Immigration from India to the U.S. should be encouraged

I strongly reject your unfair mischaracterisation of my arguments during this debate. I would like to take this round to respond to what you have just said. Firstly, you unfairly presented my stance on the status quo. You argued that I concede that the status quo has problems. You are quite right to say this. I do agree there are problems. However, you then made the fallacious assumption that therefore because I oppose this motion that means I believe we should not change the status quo. That is complete nonsense. I do believe we should change the status quo. However, I reject your proposal because it is the wrong way to improve the situation. I believe it will actually make the US objectively worse. That doesn't meant that I don't support other reforms. I do. What I do not support is your proposal - it is wrong. So please don't argue that just because I reject your proposal that means that I'm happy with the current problems. That is an excluded middle fallacy. Next you mentioned that racism exists and said that I conceded some of your evidence. Yes, correct. Racism does exist and I'm not going to argue with you if you have the evidence. There is racism in the American system. However, what you fail to prove (and since you are proposition you must prove to win) is that YOUR MODEL will POSITIVELY CHANGE American society. Just using some dubious newspaper article (which by the way is not reliable empirical evidence) merely identifies a problem. I am asking you to show how you can solve that problem. My argument is simple and strong. Large scale Immigration from India will not solve the problems you have identified. It will only lead to racial tension and will hurt the working class. So you don't "win" on newspaper articles; all you do is illustrate (something which we are all already aware of) that there are problems. Next, you further misrepresented me by suggesting that I had no evidence. I have two responses. Firstly, that is not true nor is it fair. I gave you some of the best evidence. This evidence was a long-term historical evaluation of Polish immigration to the UK and how now there is actually more racism towards Polish people and other groups in the UK. My evidence is also the Brexit vote. This is evidence that 52% of British people are not happy with immigration. My evidence is the election of Donald Trump by 47% of Americans. This is evidence that 47% of Americans are unhappy with immigration as immigration was one of the most key elements in Trump's campaign. My evidence is strong. It is historical evaluation. Sometimes to get an accurate and reliable picture about immigration you need long-term historical evaluations. Something which I provided and you did not. Do you remember me describing Irish immigration to the USA. Once again, more reliable evidence of the negative and racist attitudes brought about by mass immigration (which IS what you are proposing). How about the the Emergency Quota act of 1921? How about the the Immigration Act of 1924? This is reliable and accurate historical evidence of negative attitudes towards mass immigration and also immigrants themselves. You should read about the Sacco and Vanzetti Case. I may not have provided "cards" (is that really the right word for them?) but what I have provided is much more convincing. Secondly, we are talking about something that is totally hypothetical. Therefore, you need to be very careful when you talk about how your "cards" prove something will occur. In the UK in 2004 it was estimated by what you would call "cards" that immigration from Eastern Europe would be 50 000. It turned out to be 150 000 every single year. Given this, you need to refrain from using "cards" so confidently. They do not prove anything concerning a hypothetical event. You have no idea how many Indian migrants will come to the USA. Nor do you have any idea what the effects will be or whether they will integrate into society. However, my analysis is based on historical evidence which could help to illuminate what might happen. My argument is mainly based upon not "cards" but logical explanation using past experience and intuitive reason. You can't just dismiss this as being not good enough just because I don't provide "cards". My argument is reliable and it is strong. You later attack my response arguing that under the status quo the issues you identified already happen and therefore it's fine to endorse mass immigration. This is a logical fallacy. Why? Well there is a big difference between the status quo and your proposal. That is much more immigration from India. Well, when this happens there will be more of all the problems you have identified. After all, Indians will still be a minority and so will still face minority problems. Your rebuttal falls down. You then argue that the "cycle of racism" will continue because no interaction will happen "AT ALL". Are you sure about that? There is something called foreign policy. There is something called the news. There is something called tourism. There is something called social media. There is something called the internet. And if that is not enough for you to believe that there will still be interactions then how about there already are Indian immigrants in the USA. So there will be interactions. There will just be fewer. But in this case the fewer interactions will be more positive. Why? Because native Americans will not be in competition with immigrants and as a result will not consider them as a threat. And, by the way, yes they do compete in society. Then the economy. You argue I weakly addressed it. You said I concede immigration can help. Yes that's true. However, only when it is controlled immigration (again you try to misrepresent me). Also, I mentioned that the US economy is strong. You said I provided no evidence. Why do I need to provide evidence? It is a fact. Read the news. Unemployment is at an all time low. FACT. The US economy is the biggest by GDP in the world. FACT. The US is the 13th richest country in the world. FACT. Once again, no "cards" needed. You need to prove mass immigration can fix some of the minor problems the US economy has. You suggested it will help fill jobs. This is true but the problem does not go away. Because immigrants will eventually become economically integrated and thus you will no longer be able to exploit them at the expense of both them and low-paid Americans. More immigrants will be needed. This is a self sustaining problem. My evidence is immigration to the UK since 1950. Firstly, Black Caribbeans immigrants worked low-paid jobs, then they were replaced by South Asian immigrants in the the 1970s and 80s. Then they were replaced by Eastern European immigrants in the 2000s. Now the UK still has the same issue we need more immigrants to work low-paid jobs. You have to explain why you think its ok to be exploitative of immigrants and also why you think its okay to suck the skill out of their country of origin. India will be worse off if all its best doctors and engineers leave to the USA. Your model doesn't solve any problem. In fact, it makes it worse. Why? Because the working class suffer as they compete with immigrants. So no Pro does not get "closer" solving the problems. Rather Con prevents Pro from making the current problems much worse while suggesting better alternatives. Finally, you mentioned that I said it was good that the USA was overtaken by China and India. I never said it was "good". I said it was reasonable because they are after all larger countries and I believe in equality. I did not also bring this up. You did. So don't say that this debate is not about this. If you bring something up I will shoot it down. It doesn't matter that the USA is declining as long as Americans are richer and happier is what I said in response to you arguing that this is a problem immigration can solve. So, in actual fact, I have explained using historical evidence and analysis, multiple reliable examples and logical reasoning why: a) your proposal does not solve the problems you have identified b) your proposal brings about more racial tension and leads to the economic suffering of low-paid, working class Americans So not only is your proposal useless it is also objectively bad. Therefore you are not the side of 'actual change' you are the side of regressive change and I am not the side of 'no change just alternatives' I am the side of: NO DON'T DO THAT IT'S STUPID. HEY HERE'S A BETTER IDEA! I don't need cards. My evidence is reliable. I have responded to your argument. Your cards thus do not win. They are primary sources and hence fail to evaluate the bigger picture in a HYPOTHETICAL situation. I use historical analysis to get a good picture of what might happen. And boy is that picture grim. Thank you. This is a high quality debate with a worthy opponent.