Border Defence

>My opponent starts out with (almost): "< > I did not contradict myself. Just because you have equal chances as someone doesn't mean you are equal to them. " If I have equal chances to yours, aren't we essentially equal? Isn't that what the Constitution means when it says "all men are created equal? " That we all get the same chances to achieve equal stance? This is indeed the case. To respond to my opponent's example, the people are treated the same afterward and receive equal chances. >My opponent goes on to the topic of illegal immigrants and taxes. He says that I have "forfeited a major part of the argument. " This is entirely false. My point was that I can support illegal immigrants existing in America while simultaneously supporting their tax-paying. All deserve the same chances, my opponent has even conceded this. Illegal immigrants, by his logic, should be allowed rights of all citizens in the US. >Next, my opponent says that society CAN be helped by better workers. He then goes on to yet again discuss taxes. As I have already said this round, illegal immigrants SHOULD pay taxes. Enforcing this is a serious probelm in the United States, and should thus be confronted. >"Because they end up hurting the economy by taking those jobs and they cost billions in tax payer dollars of which they have not contributed. " was my opponent's next response. This is not even an answer to my question of "Why don't the illegal immigrants deserve these chances to get jobs when Americans do? " My question was one of morals and equality. My opponent's answer only addresses economics. >To my opponent's next remark, I never said that money didn't leave the United States. Most of it, however, stays in the US. This is what my opponent is neglecting. Additionally, unemployment ALWAYS goes up when the economy goes down, this is not characteristic of illegal immigration. >My opponent closes his rebuttal with "< > You concede to my point. The Mexican government, by the way, is getting better. However, the U. S. had to work to get where it is today, and so should other countries. We just didn't have the option to run out when the going got tough. "People" have the power to change their own government because they have the majority. When they're not the majority they're not considered the "People" anymore. " I did not concede anything. I said that governments should protect their people. I never said that governments should not be hospitable to those from other nations. They should be more excepting, hence all of my arguments so far. >My opponent concludes with: "Illegal immigration hurts the economy by exporting their money, not paying taxes, and raising unemployment (which causes tax dollars to go to the unemployed for welfare and other services). " Illegal immigration (as my opponent neglected to say) also gives a great number of people to the workforce and these workers are more qualified than unemployed Americans (in general). "Illegal immigration is not legal. This debate is not over whether or not illegal immigration should become legal, it's over whether or not we should try and stop it. " The two are related. If "illegal" immigration was legal, then it would not need to be stopped. "Illegal aliens take away jobs and oppurtunities from legal americans and gain special priveleges over other legal americans. " I am opposed to this. I have said this over and over. My opponent cannot hold this over me. >To end my arguments, I want to go back to something I said in R1. I stated: "My opponent has the burden of proof to prove why we should have a border fence. If [he] fails to do this then CON will in this debate. " AND "To win this debate my opponent must prove that these individuals outside of the US do not deserve equality to those inside it. " Now, reader, you must ask yourself: Has PRO proved that border fences should exist in the United States (on the border)? Has PRO proved that individuals outside of the US do not deserve equality to those inside it? If EITHER OR BOTH of these questions is answered with a "no," then it is necessary to vote CON. If BOTH are answered "yes," then vote PRO. I strongly urge a vote for CON. >I thank my opponent for debating me. I thank you, reader, for taking the time to read this. Again, I urge a vote for CON. Thank you.