Americans (that would solve a ton!).
I'm wondering about your characterization of me using appeal to emotion in the final round. I wasn't able to respond, but I would like to clarify what you meant. Do you think that we do not have an obligation to help those in need? Also do you not think, given the evidence of economic ruin and gang violence, that these immigrants are fleeing oppression?
I was very careful to show the context for why immigrants are desperate enough to make the journey here, so I hope you can explain why we should not be concerned.
Thanks!
To Truth!
-logicae
Thanks! It's the first non-FF vote I've done on the site.
Very nice vote!
Spelling mistake, please ignore:
As proven earlier illegal immigrants have have the crime rate of U.S citizens.
As proven earlier illegal immigrants have "half" the crime rate of U.S citizens.
I want to thank you here Christen for the debate and also for the wait. In addition If my opening seems poorly explained it is because I could only fit the necessary information in, such as evidence and sources and points of argumentation. I will build and explain them after hearing your opening.
Bring it on! ;)
To Truth!
-logicae
I would use the same arguments I used to win against opponents superior to you, on Debate.org. doing so would Dox me, so I'll pass
Roger that.
To Truth!
-logicae
I see your interest in the topic. Would you like to accept? I only ask you make sure to have your arguments and evidence ready.
To Truth!
-logicae
A border wall also means we force Mexico to force their issues, I stead of shipping their dissidents to America. Why would you prefer Mexico stay a 3rd world shithole than to help them by forcing them to keep their dissidents there. Are you against helping our neighbors live the same quality of life as us?
I see, your argument is for open borders. Even if you have an open border policy, why are you against protecting the borders. Little girls are raped and treated like cattle for passage into the United States. Why do you prefer they are raped than we put up border security so they can come in legally and safely?
Why is it a bad ideal?
We should also get at least a week for arguments.
Done. Crazy how quick the wall has become a fad. Is there anyone still out there that still thinks it is a good idea?
To Truth!
-logicae
The voting period should be at least a month.
Trying to bump this. Anyone know anyone interested in this topic?
To Truth!
-logicae
Your probably support Trump's wall. Are you interested?
Agreed. The great Milton Freedom once said that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Welfare is Warfare on everyone else who is stolen from. Indeed it makes no sense that a corrupt and bureaucratic centralized power (our federal government) would do a better job helping people than us as the local community.
Great thought,
To Truth!
-logicae
If we have open borders, we should ban welfare too.
Indeed, to truth!
All the better lol,
Take care man,
To Truth!
-logicae
I agree Alec. Taking a step out of the whole economic issue (which you can certainly make against the wall) It seems odd to exclude people who are in need (and no, this does not mean a wall = exclusion, but it directly represents keeping these people out, which is indeed exclusion) Now this statement is heavily contested, which I find also odd, because people don't just leave behind their home, family, and give up everything to just move thousands of miles into a foreign (and quite hostile) land, they do it because their situation is dire. Evidence of this of course comes in the form of migrants from war torn, poor, and failing countries such as Venezuela, Mexico (add in a good portion of Central and South America), the Middles East (for obvious reasons), and most of Africa.
Contrary to many that support the wall, I think it is not horrible to let these people in to struggle for a better situation and grow to be good hardworking citizens. If they don't, then they are no worse than the criminals we currently have. It is simply a part to whole fallacy to discount the many desperate and hard working migrants for the few criminals widely publicized on big media and social media.
But even this ignores the crux of the issue: Whether we as a country have an obligation to help our neighbors. I think this question is simply answered in your daily lives. Whenever you see that guy on the side of the road with the flat tire or that old lady asking for help to reach a store shelf, you are actively engaging to help your neighbor. This is also applied to a greater scale as well, as migrants are just our many neighbors in need. Can we not at least let them have the same opportunity to struggle as we do?
I think we should,
you guys tell me what you think,
To Truth!
-logicae
I'm not really considering accepting it. If you reread my post, it's a series of horrible puns. In any case, I already have a different debate planned (I haven't posted it yet because I want to have my R1 argument written beforehand), and I only do one debate at a time.
This debate does look interesting, and I'm looking forward to reading it.