Open Borders

As someone who also has a fair bit of libertarian values, I do see where you are coming from and respect your arguments; however, I disagree with your lines of reasoning. Also, I know your claims are correct, And I do not need the sources for confirmation, But I respectfully ask that we do not use sources like Wikipedia, As they can sometimes be untrue and unreliable. To keep in line with the previously established format, My paragraphs will be in the order of Pro's assertions Economy: There is a great deal of truth to the claim that the welfare system may is responsible, But that does not mean we can dismiss this altogether. No matter how much we personally don't like welfare, It's not going away any time soon if ever. This is why money that goes towards welfare is called mandatory spending; it is literally political suicide to remove it. Because of this, We still do have to take this exploitation of hard working Americans' tax dollars in account, And in addition to this, You fail to take into account the unfair advantage they would have by just not paying their taxes in the first place. Yes the confiscation of wealth to redistribute to programs and people may by immoral; however, This is a faulty analogy to border funds because it implies a blanket morality for every single program the government does. By your logic, Taxes for the military, Infrastructure, And the FBI are immoral. I do not believe this. Tax money used for border security and law enforcement are moral, Unless you want total anarchy where there are no taxes whatsoever. National Security: I understand your intent; however, Your argument of gun control is also a faulty analogy. There is one key difference between guns and land. The second amendment to the constitution states that the people have the right to bear arms whereas the fifth amendment states no person's private property shall be taken for public use, Without just compensation [Source 1] The Government cannot take guns away from you, But they can take your property through Eminent Domain by compensating you, And this has also been well established through key supreme court cases such as Gwathmey v. United States where the U. S. Seized land in order to build subways, Courthouses, And expand NASA [Source 2]. Therefore, Not only is this legal, It is a well established practice. You also imply that immigration control punishes the innocent, But, From what I can see, Immigration control enforces the law, Not breaks it by restricting freedom. The fact of the matter is people have the right to immigrate legally, And that is a great thing; the fact of the matter is Americans can cross the American border pretty easily, The fact of the matter is that although people have intrinsic rights, Impeding on foreign property is not one of those. I absolutely agree that the government does like to capitalize off of peoples' fears and yearnings to be safe in order to grow in power (which is why the Patriot act is, In my opinion, Egregious), But by immigration enforcement alone, Government cannot become tyrannical. Enforcing laws on non-citizens moving into this country is not government overreach. Enforcing how citizens move out of this country is, And I will stand alongside you to condemn this every step of the way; I just do not see harm in enforcing laws designed to protect America and Americans alike while respecting individual freedom. Culture: I agree with 70% of what you said, And that's why there are laws that protect and take in people of other nationalities. People escaping tyranny seek asylum in the U. S. Quite frequently. Just because I do not want open borders does not mean that I would like to shut off the rest of the world because I think America is nationally superior. Border security in regards to people seeking protection from tyranny means that I believe these cases should be assessed on a case by case basis rather than taking everyone in and having people exploit this law, Which I must say has great moral intent. As for your assertion that American culture would change in the respect that values such as liberty would be replaced with restriction as a result of closed borders, Once again, There is a great difference between enforcing existing law and establishing new laws that take away freedom. By enforcing laws, We respect American Culture by endorsing precedent and the rule of law; we do not tear it down and replace it with morally unacceptable values of tyranny. Culture does change over time. This is indisputable, But there is a huge difference between gradual change and native Californians being turned away by Taco Bell because the employees do not speak English [Source 3], Californians being turned away at job interviews because they can not speak Spanish [Source 4], And Californian children struggling and failing in school because the class is mostly being taught Spanish [Source 5]. Yes there is freedom by association, And it is perfectly fine to have different values and different languages than other people, But the moment that I as a United States citizen can't get services, Can't get a job, And can't get a lesson taught in the language of my our country is when I have an issue. We actually share a lot of common ground in the respect that we both place very high value in civil liberties, But just because we enforce the existing law in order to make the lives of Americans better, Does not mean we strip citizens of those liberties we both hold dear. It is an absolute pleasure to debate you, I just respectfully disagree on your lines of reasoning. Source 1:https://www. Law. Cornell. Edu/constitution/fifth_amendment Source 2:https://www. Justice. Gov/enrd/history-federal-use-eminent-domain Source 3:https://wapo. St/2QvDfn9? Tid=ss_tw&utm_term=. Afe55a168a28 Source 4:http://forums. Sandiegouniontribune. Com/showthread. Php? T=85365 Source 5:https://hechingerreport. Org/bilingual-battle-brewing-californiaagain/