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

First I will refute my Opponents arguments, and then I will post my own. Relaxed: freed from or lacking in precision or stringency (merriam-webster)A.My Opponent states that Illegal Immigration is good for the economy. While this certainly is debatable, I feel that this point is irrelevant in this debate because the resolution states "The United States should adopt a more relaxed immigration policy with Mexico." meaning that the U.S. should reduce its' restrictions on allowing people to legally immigrate, thus creating more legal immigrants. Therefore this point actually supports the Con side, because if the U.S. was to allow these illegal immigrants to become citizens they would:1) have to be paid at least minimum wage, which is currently $7.25 per hour, significantly more than the $5.00 per hour my opponent cites in his case. 2) if they meet the qualifications, they could qualify for medicaid benefits which cost, on average, $6,860 yearly per beneficiary.[1] 3) if these new immigrants have children and meet the qualifications they will recieve for welfare.4) if these new immigrants lose their jobs they could qualify for unemployment benefits. Therefore, this point actually supports my side because the status quo (keeping these people as illegal immigrants) is less costly than relaxing our policy and making citizens out of these people.B. "When politicians pass laws that punish employers who hire illegal immigrants not only do they harm the consumer by increasing the cost of production but they harm the economy as a whole by lowering demand for goods." - Non-topical. You are saying that illegal immigrants help the economy, as I've already stated, relaxing our immigration policy will make more of these illegals citzens and thus this situation you point out ceases to exist. Instead, since they are all citizens, the cost of production still increases thus this point also supports my side. "Now, the even funnier thing is that when illegals get here, they will find a way to make money (wether it is working or stealing/drug dealing/etc.)." The same could be said about a Legal Immigrant as well, or a natrual born citizen. Relaxing our policy does not solve this."Anti-immigration labor policies hurt consumers and contribute to higher crime rates, but they don't curtail illegal immigration." -Irrelavent, a relaxed immigration policy would create more legal citizens so the implications behind these laws would largely dissappear. C."The labor that Mexican immigrants could provide the United States could be invaluable" -No justification for this claim. Arguably illegal immigration has a positive impact on the United States, but relaxing the immigration policy will make these benefits go away as I've previously stated."Border security is even more expensive and does nothing to help the economy -it only consumes resources that could be used to fund more important things like education or our efforts to spread the blessings of liberty and democracy abroad" - Yes border security is expensive, however the status quo does very much to help the economy as I've already explained. =Case=C1. Relaxing the policy only for Mexico is discriminatory.There is not much to be said here other than to single out Mexicans alone to have greater opprutunities for Citizenship is wrong to the Immigrants from other countries. I wonder what my Opponent would say if I was to claim that immigrants from European countries should be given priority, and have a more relaxed policy than the rest of the world. Singling out Mexico for this is no different. The Heritage Foundation sums it up quite nicely in their article "Reforming Immigration"[2] "How, for instance, could we justify amnesty for illegal Mexican immigrants who have lived here for a number of years, no matter how decent and hardworking most of them undoubtedly are, when millions are on waiting lists for years or decades to join their families from other parts of the world?" My Opponent must show why Mexico alone deserves to have the policy relaxed in its favor.C2. Legal Immigration hurts the natrual-born lower class more than Illegal Immigration does.My Opponent has already acknowledged in his case that Mexican immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are generally willing to work for less than Natrual-born citizens. He has also acknowledged that they generally have less skills than the average citizen as well. (refer to his point A) This hurts the lower class because they lose their unskilled labor jobs to the immigrants, illegal or otherwise. However Illegal Immigrants get deported at the rate of 350,000 per year[3]. This, combined with the incentives for businesses to hire citizens helps to free up some of these jobs to be filled by our lower class. American jobs ought to go to American workers. Legal Immigrants cannot be deported, and there are no disincentives to hiring them, and as such our natrual-born lower class suffers even more poverty than it is already in.Thank you. Sources in comments