We Must Deport Illegal Immigrants From The U.S.A. For 10 Major Reasons

My roadmap will be my advocacy, the American Dream, and economic benefits. Now, I come across a voting issue early in the debate. The purpose of the debate is to prove within an inherent barrier as to Pro action, as per the burden of proof. They concede in their last speech: "What does it MATTER whether or not the Border Patrol is corrupt? Under a Trump Administration, all of that corruption will be routed out and dealt with. " However, Trump also does not talk about Border Patrol except plans to strengthen the program by including 20,000 new workers: http://www.washingtontimes.com... Since there is no inherent barrier between Pro action, you vote Con on presumption. Now, even if Trump doesn't reform Border Patrol, considering Trump does not consider that an action to take, illegal immigrants will surge through the border the same way, as you saw the previous articles dealing with sex trafficking, cartel influence, cover-ups, drug trafficking, and many other crimes made invisible. The other articles deal with how our border security is CURRENTLY ineffective, and it's not to do with any lack of staffing, either. Other than the corruption, it's almost impossible to guarantee 40,000 people to cover a border of 2,000 miles, with a border wall only covering 1/4 of that. Trump's wall is also economically infeasible: http://www.businessinsider.com... - analysts and architects http://www.economist.com... Specifically, on the economist, it reports that Trump's "suggested $10 billion" will be up to $25 billion USD. That's not covering the amount to transport bricks to the border within a 200 mile radius. Now, furthermore onto the testing problem. First, that naturalization test wasn't the actual test, it's not multiple choice. That was a more simple test that would only take a semester's worth of government class, considering the actual test has 100 POSSIBLE civics questions, all of which are worded differently. http://www.pri.org... The argument made isn't obsolete- that's first only a few batch of states, and even if high school students have to pass the test, it's not an accurate representation of the civics test, the more realistic example is this next link. American's don't know the answers either, 1/15 passed the test as you see on this video in the article: http://abcnews.go.com... Now, note how the whole testing protocol is to create the brightest to the country, when this is surely an observable fact, but in the same 2007 report pro mentions, legal immigrants were still illiterate in English. There's a conflict of interest in the pro's speech - if our people are a prime concern to literacy and doesn't want a "bunch of dullards ... to turn is into a Third World country", then it seems the pro's advocacy has shifted to stop all immigration, legal and illegal. Now, onto my first point, the American dream. Now, a lot of the pro deals with using Wikipedia and blog posts from non-credible sources, like the author James Longstreet (pseudonym off of a Confederate General, direct subordinate to Robert E. Lee) from American Thinker, revealing the pro's ideologue of white supremacy, Also using the same Wikipedia article, it describes the American dream about opportunity, liberty, and equality, all of which immigrants, legal and illegal, pursue: The American Dream is a national ethos of the United States, the set of ideals (democracy, rights, liberty, opportunity, and equality) in which freedom includes the opportunity for prosperity and success, and an upward social mobility for the family and children, achieved through hard work in a society with few ... Rather, he also touches light on Patterico, an anonymous author who believes in white genocide. This isn't ad hominem anymore, especially considering he says immigrants are in "no position... given us a collective 'F You ... forfeiting their eligibility" - when the eligibility standards are more of safety from physical and mental disease, substance, prostitution, laundering, and terrorism, not of "little crimes", because otherwise Justin Bieber would have had his green card revoked too, again revealing the pro's ideologue. Now, the pro tells us that illegal immigrants from Cuba are COMPLETELY different, and it's comparing apples to oranges. No, these are both groups of people who also fled, illegally to the U.S., and encouraging it across our ports in Florida. http://www.humanosphere.org... I quote, "The Cuban government said its citizens "receive differential treatment"they are immediately and automatically admitted"including if they arrived by illegal means" lacking documentation, which undermines efforts to normalize relations between Havana and Washington, DC. " Interestingly enough, undocumented workers from Mexico get shunned, but the pro says illegal immigration from Cuba is fine? Another contradiction. Let me restate my next claim the pro attacks, not only are children sent here illegally, and through deportation, parents are sent away, children are also only sent through the legal processes because their parents are looking for a new opportunity for them, but cannot afford to go themselves, leaving their children behind in foster-care systems, and even if they're sent illegally, they say just the parents should be sent away. Next, they go onto the citizenship requirements, about how one must assimilate to values and ideals through the Oath of Allegiance, and be able to read, write, and speak English, refer back to my point about how legal immigrants themselves still cannot do this. Isn't this a fault in proving how one should reform immigration efforts then, instead of stopping it full point, and not the expansion of visa programs? Next, they talk about burning flags and rioting, but their article talks about legal immigrants, rather than illegal. Remember that flag-desecration is a protected speech act, as per the SCOTUS decision in 1969 and Halter v. Nebraska in 1907: http://caselaw.findlaw.com... They then say the First Amendment is irrelevant because of the limitations, but none of these deal with ethnographic or linguistic speech. Next, they talk about the Tragedy of the Commons, assuming shared land responsibility - but remember Europeans (not just English settlers) voyaged across starting 1492? It wasn't your land to begin with? Next, they talk about the Solutrean Hypothesis, grounded in fake stories, where the only thing they could find are tools in 20,000 year old ground - but no bodies or skeletons, just cave art from people that were brown (not even white), not to mention the Solutrean's support from several white supremacist groups. They then talk about how Natives were conquerors, yet Natives didn't slaughter 90% of their own population through biological warfare. Now, onto the economy with the 800 characters I have left. Their math is based on cherry picking data and amnesty (again, not the same program), their article also states: "in the U.S. population as a whole, households headed by persons without a high school degree, on average, ... [have a] fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $35,113." Seems that illegal immigrants pay more than our own citizens. They concede my next few points too, that immigrants are the reason why the economy prevails due to small businesses owned by illegal immigrants, the agriculture industry and as to why they're the lynchpin to our food security, and how they resuscitated the housing market, meaning they're perfect for the economy, meaning that I've inevitably won this debate. Their video is about illegals in Mexico, and I've dis-proven the others