Open Borders

I think your anarchist beliefs are noble, And I agree that we generally should have less government, But let's be honest for a moment. We will probably never have an anarchy, And even if we did, It would not be any time remotely soon. We are operating on a premise where we have taxes and government services, Regardless of how immoral you think they are. That said, 'immoral' services such as the FBI exist and they do very good work and immoral services like medicare exist. Our job is to make the best of our world and just be real. We live in a time where we have an expanded government, So we should evaluate each program on its separate merits rather than dismissing everything they do as inherently evil, Even though that may be true. Just because something is immoral does not make it bad in general or in use. People often argue that eating meat is immoral because we are killing animals and devouring their innards. While this may be true, Meat is packed full of protein, Important amino acids, Tastes pretty good (damn it now I'm hungry), And it is definitely a net good. I think you would agree. I'm not here to argue how moral the government is in function. I'm here to talk about how closed borders are good for the American people because, Frankly, Immorality does NOT equal bad. Economics: We have both established that open borders allow for people to come over free will and take advantage of American citizens by not paying any taxes whatsoever and at the same time take in entitlements such as medicare, Medicaid, And social security even though they don't contribute any money. These programs may be immoral, But they are not just going to disappear once we open the borders. National Security: I was talking about getting the land for borders. Morality of Eminent Domain does not pertain to the conversation of open borders. It has been around for about 250 years, And I don't think it is going away any time soon. (It's not socialism because you still own the same amount/value of property in theory) The logical fallacy "Appeal to Law" as described by your source: "X is illegal. Therefore, It is immoral" "Y is legal. Therefore, It is moral" I never claimed that closed borders were moral or not, And even if I would have claimed that they were moral, I did not say that legality somehow equaled morality. In response to your comment on my "naivety", I stand by my comment fully. The solution may not be a border wall. There is merit in the argument against that, But I'm not here to argue about that. I was also talking about IMMIGRATION, The movement of foreigns into another country, Not EMIGRATION, The movement of natives outside of the country, So, No, IMMIGRATION enforcement alone cannot lead to a tyrannical government. They could potentially use materials from immigration enforcement to enforce emigration. That is a good argument against the border wall, But not with the officers because if the government truly does become tyrannical, There will be people waiting in lines for miles to pledge allegiance to the government so they can reap the benefits of power at the expense of people, And people could easily flee by water, But let's put this all aside. The argument is that closed borders with immigration enforcement are better than open borders. I do not have to argue how to do it, Just that it is possible and better. If your girlfriend trespasses on private property on the way, People have plenty claim to stop her. The border is not public property; it is privately owned government property, And if it weren't, Eminent Domain could be used to make sure it is, Otherwise you would have a compelling argument. In addition to this, People can acquire visas would allow for this, So just because we would not have open borders does not mean we would shut off all travel into the U. S. From the rest of the world. The fact of the matter as established before is that open borders would put people in danger by letting crime grow and become international. I wonder how many more 9/11s would happen if we did not screen for terrorists or regulate who crosses the borders. . . Culture: Blindly enforcing the law does lead to tyranny, But I'm not blindly enforcing the law considering I'm literally debating you on the merits of it. I assure you I've thought about this topic a couple times. When referring to "endorsing the rule of law and precedent", I meant the BORDER laws because I do believe those respect and preserve American Values. Obviously it is foolish for people to blindly endorse all laws because that gives rise to tyranny, But not all laws are made equally. I'm simply arguing that border laws are good. Easy for you to say. Tell that to the kid who can't succeed in English because his class is taught in Spanish. Americans should not have to learn another language to live in their community. You can search it up or check my sources if you would like, And I never said in all of America; I just gave the evidence. My problem is not with Spanish speakers, It is with the illegal immigrants who think they have the right to illegally come to the U. S. (while legal immigrants responsibly wait in line) who dominate communities to the point where it's not even America anymore. Land doesn't make America what it is. There is no magic line on the border between Mexico and the U. S. That just makes everything better. People do not want to live here just because of our economy, They do because our culture is about tolerance, Respect, Free, And so many more great things that other countries do not have to offer. The fact of the matter is that there are so many illegal Mexicans coming into California that Americans may as well, Culturally, Be living in Mexico. You're right, It doesn't violate a right. Neither does having sex at the nearest playground technically, But I'm sure we can agree that should be a crime. Instead it allows for people to capitalize off of citizens tax money. Instead it allows crime and terrorism to grow and run more rampant than it already is. Instead it promotes mass immigration that literally transforms America to the point that Americans can't live their life normally. It does not harm the individual directly, It does so by hurting the American people as a whole. It was a pleasure to debate you. *VOTE CON*