Resolved: The United States Federal Government should deport all illegal immigrants. Lannan13 vs. Princess Bubblegum

[Lannan13]

Greetings Politics and war, today I bring you another great debate. I will be debating the loudest advocate of deportation on this site in Princess Bubblegum. This has been a debate that has been in the works for awhile. Here I will be taking the position of Con and we hope that you enjoy this debate. Readers may feel free to provide commentary of the debate, but are asked to not engage in the debate until after the debate has ended. The debate rules are bellow. 

 

Rules
First round rules and definitions by Con, Opening arguments by Pro.
Second Round Opening arguments by Con, no rebuttals. 
Pro refutes Con's arguments.Third Round Con's rebuttals, Pro's rebuttals and Conclusion.
Forth Round Con's rebuttals and conclusion. Pro waives the round.
In the Forth Round Pro shall only type, "No round as agree upon."
No profanity.
No trolling.
No Kritiks.
No semantics, the definitions provided are the ones to be used throughout the debate.


The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. [1]

 

Should-must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): [2]

 

Deport- the removal from a country of an alien whose presence is unlawful or prejudicial [3]

 

Sources

1. (http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/united-states-federal-government/)

2. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should) 

3. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deportation) 

[Princess Bubblegum]

Introduction.

 

People from both sides of the political spectrum fall on both sides of the debate surrounding illegal immigrants. Both progressives (A,B) and conservatives (C) can be found arguing against the unfettered immigration and lackluster enforcement of existing laws. The same can be said of the opposition. The issue, therefore, isn't clearly a partisan issue, which perhaps is why the situation currently exists in the state that it does. What I will attempt to argue here for is the deportation of illegal immigrants by means of enforcing existing U.S. immigration law. The general trend of my argument will be from what I would consider to be less controversial contentions to more controversial contentions.

 

 

Contention A: Illegal immigrants, by definition, exist within the United States counter to U.S. Federal law. As such they may be deported.

 

From fairus.org:

 

>>The illegal alien population is composed of those who illegally enter the country (referred to as "entry without inspection — EWI") in violation of the immigration law, and others enter legally and then stay illegally (referred to as overstayers). The immigration authorities currently estimate that two-thirds to three-fifths of all illegal immigrants are EWIs and the remainder is overstayers. Both types of illegal immigrants are deportable under Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237 (a)(1)( which says: "Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States is deportable."[1]

 

 

Contention B: To allow categories of things that are counter to existing Federal law while retaining that law is to subvert that existing law.

 

This is a truism, but the take away is that such a law should be viewed as a bad and undesirable law since it is presumed that the subversion of law is undesirable...

 

 

Contention C: Subverting an existing law outside of legal channels undermines all law and thus should be undesirable from at least the perspective of the Federal government.

 

Respect for the rule of law and for the government institutions is typically viewed as a necessity—particularly by government proponents. When that respect wanes from the perspective of the citizenry, it affects the ability of government to perform its alleged duty of maintaining the rule of law. Bad laws or laws that are only selectively enforced greatly damage the credibility of government institutions and by extension negatively impact its purpose.

 

 

Contention D: If subverting the structure of U.S. laws and institutions is not desired from the perspective of the Federal government, then the law should be enforced or it should be changed. In the context of illegal immigrants, the law should be changed in some manner that absolve immigrants in a legal manner that renders them no longer as “illegal.â€

 

This should be straightforward. The best way of dealing with bad laws is to repeal them or change them. Ignoring them or selectively enforcing them is detrimental to the rule of law. Selective enforcement in particular is detrimental to the idea of justice and opens the possibility of abuse by those in power.

 

That being said, I recognize that there may be times when a bad law is unlikely to be repealed or changed and subversion of it can be viewed as desirable. However, this is usually from the perspective of the individual and not from those in government chosen and sworn to carry out the execution of the law. Bad law, if viewed as such by powers within the government, have avenues (such as the Supreme Court) to negate bad law. This all of course presupposes that existing immigration law should be viewed as bad law.

 

Contention E: In regard to illegal immigrants, broadly speaking, there are three methods of addressing them:

• (1) Enforce and/or expand existing law to deport and/or otherwise disincentivise illegal immigration to affect the removal of illegal immigrants from the United States.

• (2) Retain existing law but choose not to enforce it to the effect of allowing illegal immigrants to stay and remain “illegal.â€

• (3) Change or create law to legalize illegal immigrants in some manner and thereby remove the legal ability of the Federal government to deport them.

 

 

Contention F: Option #2 from “Contention E†should be viewed as undesirable for reasons expressed in Contentions A-D.

 

To expound on the previously given reasons, an example of how this undermines law would be the use of undocumented labor by unscrupulous employers. Employing illegal immigrants, which is supposed to be illegal, unfairly advantages unscrupulous employers over law-abiding ones. The employment of illegal immigrants also creates a situation where workers are being employed outside of the protection of labor laws. Illegal immigrants are subject to exploitation and coercion by employers who can threaten to bring the long arm of the law down upon them and have them and their family deported (which also leads to selective enforcement)[2]. To allow illegal immigrants to remain illegal and still reside in the U.S. is to encourage this kind of black market economic relationship (among other things)—directly creating instances of law breaking and law subversion.

 

 

Contention G: When something is subsidized or legalized through government, the effect is to increase and encourage that thing. Likewise, when something is taxed or criminalized, the effect is to discourage that thing. In the context of illegal immigration, without making additional effort to stem new illegal immigration, choosing to either not enforce the law or to allow for the legalization of illegal immigrants is to effectually encourage further immigration that is outside legal channels or--under some advocated policies--will allow for what would effectively be an open-border policy.

 

Short of greatly increasing enforcement of new illegal entry and immigration (e.g. an improved border wall), so long as there is a desire to immigrate to the U.S., people will do so—illegally if they must. When a signal is sent to these potential immigrants that existing immigration law will not be enforced or will allow for the legalization of formerly illegal immigrants, the effect is increased illegal immigration. An example of this was the busing fiasco of illegal child-immigrants in July of 2014.[3,4] Another example would be the refugee crisis currently happening in Europe.

 

Extreme positions sometimes advocated by those opposed to current immigration law sometimes advocate that the idea of an illegal immigrant should not exist—that being that there should never be an instance where government policy is such that the government can deport an immigrant. This is to effectively advocate for open borders. The debate regarding open borders is likely a lengthy one—but it is my position that this is extremely undesirable for a myriad of reasons that are probably tangential to the issue at hand. What can be said though, is that it is not currently Federal policy to have open borders, nor would most Americans likely desire that.

 

 

Contention H: The encouragement of further immigration that is outside legal channels should be viewed as undesirable to those looking to solve illegal immigration since it exacerbates existing problems.

 

This should be non-contentious. There already exists a problem. A solution that recreates or exaggerates the problem in the future is a poor solution.

 

 

Contention I: In addition to Contentions G & H, option #3 from Contention E should be viewed as undesirable because it rewards those who knowingly chose not to follow U.S. law yet decided to remain under its jurisdiction. The act of rewarding those who knowingly chose to not follow established law also undermines U.S. law and institutions (an extension of Contentions B and C).

 

It is also insulting to those who decided to follow the law and follow the legal immigration process. Encouragement or rewards for disregard for Federal law is counter to the Federal government's purpose of upholding the rule of law.

 

 

Contention J: With the general shift in laws and policies towards social safety nets and collectivism, immigration has changed in its effects relative to past immigration. Where once immigration was much more loosely controlled, the growth of collectivist policies creates a situation where immigration affects all citizens in a more impactful way than in past eras. Because of this, immigration controls are a necessity. Those who bypass those controls (illegal immigrants) are those who impact citizens in a manner counter to law and to the detriment of native citizens.

 

I would argue that this is probably the most important contention. It is also quite expansive and has many facets to it. Contentions K & L will expand upon this.

 

 

Contention K: Illegal immigrants are detrimental to an American election system where only citizens are supposed to be represented.

 

One fundamental issue here is that the United States has democratic elections. As such, demographics matter in the outcome of those elections. It is an obvious point that if immigrants (illegal or otherwise) are given power to sway elections (e.g. by voting), by consequence the proportion of the electoral power that belongs to native citizen demographic shrinks. It should therefore be an important issue when taking into account the general political trends that exist among immigrant populations. Illegal immigrants in the U.S., for example, overwhelmingly favor the Democratic party (8 to 1 Democrat to Republican).[5] Immigrants support Affirmative Action at 58% compared to the native rate of 35%.[6] Immigrants supported the Affordable Care Act at a rate of 69% compared to the native rate of 52%.[7] Immigrants more often than not come from cultures and regions that are more socialist and anti-free market than the U.S. 81% of foreign-born Hispanics favor a larger government over smaller government.[8] It is unsurprising that 80% of Democrats favor allowing for the legalization of illegal immigrants.[9] Had illegal immigrants been allowed the vote, Barack Obama would have easily won key swing states in the 2012 presidential election.[10]

 

What's more, illegal immigrants, as they currently exist, already impact the U.S. Presidential election by means of the Electoral College and the Census Bureau. Illegal immigrants that reside in states that vote (for example) Democratic, contribute to that State's electoral votes in the Electoral College system.[11] In 2012, in the 20 states with the largest immigrant populations, Obama won 17.[12] What's more, there are indications non-citizens (illegal immigrants included) vote despite not being allowed to legally.[13]

 

>>"In 2014, a study released by three professors at Old Dominion University and George Mason University, based on survey data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, estimated 6.4 percent of noncitizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election and 2.2 percent voted in the 2010 midterm congressional elections.â€[14,15,16,17]

 

This is rigging the system of democracy by importing (and then legalizing) a leftist voting base and by importing cultural demographics that heavily favor leftism. Regardless of where an individual resides on the political spectrum, it should be acknowledged that importing a voting block that greatly differs from native voting patterns is detrimental to the native citizen's ability to exercise the right of self-determination. Those with libertarian leanings (to which class I believe lannan13 belongs) must address the reality that granting/recognizing “rights of citizenship†(namely voting/representation) to immigrants who come from other nations “illegally†conflicts with limiting governmental intrusion on the rights of native citizens when those immigrants hold conflicting or opposing ideologies that approve of said intrusions. And that point should be re-emphasized: immigrants, while generally supported by those with libertarian values, do not hold libertarian values themselves—more often than not, they hold the opposite (compared to natives, immigrants significantly favor restrictions on free speech, increased drug laws, affirmative action, and other government interventions towards inequality).[18] My appeal to the segment of the population that calls themselves libertarians is one of rational self-interest: the rights of native citizens (you included) come before the alleged rights of prospective citizens and non-citizen residents. Lysander Spooner addressed this type of conflict with democratic governance and the ideas of liberty:

 

>>"[The individual] sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself." [19]

 

In this case, the opportunity exists to preemptively remove an arguably contributing factor to the growing threat to the liberties of native citizens by literally deporting it. It is a form of self-preservation. Typical arguments try to claim that illegal immigrants are a net gain to the economy—however, even if true, it fails to account for the political impact they have (and would have more of if legalized) and THAT effect on the economy. In a statist system, it is a given that domestic population—through government--may choose who enters a country and choose if and when immigrants become legal citizens. This is the case for all nations, and the U.S. is no exception.

 

Deportation and execution of the law address this issue.

 

Contention L: The use of social safety nets and infrastructure by illegal immigrants is detrimental to native citizens. Their use of social safety nets and infrastructure is political leverage to expand leftist social programs. Legalization of illegal immigrants would also expand their impact upon social programs.

 

It is a common contention among those who oppose deportation to argue that illegal immigrants are a net gain to the American economy. It may indeed be the case that illegal immigrants increase the GDP of the country, however a net increase to GDP does not necessarily equate with a net gain in tax revenue for government agencies—and by extension supporting taxpayers. If one accepts the premise that unjust taxation is little better than theft, and if one also accepts the premise that taxation to fund social programs for the benefit of non-citizen, illegal immigrants constitutes unjust taxation, then by necessity a form of theft occurs when taxing citizens for the benefit of illegal immigrants.

 

Rather than re-invent the wheel here, I'm going to just share some data from those who've made these arguments before:

 

>>According to a recent study by the Center for Immigration Studies, 62% of households headed by a illegal immigrant participated in at least one welfare program in 2012, compared to 49% of legal immigrant-headed households and 30% of native-headed households. [20]

 

Households are used as a measurement in place of individual immigrants due to the impact that the entire family unit (e.g. including the children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S.) have on social programs and taxes.

 

>>In 2012, according to a Heritage Foundation study, the average illegal immigrant household cost US taxpayers $14,387. The study also claims that illegal immigrants currently receive social benefits amounting to $54.5 billion more than they pay in taxes.[21,22]

 

So how much do illegal immigrants pay in collective taxes? Approximately $12 billion annually.[23]

 

The Congressional Budget Office report also concluded that illegal immigrants are a net negative to collective taxation and benefits:

 

>> “The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants, although the impact is most likely modest. […] Federal aid programs offer resources to state and local governments that provide services to unauthorized immigrants, but those funds do not fully cover the costs incurred by those governments.†[24]

 

>>A CATO institute analysis of census bureau's 2012 current population survey found that low-income non-citizens--including illegal immigrants--received 42% less in social benefits compared to equally poor citizens. However, this difference can be explained by the fact that non-citizens don't have full access to over 80 federal welfare programs.[25]

 

Why is this important? While illegal immigrants may use less social benefits than some native groups, that is only because they do not have legal access to social programs. Allowing more access to social programs by granting legal status would consequently increase their impact upon social programs. Milton Friedman, noted libertarian author, while attempting to makes sense of the discrepancy of past and present immigration noted that, in the present day, given the current collectivist social programs, it is only so long as illegal immigrants remain under illegal status and exempt from state-funded social programs that they may be good for the economy and native citizens.[26]

 

 [27]

 

Immigrants collectively (both illegal and legal) use social benefits/programs at greater rates than native households (and when compared to their respective native ethnic/racial groups[28]). It should be apparent that if illegal immigrants as a collective entity are using less social benefits than natives--presumably due to the fact of their illegal status--then it is not an unreasonable inductive conclusion that should that status change from illegal to legal, the impact of illegal immigrants upon social programs will mirror that of currently existing legalized immigrants.

 

The impact illegal immigrants have already had on social programs should not be understated, either. For example, the impact of illegal immigrants (who are often uninsured) upon emergency rooms (who could not turn them away) was a contributing factor to the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Prior to the ACA, funding to the costs of these (often unpaid) emergency room visits were paid by taxpayers.[29,30]

 

>>In 2012, about 50% of immigrants from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador didn't speak English well or at all. The average figure for all immigrants is 30.3%. [31,32]

 

Multilingualism in the U.S. costs significant money.[33] Without compromises in education (such as ESL services), the children of (illegal) immigrant households are far more likely to face lives of poverty—carrying with that the associated/indirect costs to the native citizens. Moreover, the impact this has on education standards is a likely contributing factor to the manifestations of government-directed education solutions such as No Child Left Behind and Common Core.

 

>>2011 BLS current population survey-- 28% of immigrants 25-65 have not completed a high school education.[34]

 

>>In California, immigrants with less than a high school education account for 73% of the low-education population.[35]

 

Lack of education is important here because of the correlation between education and income. Taken as a collective entity, when a group (such as illegal immigrants) hold low levels of education, they will contribute less in taxes and collect more in social benefits.[36]

 

And of course, there's the oft-repeated issue surrounding illegal immigrants: their effect on American jobs. To be fair, there are supported arguments that show that illegal immigration has contributed a positive effect (or at the very least a non-detrimental effect) upon overall employment. This is attributed to the employment opportunities some immigrants themselves create, either directly through the creation of businesses, or indirectly through consumerism. What can be said though, is that illegal immigrants are competitors for native low-skilled labor. Even presidential candidate Bernie Sanders would contend the same thing.[37] Another oft-repeated talking point surrounding this issue is that illegal immigrants are willing to do the jobs Americans won't do. A more accurate statement is likely to be that illegal immigrants accept payment and working conditions for jobs at a rate Americans won't accept. Since it is supposed to be illegal to hire undocumented employees, any employment can be considered “black market†employment, and as previously discussed, carries with it a general lack of adherence to labor and wage laws. By this means, illegal immigrants and those employing them gain market leverage over their law-abiding economic counterparts. This aspect of the argument for deportation is likely to appeal to those who are concerned for domestic low-skill citizens, but there's an argument that stems from this that should appeal to those with a libertarian leaning as well; namely the effect upon the political landscape of a system of illegal immigration that undermines domestic low-skill employment will inevitably lead to calls for government intervention in the labor market with things like higher minimum wage laws (another social program).

 

When the domestic low-skilled employees are underemployed or underpaid due in part to black market illegal immigrant employment, there will be calls to raise the minimum wage through government when the market won't do the equivalent on its own. While low-skill wage stagnation due to illegal immigration is relatively smaller compared to automation and outsourcing, it nevertheless still has an impact. And it is perhaps a bit of irony that enacting higher minimum wage would cause higher unemployment (and possibly self-deportation) among low-skilled illegal immigrant labor—so long as the law is actually enforced.[38,39] And legalization of illegal immigrants certainly is no guarantee that illegal immigrants and their employers would begin to abide by labor laws. What is likely to happen, especially if illegal immigrants are legalized in conjunction with a minimum wage hike, is increased unemployment among those who would also qualify for social assistance.

 

Illegal immigrants, especially if legalized, would also impact American natives through the Civil Rights Act and associated (nominally) egalitarian government programs (e.g. Affirmative Action). It's no secret that the ethnic and racial makeup of illegal immigrants does not mirror that of the domestic population. When there is a shift in demographics in the country, that shift will impact hiring and selection (e.g. colleges/universities) preferences to abide by racial and diversity quotas. Legalizing low-skilled immigrants (and not deporting them) will lead to increased pressure to hire/select ethnic populations that are boosted through those formerly illegal immigrants in favor of other groups. U.S. universities already implement special programs to specifically enroll illegal immigrants.[40] This trend is likely to increase, especially if illegal immigrants are able to impact elections to a greater degree (via subsequent political pandering and handouts).

 

What has been covered here is not an exhaustive list by any means, but addresses the issues that will only become larger should the U.S. fail to deport illegal immigrants.

 

 

Contention M: Deportation of illegal immigrants is pragmatic/possible.

 

It has been done before under Truman, it happens on a continual basis under Obama, and can be done in the present/future. It may be done incrementally—there is no time requirement—so long as additional illegal immigration is halted. Through a combination of increased border security, employment oversight (such as E-verify), and active deportation, the illegal immigrant population within the United States can be effectively reduced. It is probable that given sufficient motivation and correct policy, most illegal immigrants will self-deport in favor of risking involuntary deportation (which may come along with asset forfeiture—which is a way to offset the cost of enforcement).[41] A change in government policies towards discontinuing any subsidization of illegal immigration (through social programs for instance) would further this goal.

 

Contention N: Deportation of illegal immigrants is non-dependent upon claims of an alleged positive contribution to the U.S. Economy or to government taxes.

 

Positive economic contributions do not excuse violating the law. Put another way, being a positive economic force is not a sufficient reason to allow for the retaining of illegal immigrants. At best it is a contributory reason--an attempted excuse for the breaking of U.S. laws. We (and the Federal government) should not allow the law to be broken simply because of a growth in taxes, or else the law is a farce--a mere suggestion of human behavior rather than a mandate.

 

Nor should immigration law be hinged upon economic impact. To argue otherwise begs an inference that the purpose of law (immigration law in this instance) is to positively effect the economy (or at least encompasses a positive effect). Perspectives on the purpose of law vary from individual to individual, but from the perspective of a person who views the purpose of law as the collectivized means to protect the liberties and property of the constituent citizenry (a la Bastiat), the economy ought not supersede that duty of government in regards to law. Allowing for the retaining of illegal immigrants under the existing form of democratic government simply because of an alleged positive tax influence to the Federal government is a violation (even if it be indirect) of the rights and property of the citizens of the United States.

 

The costs and benefits that are borne to citizens due to illegal immigration are not equal. An increase in economic growth or tax revenue is no indication of a fair or equitable system—which should be important given the relative involuntary nature of government. Certain groups and sectors are going to benefit more from illegal immigration and some will suffer because of it. Just because there may be an alleged collective economic benefit to the U.S. as a whole is not appropriate justification for undermining more fundamental American principles. Affidavits of Support are supposedly part of the law for immigrants looking to come to the United States, but, like a lot of the U.S. immigration law, is not enforced (and illegal immigrants of course are not beholden by government to this standard).[42] This is how immigration in the U.S. used to work. Immigrants who arrived in the past were rejected if they were believed to be a burden or threat to society (e.g. by lacking employment opportunities, holding certain political beliefs, or through illness). This was because in America the interests of Americans came before the interests of non-Americans. And this is how it should be again: government services used in the protection of American property and liberties should trump government services used for illegal alien residents.

 

 

Contention O: An alleged negative impact of deporting illegal immigrants upon the economy and upon tax income is overstated.

 

One of the biggest alleged drawbacks to enforcing immigration policies and deporting illegal immigrants is the impact it will supposedly have upon the U.S. economy. Dire predictions of trillions lost in GDP are sometimes stated will occur if all illegal immigrants were to be deported.[43] $1.6 trillion, over the course of 20 years, equates to $80 billion in GDP per year. For comparison, the total 2016 U.S. GDP is estimated to be $18.7 trillion.[44] What these kind of studies usually fail to describe is the per capita GDP (what the aggregated, average individual experiences economically—also sometimes used as a measure for standard of living). A rise in the per capita GDP can occur even when the GDP stagnates—if the population declines. The absence 12 million illegal immigrants (and any subsequent progeny) would decline the U.S. population (assuming zero growth) by 3.7% (12m/318.9m). The study from which the $1.6 trillion figure is derived claims a 5.7% loss in economic growth over 20 years—which presumably means that growth would be an expected 94.3% of the otherwise 100% (e.g. 5% annual growth would become 4.715%). But again, that gap in GDP does not necessarily equate to a lower per capita GDP or a lower standard of living for the remaining U.S. residents.

 

Where GDP does factor in is tax revenue. If GDP experiences a negative impact, it is presumed that government tax revenue is likewise negatively impacted. What this simplification falsely assumes is that the gap in GDP/taxation would exceed incurred costs to government for those generating this gap. As argued above, overall tax revenue from illegal immigrants does not exceed taxes paid—nor would it do so under a legalization program.

 

>>A 1997 study by a National Academy of Sciences panel of demographers and economists details how immigration fuels U.S. population growth and the fiscal costs and negative social policy effects of the current large-scale immigration. The authors of the report The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, say that the study shows a positive economic benefit from immigrants. While that is true in a narrow sense, the study's finding of a possible economic benefit of from $1 billion to $10 billion is outweighed by the costs to the American taxpayer in budget outlays.[45]

 

>>Among the NAS study findings are:

Immigration is the driving force behind rapid population growth.

Immigration has a negative impact on lower-skilled, less-educated Americans.

Immigration is exacerbating the wealth gap.

Immigration has contributed to the increase in high school dropouts.

Immigrant-headed households use more in government services than they contribute in state and local taxes.

Immigration is a substantial tax burden to native households, especially in states with large immigrant populations, and, on average, for the nation as a whole.[46]

 

And it should be asked, what are our economic needs as a nation? If the country determines that it needs low-skilled immigrant labor, there is a mechanism for increasing that: temporary work visas. A notion the U.S. is utterly dependent upon resident illegal aliens for that is unfounded.

 

Contention P: If illegal immigrants are not deported, political efforts will be attempted to legalize them for political gain and at the expense of previously stated reasons to support deportation.

 

This isn't really a position I'm going to go to lengths to argue, but it shouldn't be anything surprising given that politicians pander to demographics for political support. If the possibility arises that illegal immigrants will have voting power, it should be obvious that pandering to them will occur, and there will be adverse consequences to Americans because of it.

 

 

In Closing.

 

These are the primary arguments I would make to support the position for deportation of illegal immigrants. It's not an exhaustive list, but it is one that I think will appeal to the broad base of people. There are other arguments which may have merit as well (e.g. culture, crime), but these arguments made here are my own positions that I'm willing to argue over. I'll close my opening argument by stating that a nation that does not control its borders ceases to serve its citizens and soon ceases to be a nation, or as put by Reagan, "A nation without borders is not a nation." The U.S., like all nations, needs to control its borders and control its immigration. Deportation is a key and necessary element to that.

 

Final Addendum

 

Though I appreciate the willingness of lannan13 to debate this subject (he initiated the debate actually), and I appreciate anyone who has an open mind willing to listen to the debate, I maintain a deep skepticism towards debate being a means to change the minds of people in general. It's why I have never posted in this sub-forum until this point. I bring this up only because once the debate has concluded, I have no further intention to contribute to this topic or thread.

 

Sources

 

1. http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration-is-a-crime

2. http://www.resourcelibrary.gcyf.org/sites/gcyf.org/files/resources/2014/facts_about_immigration_and_the_u.s._economy.pdf (page 4)

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_American_immigration_crisis

4. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/02/protests-force-buses-carrying-illegal-immigrant-children-to-be-rerouted.html

5. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/22/are-unauthorized-immigrants-overwhelmingly-democrats/

6. https://youtu.be/W6NYP9qmjfU?t=17m18s

7. https://youtu.be/W6NYP9qmjfU?t=22m49s

8. https://youtu.be/W6NYP9qmjfU?t=28m16s

9. http://www.gallup.com/poll/184577/favor-path-citizenship-illegal-immigrants.aspx

10. https://youtu.be/QV7JILRugOg?t=1h15m56s

11. https://youtu.be/W6NYP9qmjfU?t=1m34s

12. https://youtu.be/QV7JILRugOg?t=1h15m40s

13. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/11/02/do-non-citizens-vote-in-u-s-elections-a-reply-to-our-critics/

14. http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/02/poll-shows-noncitizens-can-shape-elections/

15. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973

16. https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Do-Non-Citizens-Vote-in-US-Elections-Richman-et-al.pdf

17. https://youtu.be/W6NYP9qmjfU?t=4m41s

18. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2234200

19. https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lysander-spooner/no-treason-the-constitution-of-no-authority/

20. https://youtu.be/yjjSG705Inc

21. https://youtu.be/QV7JILRugOg?t=1h17m36s

22. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer

23. http://www.itep.org/pdf/undocumentedtaxes2015.pdf

24. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf (page 3)

25. https://youtu.be/QV7JILRugOg?t=1h17m13s

26. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyJIbSgdSE

27. https://youtu.be/4u1J6EEhkyM?t=23m17s

28. https://youtu.be/4u1J6EEhkyM?t=6m36s

29. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/whats-holding-undocumented-immigrants-back/

30. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/illegal-immigrant-births-at-your-expense/

31. https://youtu.be/QV7JILRugOg?t=1h24m57s

32. http://cis.org/node/3876

33. http://www.usenglish.org/view/301

34. https://youtu.be/QV7JILRugOg?t=1h25m31s

35. ibid.

36. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer

37. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/30/bernie-sanders-again-links-low-wages-with-immigration/

38. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/the-minimum-wage-cure-for-illegal-immigration/?_r=0

39. http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-02-13/could-a-9-minimum-wage-reduce-illegal-immigration

40. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/17/affirmative-action-illegal-immigrants.html

41. https://www.ice.gov/asset-forfeiture

42. https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/affidavit-support

43. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-conservative-case-against-enforcing-immigration-laws/387004/

44. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States

45. http://www.fairus.org/issue/national-academy-of-sciences-immigration-study

46. ibid.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Princess Bubblegum

[Lannan13]

I appologize to my opponent for taking so long as I have been utterly busy, but I have gotten around to it and I appologize if it seems rushed. So I will provide a political cartoon to lighten the mood before we get into such a heated debate. 

 

 

 

 

Contention 1: Economic Factors

In this section I will address the economic factors of deportation and how it would destroy the US economy.



According to the American Immigration Consil, when it comes to taxes, illegal immigrants pay their fair share. In fact, they have paid a total of $11 billion in taxes. [2] Recent immigration reports have shown that just from last year, the illegal immigration has increased taxation in that year alon by over $2 billion. [3] We can see that the illegal immigration pay taxes and though $11 billion does not seem like much, it is still a huge profit for the federal government who's budget is in a world of hurt with the US debt clock over $19 trillion. The US can use all of the tax money they can. 

A study by CATO institution found that my opponent's deportation plan would shrink economic growth in the US by $250 billion a year. [4] This is a sure way for the US to sink back into the recession. This would also hurt people at the bottom as for those without high school diplomas and low skilled laborers would have to fill the jobs formerly held by illegals and would drive the wages, as well as the dollar down. Now what does inflation and devaluing the dollar mean for the economy you may ask. Well, people would have to spend more money, becuase of the inflation and with the devaluing of the dollar we can see that if I spent a dollar on the US maket in the 1960s it would be a whole lot more then if I spent a dollar on the US market today. Economist Gagnon has shown that devaluing of the US dollar caused by the inflation can lead to a massive increase in import prices and since we get many of our things from abroad it will be even harder to get that new XBox video game you were wanting. He also shown that it harms nation's holding our debt, because the value is worthless and makes other nation's not want to purchase from us. The US in turn raises the interest rates, but we cannot afford to raise them any higher. [5]Why's this you may ask? If we observe the graph bellow the US interest rate on debt alone dwarfs most of the US federal budget. The US federal debt is getting so enourmously large that the US is getting to a breaking point in economic trade to were we have to pay off a massive amount of debt or commit financial suicide and raise the interest rates. If we observe the chart bellow we can see the different rates that a our interest rates will cost the US in the future. We have no choice, but cannot decend this slippery slope and further devaluing of the US dollar will harm the American economy by forcing us to lose jobs and rely more on imports causing the the nation to slide into the interest disadvantage furthering harming our nation's economy causing a world wide economic collapse greater than that of the Great Depression and rising spending will cause us to go flying off the fiscal cliff. [6]



Contention 2: Wages

The next key thing we have to look at here is the illegal immigrants jobs as well how they affect the everyday American. Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve showed that illegal immigrants, mainly from Latin America, had accounted for a sixth of the US economic growth from 2000-2007. [7] While in the US, illegal immigrants have been supporting their families back home while in the past year, illegal immgirants had sent home $63 billion. [8] This shows that they are not as "heartless" or "lazzy" as my opponent claims they are as it is impoosible to send that much home if you're living on welfare. The CBO reports that if we are to allow illegal immigrants work in the US, they will raise wages in the long hall, but deportation will lead to a decrease of our wages by 0.6%, which despite not sounding like much, is still a significant loss. [9]

Contention 3: True Costs of Deportation

With this being my final point I will review the final costs of deportation. If we were to deport ALL illegal immigrants in the US our nation's GDP would drop by $1.6 TRILLION! [10] This is a huge effect on the economy that would sink the US into another Great Depression not to mention all fo the other impacts that I have brought up this round. There is no logical reason why the US should deport all illegal immigrants, but should instead grant amnesty to those here.

Contention 4: Birthright Citizenship

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. [11]

 

The citizenship clause of the US Constitution I have posted above shows that those born on US soil are US citizens. Now why is this important you may ask? This is due to the fact that out of the births in the US 7.5% are that of illegal immigrants. [12] This is well over 4 million children. To further this, these children are citizens of the US while their parents are not. Under the plan that my opponent is defending, all illegal immigrants would be deported which would leave 4 million orphans in the US. The Christian Post reports that there are currently 500,000 orphans in the US and there is already a crisis as it shows that out of these orphans only 56% of them achieve a high school diploma or a GED. [13] Under my opponent's plan, this will dramatically increase these numbers causing a major crisis and over flow of people who would be uneducated citizens. This leads me into my next contention.

 

Contention 5: Increased Uneducated leads to increase of MW which harms economy.

 

It is common knowledge that as the population of unskilled workers increases, as does the demand for an increase in the minimum wage. This is part of the constant cycle and issues that occur when you attempt to raise the minimum wage. An increase of Wages will not increase jobs For instance the wage will increase and the employers will have to either raise prices in order to shelter the burden of the increased wages (which we'll get to this in another Contention) and the second is that we have roughly 500,000 jobs lost due to the cutting of jobs in order for business can still compete with others at low prices. You see that CBO actually supports my point [14]This will also hurt teenagers in the Workforce making employers having to cut down on their hours and/or favoring adults and a older population. Let's take Wisconsin for example when the minimum wage was last raised the unemployment soared from 15.8%-19.8%. [15]Imagine that on a US wide or even a world wide scale. This is an important factor that we have to look at here since a great amount of people who mainly rely on the minimum wage are teenagers and unskilled labor and if the very people that it was intended to help are being significantly harmed then this plan should not be enacted. It has been estimated originally before the last rise in the minimum wage that it would end up costing well over 300,000 jobs for teens and this ended up holding true as the last raising of unemployment saw teenage unemployment jump from 4.4% to 10.2%. [16]

 

 

This causes a huge problem in this debate as we can see in a study done as the minimum wage rises we see a higher drop out level in schools. This increases the problems in the labor force as we will see more unskilled workers as well as more people that do not have a good education. This lack of education will cause a dramatic harm of these workers as it will show that they will have dramatically lower wages and this will cycle through causing a higher demand for another wage raise which restarts this dramatic cycle. [17] We have no choice, but to stop this cycle and that way we will see a betterment of our workforce and it will begin to lift us out of poverty. Studies have also been done and have shown that this will result in an decrease the unskilled labor force will receive when training for jobs and this will hurt them even more since they will be unable to pick up enough skills to help their careers later in the future.



"Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage.Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 100,000 lost jobs.It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers. " [18]1 million jobs lost subtracted from the 900,000 that will be lifted from the poverty line and that equals 100,000 people unemployed and living in poverty. Not to mention the other side effects from raising the minimum wage such as loss of jobs for teenagers. The last time Congress raised the minimum wage in July of 2009, 600,000 teen jobs disappeared within 6 months. [19]With the last minimum wage teen unemployment percentages went from 14.8% to 27.1% [20].

 

Contention 6: The Veil of Ignorance

 

Here one must look through Rawl's Veil of Ignorance. In order to do that one's creed, race, sex, religion, political views, and generation does not matter. This in in order to eliminate bias from the viewer in order to view his two principles of Difference and Equality. The Equality Principle is that the greatest extent of Liberty for everyone. The other states that it must benefit everyone, including the least advantaged, must be open to everyone, and your enemy chooses your position in that society or scenario. [21] Under this situation your enemy would have you return to the nation you had come from under this plan as where you had come from is a whole lot worse than the US. Take the Syrian refugees for exmaple, under this plan we would be sending the refugees back to Syria where people are being massacred or like in the 70's after the US pulled out. The South Vietnamese were being slaughtered by their new communist overlords as people built make-shift rafts to attempt to escape and the US turned many of them away to return to Vietnam where their fate was death. Due to this, this plan is unethical as it fails under the Veil of Ignorance. 

 

Contention 7: Social Costs Principle

 

The Social Costs Prinicple, or also known as Externality, states that even if something negative comes out of a plan then it should be negated. [22] This is due to the fact that humanity is completely needed and should be cared for to the upmost care. The fact is, that when we observe this plan we can see that the high unemployment rates, job loss, and other negative effects, will cause a harm to humanity and should not occur. Not to mention that by ennacting this plan we will be destroying the livelihoods of many of these immigrants and in some cases pushing to them to the point of death like in the situation described in C6. Due to the failure under the Social Costs Principle, this plan should not be enacted. 

 

Contention 8: The Kingdom of Ends

 

Kant's Kingdom of Ends states that everyone must be treated not as a means, but as an end in it of themselves. [23] It is under this plan the illegal immigrants are deported for many reasons that creates a selfish altruism goal that should not be created. It is for this very fact that the deportation of these people, for security, jobs, or whatever bogus picture people want to paint this to be, violates the Kingdom of Ends as it treats them as means to a different goal and this subjegation of these illegal immigrants is appalling and since it violates the Kingdom of Ends it destroys and impedes us from reaching a peaceful, Utopic society, which my opponent is destroying through such a lucrative plan. [24]

 

 

Sources
2. (http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/unauthorized-immigrants-pay-taxes-too) 
3. (http://www.itep.org/pdf/undocumentedtaxes2015.pdf) 
4. (https://newrepublic.com/article/118602/deporting-all-undocumented-immigrants-would-cost-billions-immigration) 
5. (http://www.ehow.com/info_8350089_effects-currency-devaluation-investments.html) 
6. (http://danielamerman.com/articles/2014/ConflictC.html) 
7. Alan Greenspan, PhD, former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, stated in his Apr. 30, 2009 testimony before the US Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security
8. (http://www.thedialogue.org/agenda/programs/remittances/press/) 
9. (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/06/01/does-immigration-suppress-wages-its-not-so-simple/) 
10. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-conservative-case-against-enforcing-immigration-laws/387004/) 

11. 14th Amendment

12. (http://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2015/08/20/birthright-citizenship-by-the-numbers-the-numbers/) 

13. (http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-orphan-crisis-in-america-96961/) 

14. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/18/hill-budget-office-wage-hike-would-lift-pay-but-cost-jobs.html) 

15. (http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/minimum-wage-hike-hurts-teenage-workers-2u6pecq-168984306.html) 

16. (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/graph_of_the_day_for_november_10.html) 

17. Neumark, David and William L. Wascher, Minimum Wages (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2008), 214

18. (http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/home/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm/) [use wayback machine]

19. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/williamdunkelberg/2012/12/31/why-raising-the-minimum-wage-kills-jobs/#be9573a4b33c) 

20.  (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-07-04/opinion/ct-edit-minimum-20110704_1_minimum-wage-employers-young-workers) 

21. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/)

22. Buchanan, James; Wm. Craig Stubblebine (November 1962). "Externality". Economica 29 (116): 371–384. 

23. Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press. 1998. pg 53.

24. ibid

Edited February 23, 2016 by Lannan13

[greatkitteh]

Can someone TLDR that?

[aaaaddd22]

Did Lannan quit? I hereby declare Princeess Bubblegum to be the winner. Nice arugments. 

 

I totally disagree, but it was a very nicely structure argument.

[Arthur James]

 why did he tap multiple referent link mostly from the same video only different period of time?

anyway, great job. I should have one also to encounter the float of immigrants in my country.

[Lannan13]

Did Lannan quit? I hereby declare Princeess Bubblegum to be the winner. Nice arugments. 

 

I totally disagree, but it was a very nicely structure argument.

S**t I completely forgot about this. Uhm, arguments will come up later today.

[Arthur James]

stupid liberals.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Arthur James

[Robert Ap Ioan]

Surely America wouldn't exist if not for illegal immigration...?

[Captain_Vietnam]

bubblegum shows stupid liberals wrong!

 

all heil trump!

[Lannan13]

Working on the rest of my argument now. 

[Lannan13]

bubblegum shows stupid liberals wrong!

 

all heil trump!

You apparently don't understand economics.

[Lannan13]

It took me a bit, but I finally got my argument up. 

[Robert Ap Ioan]

As the Natives did not have the same concept of immigration and many on the East Coast had no concept of "borders", no.

I take it the Natives are glad to be part of the land of the free? I take it they don't feel disenfranchised?

[Lannan13]

Nah man. We got reservations.

True, but you know how the saying goes. If you ever want to conquer a nation, give them free stuff. 

[Lannan13]

Can someone TLDR that?

Princess Bubblegum: Illegal Immigration is bad.

Lannan13: Deportation is bad.

[Lannan13]

I made a joke and you didn't appreciate it.

I don't get jokes. 

[Princess Bubblegum]

Rebuttal to "Contention 1: Economic Factors":

 

Most of the content of this contention I addressed in my own opening statements, but I will reiterate them here.

 

Stated fact #1 (Lannan13):

>>Illegal immigrants have paid a total of $11 billion in taxes.

 

I do not contest this fact. Illegal immigrants do pay taxes. I conceded as much in my opening statements.

 

Stated fact #2 (Lannan13):

>>Recent immigration reports have shown that just from last year, the illegal immigration has increased taxation in that year alon[e] by over $2 billion.

 

Lannan13's source does not actually state this to be the case. The closest statement merely reads:

>>Granting lawful permanent residence to all 11.4 million undocumented immigrants and allowing

them to work in the United States legally would increase their state and local tax contributions by

an estimated $2.2 billion a year.[1]

 

The source merely stated a hypothetical scenario. The real statement is that if legalized, illegal immigrants would increase state and local taxation by $2.2 billion. This amended statement may be true, but it does not necessitate that the now legalized immigrants would be a net gain to these governments.

 

Statement (Lannan13): 

>>We can see that the illegal immigration pay taxes and though $11 billion does not seem like much, it is still a huge profit for the federal government who's budget is in a world of hurt with the US debt clock over $19 trillion. The US can use all of the tax money they can.

 

This can be broken down into several assertions:

(1) $11 billion is a huge profit for the federal government

(2) The Federal government's budget is in poor shape.

(3) The Federal government's debt is over $19 trillion.

(4) The Federal government can use all of the tax money it can.

 

I do not contest assertions 2, 3, or 4.

 

Assertion 1 is true if taken as a literal statement. In context, however, it is not. $11 billion is a nice boost to the Federal government; however, the $11 billion in question is being paid to state governments and local governments and not to the Federal government.

 

Quoting Lannan13's source:

>>Collectively, these households paid $11.2 billion in state and local taxes. [2]

 

Moreover, illegal immigrant taxes are not "profitable," particularly to state and local governments, when tax revenue is compared to incurred costs.

 

Re-quoting from my opening statements:

>>In 2012, according to a Heritage Foundation study, the average illegal immigrant household cost US taxpayers $14,387. The study also claims that illegal immigrants currently receive social benefits amounting to $54.5 billion more than they pay in taxes.[3,4]

 

>> “The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants, although the impact is most likely modest. […] Federal aid programs offer resources to state and local governments that provide services to unauthorized immigrants, but those funds do not fully cover the costs incurred by those governments.†[5]

 

So illegal immigrants do not pay their "fair share" unless paying one's "fair share" means collecting much more in benefits than one pays in taxes.

 

Statement (Lannan13):

>>A study by CATO institution found that my opponent's deportation plan would shrink economic growth in the US by $250 billion a year. This is a sure way for the US to sink back into the recession. This would also hurt people at the bottom as for those without high school diplomas and low skilled laborers would have to fill the jobs formerly held by illegals and would drive the wages, as well as the dollar down.

 

To quote Lannan13's source:

>>In 2012, researchers at the Cato Institute estimated that a mass deportations policy would reduce economic growth by around $250 billion per year. Those costs would not be evenly distributed: Those at the very bottom of the income distribution, particularly those without a high school diploma, may even earn higher wages in the absence of undocumented immigrants. But in total, undocumented immigrants benefit the economy.[6]

 

Firstly, the source contradicts Lannan13's assertion that domestic low-skilled laborers would be hurt or have their wages driven down. Even Lannan13's source here concedes that domestic low-skilled labor would benefit from increased wages. Secondly, a decline in GDP growth does not necessarily equate to a decline in total GDP (which is what is actually required to technically be a recession). In regards to the $250 loss of growth per annum, this is of course an estimation. Other estimations have put it at $1.6 trillion over the course of 20 years (or an average of $80 billion per year), which Lannan13 also cited in his third contention:

 

Statement (Lannan13):

>>If we were to deport ALL illegal immigrants in the US our nation's GDP would drop by $1.6 TRILLION!

 

I addressed this specific point (and even used the same Atlantic article) in my opening statement, "Contention O."[7] To highlight the key takeaways from that section of my opening statements:

(1) $1.6 trillion ***over the course of 20 years*** represents a 5.7% loss in economic growth (emphasis on growth--not total GDP) over 20 years, or a total additional GDP of 94.3% of the otherwise 100%.

(2) Such a hypothetical loss of national GDP growth does not necessarily translate to a loss of per capita GDP (a measurement for the average standard of living). This is because fewer people (thanks to deportation) are sharing the GDP.

(3) Comparisons of GDP and tax revenue when it pertains to the net effect of illegal immigrants are false simplifications. A loss of GDP and a loss of subsequent Federal tax revenue does not mean that the net effect upon government income and expenditures is a detrimental one. To reiterate, illegal immigrants constitute a net drain upon government services:

 

>>A 1997 study by a National Academy of Sciences panel of demographers and economists details how immigration fuels U.S. population growth and the fiscal costs and negative social policy effects of the current large-scale immigration. The authors of the report The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, say that the study shows a positive economic benefit from immigrants. While that is true in a narrow sense, the study's finding of a possible economic benefit of from $1 billion to $10 billion is outweighed by the costs to the American taxpayer in budget outlays.[8]

 

In the rest of "Contention 1: Economic Factors," Lannan13 asserts that deportation will cause a devalued dollar and inflation. To put it mildly, this is highly reductionist. Inflation has far more important factors than the deportation of illegal immigrants or their alleged impact upon GDP. And if the 5.7% loss of GDP *growth* (again, not total GDP) over the course of 20 years is anywhere close to being a sufficient cause for the apocalyptic scenario asserted by Lannan13, then any 5.7% loss of GDP growth over the same period of time would do the same--and that can happen for a myriad of very plausible reasons.

 

Statement (Lannan13):

>>[inflation and a devalued dollar] harms nation's holding our debt, because the value is worthless and makes other nation's not want to purchase from us. The US in turn raises the interest rates, but we cannot afford to raise them any higher.

 

Lannan13's point here depends on what he is asserting these foreign nations will not purchase from us: goods or debt instruments? Domestic inflation and a devalued dollar usually means that foreign nations have a stronger relative purchasing power and an easier time to purchase US goods (usually increasing exports). However, it's possible foreign nations would be less inclined to purchase US debt (which is what Lannan13 probably means). The reluctance of foreign nations to purchase more US debt would only increase total debt if the US did in fact increase interest rates, but it's not the devaluing of the dollar that is the ultimate cause of increased debt--it is the reliance of the Federal government upon the selling of debt instruments that ultimately precipitates more US debt. The US is not necessarily required to increase interest rates. The other possibility is reducing expenditures and increasing taxes.

 

What Lannan13 is arguing is that the Federal government must have an easier opportunity to borrow to continue to pay off debt, and if the government has to raise interest rates, then the debt will skyrocket. Lannan13 misses the obvious in this argument: borrowing at any interest rate (above 0) to pay off previous debt will increase the debt--and this is regardless if the rate is higher (think of using a credit card to pay off another credit card). So if this is an issue of concern (and no doubt it is), then it is one that is expansive beyond the point where deportation of illegal immigrants would be a deciding factor in the outcome. But to get to the crux of the issue, the law and the American people are not to be held hostage to illegal immigrants because of an alleged economic doomsday the deportation of illegal immigrants would bring about.

 

As I asserted previously, these alleged economic impacts of deportation are overstated/overemphasized in importance. And what's more, these alleged economic impacts would be highly offset by the absence of incurred costs via social programs--which costs would only be exacerbated even further under an amnesty program).

 

Statement (Lannan13):

>>We have no choice, but cannot decend this slippery slope and further devaluing of the US dollar will harm the American economy by forcing us to lose jobs and rely more on imports causing the the nation to slide into the interest disadvantage furthering harming our nation's economy causing a world wide economic collapse greater than that of the Great Depression and rising the minimum wage will cause us to go flying off the fiscal cliff.

 

I find the use of "slippery slope" quite appropriate here. It very much fits the "For Want of a Nail, the Kingdom Was Lost" proverb.[9] But it seems Lannan13 is confusing what is the causal factor and what is being affected. Either a GDP loss is the cause of a devalued dollar, or a devalued dollar is the thing causing harm to the economy (and a loss of GDP). They can't both be the cause and the effect of each other at the same time. Also it's unlikely that the higher import costs that Gagnon would hypothesize also means a reliance on more imports. It's more likely to make domestic goods more competitive in relation to foreign goods (since foreign goods would hypothetically be increasing in cost).

 

 

Rebuttal to "Contention 2: Wages":

 

Statement (Lannan13):

>>While in the US, illegal immigrants have been supporting their families back home while in the past year, illegal immgirants had sent home $63 billion.

 

The source actually says:

>>Remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean last year reached an an estimated $63 billion, with most of the money going to support families in Mexico and Central America, and most of it coming from the US. Report: Remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean in 2014, Orozco, Porras & Yansura, 2015 [10]

 

There is no indication that this is solely from illegal immigrants. Measured remittances typically include legal and illegal resident remittances.

 

Statement (Lannan13):

>>This shows that they are not as "heartless" or "lazzy" as my opponent claims they are as it is impoosible to send that much home if you're living on welfare.

 

I'm not sure where this is coming from, but I did not assert that illegal immigrants are heartless or lazy. However, as previous argued, illegal immigrants do use social programs and benefits in cost terms that exceed their tax contributions. Whether they send money to their native countries is irrelevant. It's also entirely possible to accomplish while accepting benefits from social programs given that illegal immigrant income is more often than not under-the-table (black market) employment and thus not a factor for eligibilty for social programs. Even legal immigrants, who do earn money legally, and use even more in social programs than illegals, are able to do so (as shown in my opening statements, "Contention L"). Either the data about the use of social benefits is incorrect, or the assertion that it is "impossible to send money while on welfare" is incorrect. It is probably the latter that is incorrect.

 

Statement (Lannan13):

>>The CBO reports that if we are to allow illegal immigrants work in the US, they will raise wages in the long hall, but deportation will lead to a decrease of our wages by 0.6%, which despite not sounding like much, is still a significant loss.

 

The first thing that comes to mind here is that wages are being treated collectively. That's a key issue: the distribution of benefits do not match the distribution of costs. There are segments of society who will benefit more and those who won't. Those who employ low-skilled labor will benefit greatly, and those who purchase the products/services generated will benefit as well. Native low-skill laborers who are competing in the same economic sphere will not benefit in even remotely the same manner. 

 

I addressed this point in "Contention N" of my opening statements.

 

 

Rebuttal to "Contention 3: True Costs of Deportation":

 

I addressed this in "Contention O" of my opening statements and again in the rebuttal to Lannan13's "Contention 1: Economic Factors.

 

 

Rebuttal to "Contention 4: Birthright Citizenship":

 

Statement (Lannan13):

>>"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The citizenship clause of the US Constitution I have posted above shows that those born on US soil are US citizens.

 

Actually, there is significant debate on whether it does or does not do so. There is contention that the children of illegal immigrants may not be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. if neither parent are. Both conditions (1) "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" and (2) "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" must be met by virtue of the word "and" as a Boolean operator. If illegal immigrants and their children are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, then the children may be denied citizenship.[11]

 

>>Being subject to U.S. jurisdiction meant, as then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull stated, "not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language "will not, of course, include foreigners." [12]

 

>>In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing: Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[13]

 

If the text of the amendment were taken without the context of the original intent, then American Indians after the passing of the amendment would be citizens upon birth, but they weren't given citizenship under the 14th amendment. It wasn't until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 that all American Indians born in the U.S. were granted citizenship.[14] Moreover, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed during the same time as the 14th amendment, expressly restricted granting citizenship to those who were subject to a foreign power (contextually meaning born of alien parentage) yet born in the U.S.[15] When read together, there is a strong argument that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" equated to "not being subject to a foreign power."

 

It may be current policy to grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants (via Plyler v. Doe [16]), but it is not a certainty that it is a guaranteed constitutional right. This is a subject that likely will require judicial review.

 

Statement (Lannan13):

>>Under the plan that my opponent is defending, all illegal immigrants would be deported which would leave 4 million orphans in the US.

 

These 4 million children wouldn't be "orphans." Their parents would continue being alive. And those parents would still have custody of their children. It would be their prerogative to take their children with them. The assumption being made here is that the parents of these children would prefer to abandon their children in the U.S. than raise them in the parents' native country. No doubt this is being used as a threat with the children acting the part of hostages--human shields for their parents. And what is being perhaps overlooked here is that the situation has been allowed to progress to this point precisely because it wasn't handled when the problem was smaller. If it is allowed to continue, then the problem will grow. By deporting illegal immigrants despite these "anchor babies" (to use the colloquialism), it will serve to discourage more in the future. If policy is such that "anchor babies" really do act as such and cause the capitulation of the enforcement of law, then that merely serves to encourage it.

 

It should also be noted that if this argument being made by Lannan13 were universalized, it would be a justification to grant clemency to anyone who breaks the law (any law) and has children who would be adversely affected.

 

 

Rebuttal to "Contention 5: Increased Uneducated leads to increase of MW which harms economy.":

 

Without reposting it, I agree with most of this contention. I agree that large numbers of low-skilled labor are a driving factor for calls for raising the minimum wage (along with the consequences associated with that). For that reason, illegal immigrants should be deported as they are predominantly low-skilled labor (operating illegally, too).

 

Perhaps that might be a snarky response, but it is the one that is consistent. Putting numbers aside for the moment, here we presume that both deporting and not deporting have an undesirable adverse consequence (the contention). Both actions require government action and citizen taxation: one to pay for the enforcement of immigration law and the other to pay for social programs. But one of these actions is on the side of U.S. law; the other is not. The latter (not deporting) requires either ignoring or changing existing immigration law to be achieved. The former (deportation) has no comparable legal requirement. But immigration law exists for a purpose different from social programs (it is assumed that education is a substantial social program). Social programs are not presumed to exist as a protection of the natural rights of citizens but rather as a benefit that the general citizenry (via government) are willing to afford to certain segments of society. Immigration law is fundamentally different; in the statist system, immigration law serves to protect the rights and property of U.S. citizens. Social programs (for better or worse) could not exist in the same manner without the protection that is afforded by immigration law--that is to say, without immigration law and its studious enforcement, there could not be social programs (and this is the important part...) without the violation of the rights and property of existing U.S. citizens.

 

Whether or not it would be more beneficial to deport some (estimated) 11-12 million low-skilled, illegal immigrants or keep them to (allegedly) avoid having 4 million new low-skilled laborers is probably not of significant consequence to make a ruling one way or the other given other factors and given the assumption that those 4 million children would (1) be caused to be uneducated/unskilled by deportation of illegal immigrants and (2) actually be living in the U.S. and not abroad with their parents.

 

 

Rebuttal to "Contention 6: The Veil of Ignorance":

 

Statement (Lannan13):

>>Take the Syrian refugees for exmaple, under this plan we would be sending the refugees back to Syria where people are being massacred or like in the 70's after the US pulled out.

 

If Syrian "refugees" are illegal immigrants, then yes they could be sent somewhere other than the U.S. (perhaps Syria or perhaps not--that's probably case-by-case issue). But I don't believe Syrian refugees are illegal immigrants--if they are legal refugees, then that would make them fall under a classification separate from illegal immigrants. That being said, the U.S. has the ability to refuse Syrian refugees entry into the United States.

 

Statement (Lannan13):

>>The South Vietnamese were being slaughtered by their new communist overlords as people built make-shift rafts to attempt to escape and the US turned many of them away to return to Vietnam where their fate was death.

 

Again, this probably isn't an issue of illegal immigration. If the U.S. is legally choosing to allow Vietnamese refugees to reside in the United States because of the circumstances of war in Vietnam, then the Vietnamese are no longer illegal immigrants. However, if the U.S. has not allowed it, then the U.S. is not under the requirement to hold any positive obligations to those "refugees" who act against the wishes of the United States by coming to the U.S. regardless.

 

Statement (Lannan13):

>>Under this situation your enemy would have you return to the nation you had come from under this plan as where you had come from is a whole lot worse than the US.

 

I think a better example of what is attempted to be argued here is the example of Cuba and the Cuban immigrants that largely settled in places like Florida. The U.S. recognized that there were some extenuating circumstances surrounding the plight of Cuban immigrants and created a specific policy regarding them ("Wet feet, dry feet policy").[17] If one accepts the premise that there is some moral obligation to accepting these kind of "refugees," then the onus is upon the U.S. to meet that obligation through legal means. Such a moral commandment or unchosen positive obligation does not create a sound justification for one party (e.g refugees) to transgress upon the rights of another party (e.g. the U.S. and its citizens) in the absence of voluntarism.

 

Statement (Lannan13)

>>Here one must look through Rawl's Veil of Ignorance. In order to do that one's creed, race, sex, religion, political views, and generation does not matter. This in in order to eliminate bias from the viewer in order to view his two principles of Difference and Equality. The Equality Principle is that the greatest extent of Liberty for everyone. The other states that it must benefit everyone, including the least advantaged, must be open to everyone, and your enemy chooses your position in that society or scenario. [...] Due to this, this plan is unethical as it fails under the Veil of Ignorance.

 

In the application of Federal immigration law, it is (for the most part) irrelevant what one's creed, race, sex, religion, political views, and generation are. If one is an illegal immigrant, the law will apply regardless of those things. Immigration law equally applies (which is why the topic in discussion uses the quantifier ALL illegal immigrants). Assuming for the moment that one accepts "Rawl's Veil of Ignorance," the application of immigration law is not an apparent violation of it. There are two relevant distinctions here: (1) immigrants and non-immigrants, and (2) legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. Those who are subject to deportation are (1) immigrants and (2) illegal [immigrants]. Within the category of "illegal immigrants," there isn't a subset that is subject to a greater degree of bias due to any description regarding one's "creed, race, sex, religion, political views, and generation." Given that, this contention either doesn't apply, or the contention is actually arguing that the very distinction of "illegal" vs. "legal" immigrant (or possibly immigrant vs non-immigrant) is a violation of "Rawl's Veil of Ignorance."

 

If that is a consequence of the contention, that there should be no law that creates the class of "illegal immigrant," then that should have been made more clear by Lannan13. And if that is the contention, then the necessary consequence of that position is that there can be no immigration law that discriminates in any fashion--to the point where even the enforcement of law regarding immigrants is non-existent. Perhaps the only discrimination that would be allowable would be one based upon quantity, but even then, anyone who violates the law by being one that contributes to exceeding that prescribed quantity would still be an illegal immigrant, and thus would create that classification of illegal immigrant. So even a discrimination based upon quantity fails under this viewpoint. The only avenue left to interpret this viewpoint is that it is an argument for no immigration law (i.e. open borders). And since this wasn't an explicit contention, nor was it mentioned in the opening statements of Lannan13, I will choose not to argue against open borders here except to reiterate the point that the U.S. and its citizens, like all nations and people, have determined they have the option to enforce immigration law and maintain control of borders regardless of arguments for a "veil of ignorance."

 

It should also be noted that the U.S. has presumably violated the "veil of ignorance" in both the past and present when it comes to immigration policy. The U.S. immigration policy is such that those who may be granted legal entry (and thus classified as "legal immigrants") are subject to discrimination. The U.S. has in the past denied legal entry to those who held political viewpoints that were viewed as extreme, dangerous, or undesirable. [18,19,20] It still does to this day, excluding "anarchists, communists, totalitarians, and advocates of assassination, government overthrow by force, destruction of property, and sabotage."[21] U.S. immigration policy has also in the past discriminated against the poor, sick, mentally feeble, and those of "low moral character."[22] U.S. immigration policy presently still discriminates to prefer immigrants who could be colloquially called the "creme of the crop" with tiered preferences based upon an immigrant's economic utility.[23]

 

If one accepts that a country is able to discriminate and choose who may be a legal immigrant, then one may ask: why allow discrimination in this form but disallow it when it comes to non-immigrants? One possible argument might contend that a "social contract" exists between fellow citizens that does not exist between citizens and immigrant candidates, analogous to co-renters choosing new roommates. A more pragmatic observation would acknowledge that without such an ability to discriminate, there would be a large opportunity for exploitation and abuse of existing domestic systems and state institutions by immigrants. When that exploitation would occur, those state institutions and systems would ultimately be untenable. Given that the domestic population has chosen to create and maintain these systems and state institutions, indiscriminate immigration is deemed counter to the interests of the domestic population. Rawls's "Veil of Ignorance," if it is applicable to immigration law, has been rejected.

 

It might be also worth noting that almost every alliance in P&W violates Rawls's "Veil of Ignorance" in this manner by holding the right to discriminate and choose who may or may not be accepted as a member of the alliance. Much like alliance membership, legal status and citizenship are established as "club goods" rather than "public goods" due to the creation of exclusivity. And there's the rub: if one takes a club good and attempts to make it into a public good, the tragedy of the commons manifests, and the initial (mostly) non-rivalrous nature of the club good is exploited, likely to a point where it is no longer non-rivalrous.[24]

 

And on the note of discrimination, to never discriminate under the premise that any discrimination violates equality of liberty can be utterly foolish--particularly if the person to be discriminated against is in fact one's "enemy."

 

http://www.heritage....the-us-taxpayer

5. https://www.cbo.gov/...immigration.pdf(page 3)

6. https://newrepublic.com/article/118602/deporting-all-undocumented-immigrants-would-cost-billions-immigration

7. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-conservative-case-against-enforcing-immigration-laws/387004/

8. http://www.fairus.org/issue/national-academy-of-sciences-immigration-study

9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail

10. http://www.thedialogue.org/agenda/programs/remittances/press/

11. http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction

12. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/08/30/14th-amendment-doesnt-make-illegal-aliens-children-citizens

13. http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act

15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frLQcUYghN4

16. http://humanevents.com/2010/08/04/justice-brennans-footnote-gave-us-anchor-babies/

17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_feet,_dry_feet_policy

18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1903

19. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1918

20. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_restrictions_on_naturalization_in_U.S._law

21. ibid.

22. http://www.history.com/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-ellis-island

23. https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/permanent-workers

24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_good#Club_theory

Edited February 27, 2016 by Princess Bubblegum

[Fox Fire]

Hey look, Lannan got crushed on his own callout. 

[greatkitteh]

The DDO member got deported

 

But to be fair I would have lost badly as well

Edited February 27, 2016 by greatkitteh

[Dimitri Valko]

Read by one Donald Trump:

 

On her way to work one morning,

Down the path along the lake,

A tender-hearted woman

Saw a poor, half-frozen snake

"Take me in oh tender woman

Take me in, for heaven's sake

Take me in oh tender woman,"

sighed the vicious snake.

 

Now she clutched him to her bosom,

"You're so beautiful," she cried,

"But if I hadn't brought you in

By now you might have died"

She stroked his pretty skin,

And then she kissed and held him tight,

But instead of saying thank you,

That snake gave her a vicious bite.

 

"I saved you," cried the woman

"And you've bit me, heavens why?

You know your bite is poisonous,

And now I'm going to die!"

"Oh shut up, silly woman,"

Said the reptile with a grin

"You knew damn well I was a snake

Before you took me in."

 

He's simply rehashing the plot of "Brer Possum's Dilemma", an African American folk tale that shows how you shouldn't let your kindness put yourself in deadly situations. Trump's use-- or should I say, misuse-- of it makes me cringe.

[Lannan13]

Well I can't promise that this will be up pronto due to my busy schedule, but I will post it. 

[Lannan13]

If at all possible I would like someone to PM me reminding me about this here in a few days. By then I should be done with this 8 mile high homework pile. 

[Lannan13]

It is midterms week, I will post after the week is through.

[Princess Bubblegum]

Looks like Lannan13 deleted his nation. Shame; I was hoping for a response.