The United States should adopt a more relaxed immigration policy with Mexico.

First I will reply to my Opponents refutations, and then I will deconstruct his case. "Relaxed" for the purposes of this debate simply means to adopt a policy of lesser intensity. RA1) The economic benefits of a relaxed immigration policy are the cause for adopting a relaxed policy. The resolution states that the United States "should" adopt a more relaxed immigration policy with Mexico. Actors only "should" act when there is cause to do so; the economic benefits here are that cause. As such, economic benefits are relevant. Because my opponent has sidestepped this contention by falsely claiming irrelevancy, he has lost it. RA2) The resolution does not address implementation, worker benefits, citizenship status, etc. nor does it speak anything to the effect of dictating working benefits of immigrants legal or otherwise. Adopting a more relaxed immigration policy does not require the US to grant citizenship to all who wish to come to the US, only lessening the intensity which we keep people out of our country -which is all I am obliged to advocate for. My opponent wishes to define specifically what a "relaxed immigration policy" is, beyond the scope of the resolution. The resolution simply calls for a debate of wether we should relax our immigration policy or not -not how we would implement such a relaxation. RB) I contend that relaxed immigration policies benefits the economy, and therefore we should relax our immigration policy with mexico. The economical benefit is cause for the proscribed action, and therefore relevant to the discussion. To claim that the cost of production will remain the same is to assume that immigrants will be paid the same as citizens and be given the same rights as citizens, which I never advocated for. Again, my opponent wishes to engage in a discussion of how to implement a relaxation of immigration policies rather engage in the debate required by the resolution, and that is to discuss the merits of the action -not the means of implementation. RC) My opponent agrees that illegal immigration has a positive impact on the US, and argues that relaxing the immigration policy with Mexico will preclude those benefits. He assumes, though, that all immigrants would be granted citizenship and afforded full rights of US citizens -which neither I nor the resolution in any way suggest. I do not suggest that we grant every Mexican citizen who wishes to find work in the US citizenship, as my opponent would imply -merely that not obstructing immigration to the extent that we have would yield tangible benefits described above. My opponent's case: RC1) My opponent claims that to only relax US immigration policy towards Mexico is discriminatory. Even assuming that doing so is discriminatory, he did not demonstrate cause for equal treatment among all nations of the world. Unless there is a reason to treat immigrants from Europe or otherwise with the same level of deference as Mexican immigrants there is no cause to do so. My opponent has demonstrated no such cause. There is, however cause to relax or policy with Mexico. Firstly, we build border fences to keep Mexican immigrants out. Did we build a fence spanning the length of our atlantic coastline to keep europeans out? No. If anything, simply treating mexican immigrants the same way as other immigrants would be a good start -and a relaxation of current policy. RC2) My opponent claims that legal immigration hurts natural born lower-class citizens more than illegal immigration because legal immigrants take unskilled labor jobs. However, my opponent firstly assumes that there is a fixed number of jobs to be had and secondly that natural-born citizens are somehow entitled to those jobs -two assumptions I fundamentally disagree with. As the labor force becomes more competitive the economy grows and goods become cheaper as wages fall. Because the economy will grow, there will be more jobs available. Why natural born citizens are entitled to work more than immigrants I can not fathom. I have always believed that all people are created equally, regardless of nationality. As such, they equally deserve the opportunity to compete in the open market for work.