European countries have a right to be anti-immigration, while America does not.

Wow... That was the worst justification for not using sources I have ever heard. Even in oral debates, especially professional oral debates (not the garbage ones that politicians do. Real debates, like between Ken Ham and Bill Nye), they have access to sources. They either have a folder of sources, or are given direct access to a laptop to use while an opponent is making a case. But, given your definition of 'wacky proof', I'm going to assume you meant to make this a troll debate. Since you mentioned this nowhere, I am still going to consider this an actual debate, complete with evidence, and all the voters should consider this to be an actual, non-troll debate. Anyway, onto the actual argument: P1: No country can be denied a right The word you should have used was justification. A country cannot be denies a right. Even if a country does something absolutely heinous, they still have 'the right' to do so. They may not have justification but nations, in this context, being the ones that give rights, and being the highest jurisdiction for which to decide what rights are given, have whatever rights they choose. This may seem like semantics, but it is a very important distinction that does change the meaning. I will operate under the assumption that the resolution should read something like: "European countries have justification for being anti-immigration, while America does not." P2: America does have real problems set forth because of immigration While I disagree with many anti-immigrant policies, to say that the United States has no justification to be anti-immigration is insane. While, certainly, America is a nation of immigrants, with many cultures having immigrated here to make the American culture what it is today, there are many issues with modern immigration. Illegal immigration, especially from Mexico, is a huge issue. It is not an issue of preserving culture, but rather an economic and humanitarian issue. While I stand for immigration, there is an issue of illegal immigrants overpopulating the United States, no matter the side of the issue. In keeping to your awful rules, I won't use sources, but there are currently 7 trillion illegal immigrants in the United States, using up a total of 602% of our resources. Since you can't use sources to disprove me, you must take mine at face value. But, in all seriousness, there is an issue of the illegal immigrant population being too high to easily sustain, as they have begun having the ability to get higher and higher paying jobs, becoming an actual (if minor) threat to jobs that Americans actually want (whereas usually, they take the jobs most Americans would not take). In addition, they are also becoming a large enough force that they are taking housing, welfare, and medical aid. This means that, no matter your feelings on the issue, there is a major immigration problem that, one way or another, must be addressed. One such way to respond to this very real problem is with a very real solution: anti-immigration policies. While they may not be the most elegant, they are certainly justified to be called for in the situation. As I have mentioned, I disagree with anti-immigration policies, but those who call for them are completely justified in calling for them. P3: European cultural identity is not a valid reason for justifying anti-immigration Despite sentimental feelings, there is nothing inherently better about any one culture that would make 'tainting' it inherently bad. Some countries, such as Greece, may have similar immigration issue to the US, but most European countries do not. Even if culture was being destroyed by these immigrants (which I will prove is false in my next point), there would be nothing inherently wrong with the culture being removed or changed. To use your example, I will play off of it. -What about the Italian language is so great that means that its loss would cripple Italy. -What would be bad about Italy having more and different music, food, and religions alongside what they already have. -Why is a group of people's freedom to live where they want a less important right than that of the culture. Not to mention that the idea of National Culture is far too abstract to be of any physical value to either country. It being abstract means that it can fluctuate, it can change, and that it provides nothing for anybody that is not purely emotional. Pragmatism insists that, but nature, national culture and national identity is useless to any country as it does not provide any resources and does not prevent discord with other nations. In fact, if they were all one entity, as you have claimed they would be, it would promote peace if national identity shrank. Furthermore, your idea that all European countries, should ethnicity be the same, would have to become one single entity is stupid at best. There are plenty of examples of countries that have the same ethnic and cultural makeup (Yemen and Saudi Arabia, Brazil and a lot of South America) as each other that did not become one or form a union. Borders don't cease to exist because ethnicities become more similar. And even if they did, what would be terrible about having one entity? Much more peace and unity, and individual areas would still retain their histories and cultures. Nothing about multiculturalism screams 'morally wrong' to me. Especially when you consider... P4: Cultures are not destroyed when immigrants are added You will notice that, despite many European countries, namely Germany, having fairly open immigration policies, they still have a very strong culture and a very strong sense of national identity. No matter what, save for military invasion or gargantuan plague, cultures will not disappear. Immigrants, in moving into other countries, do not destroy the culture they move to. Rather, they add their own culture. Thousands of immigrants moving into Italy would not remove Italian pride, vanquish Italian food, rewrite the Italian language, or destroy Italian music. But, they would add their own cultures music for both the locals and the other immigrants to enjoy, and embrace as a new part of their own culture. A child that would normally only see one rigid Italian culture can now be exposed to all the wonders and traditions and cultures of other lands -- like Mexican food or Buddhist traditions. Exposure leads to tolerance, so more cultures within one leads to more tolerance, as well as actually strengthening the original culture because most immigrants, as well as keeping their own traditions, also embrace local traditions, thus making both stronger. There is no loss of national identity from increased immigration, save for a purely ethnic standpoint that would be racist (after all, a black person, or an Asian person, can be as invested in Italian culture as any other). Conclusion I. America has plenty of justification/right to be anti immigration. II. Europe has no justification to be anti immigration, because: A. National identity is an abstract idea that is not valuable enough to be worth being anti-immigration. B. Immigration does not harm national identity. In order to win, my opponent will have to remove both of my points, not just one. If he only removes one, than the other will stand, proving that my opponent, being on the Pro side, has not completely won the resolution, which must be required on pro side, with more than one premise in the resolution, which this is.