the US government should prioritize the humanitarian needs of refugees over its national interest.

Thank you Con for having such a fast response. I would first like to further explain why the immigration evidence is essential for this debate. Than I will move on to rebut the points made in round 2. ------------------------------ My opponent argues that my evidence should not be considered acceptable, because it deals with immigrants. I challenge my opponent to find any real evidence on how the refugees fair in European countries. It is way too early to record the evidence of the benefits and harms of the refugees. The debate itself provides a burden of proof for both Pro and Con. What did Con have to say about refugees? Germany has championed 800,000 refugees. But, could you really find any real data detailing the harms of refugees. The only evidence Con could find is from Jordin which is a country that has no where near the economic wealth America has. Why did Germany want to accept refugees? The point was to make Germany look more accepting and compassionate. They wanted to erase the stereotype that the Germans were a bunch of racists who support Nazism. The same now can be argued for America. There are Europeans that have a negative view on America in the status quo thanks to Donald Trump. America also got a bad reputation from European liberals, because of the Iraq War. Accepting refugees could confirm the idea that America is an accepting country. It would make us look like the leader of the western world. This was going to be an argument in round 2, but I could not put this in due to lack of characters -------------------------------------------------------- Pro and Con both have a burden of proof for the benefits and harms of refugees. One can look at the success immigrants have had in America. I will cite sources of Mexicans that have came to America, because of their goal to escape the WAR on drugs. There are many middle easterners that came here in search of a better life. The point I was making in round two was that we(some of us) gave immigrants a chance. There were many people that doubted Mexicans and Muslims. It happened to all immigrants that came to America. Some people claimed that they would be a burden America would have to pay for. These are the same claims made about refugees. Here are the benefits of immigrants: -Undocumented immigrants contribute 11.6 billion dollars to the American economy annually. -Middle Easterners have proven to be far better at education than the average American. -They are likely to start businesses. -They are likely to be employed by businesses. I want to ask my opponent two questions which are very important to this debate. -Do you believe that there is a burden of proof(benefits and harms have not been recorded accurately due to this being such a new issue) on both sides? -Do you believe that there is a PROBABILITY of refugees having the same benefits as immigrants do? I believe if anything they will be able to contribute money into our economy through taxes. I am sure my opponent can agree to this as well. Rebuttal: Contention 1- "why we are not morally obligated to help." Con claims that Germany can do the rest, and " we really put that many strangers before those from our own country that are in need?". Now, look at the benefits of immigrants in our country. Even though, they might need financial aid in the beginning; they still will have to pay taxes. So, will there children pay taxes. So, will there grandchildren pay taxes. So will there great grand children pay taxes. Eventually, the future generations will be fully integrated into American society. They will all pay taxes. This is proven by the empirical evidence that Mexican immigrants can show. Even though, they might have needed financial aid in the beginning; they start paying it all up in taxes. It all adds up to 11.6 billion dollars added into our economy. Although, there will be short term harms that will happen. The long term benefits are rewarding. ------------------------------------------------------------- Contention 2-Many countries including our own can not afford a large influx of refugees. I see the most errors in this contention. Saying that our country cannot afford a large influx of refugees is factually incorrect. Our country is very wealthy. I provided the statistics in round 2 proving that we A. have a GDP of 17.43 trillion dollars. B. Our assets combined equal 225 trillion dollars. My opponent did claim in her rebuttal that 5 trillion dollars to other countries including China. But, she forgets that those countries also owe debt to us. China owes 1 trillion dollars to us. European debt holders include Belgium, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Ireland, Germany, France and Italy. U.S. debt-holding nations around the world also include North American and South American countries and other nations: Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, South Africa, Israel, Turkey and Chile. In 2014, the total dollar value of all the countries' debt was $6.1 trillion. On top of that, America has a military budget over 700 billion dollars. We could easily cut some programs, and distribute that money into other causes like refugees. ------------------------ Contention 3-Giving aid could give great threat. My opponent argues that there is a probability of Syrian refugees being terrorists. I believe that we should have a proper vetting process. That is what the US currently has. I am not going to say that it should stop. Also, I already have evidence of American Muslims being able to integrate into American society. Answers: Where is the limit? Should we let in every refugee that asks from Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Iraq? I believe that we should have a proper vetting process. We should make sure that there are no terrorist coming in. I believe that there should also be a distribution of refugees. There should also be a timeframe concerning how many refugees come in each year. I will answer 2 and 3 in the comments if that is okay, because I am running out of characters.