The U.S. Dept. of State should issue special "Agricultural Intern" entry visas to famine victims

I'm sure the entire community has benefited from this fair exposure of both side of this pressing issue, and I hope he has enjoyed it as much as I. My opponent admits the measures he proposes will only include as many people as the current market will allow. As he is equally committed to the principles of free capitalism as I, we are in agreement that the government should not force an inordinate number of refugees (or agricultural interns) onto the market. He also did not dispute the numbers that show such a limited number of people would not have any significant effect on the famine in Africa. The obvious conclusion is that my opponent's generous proposal would sadly have no real effect in solving this problem. In this vein, then, I do not think it necessary to respond in depth to some of the more peripheral issues, such as the language problem or the possibility of spreading the famine to Mexico. I will not point out the recession that Mexico is going through, or the current state of near-anarchy that prevails there; nor will I suggest the possibility of armed violence against the US breaking out on the part of the suddenly unemployed migrant workers. I will restrain myself from making such comments; they are beneath the dignity of this debate. I also will avoid cautioning my opponent on his choice of examples for the simple commands; the ones chosen seem to reflect a surprising lack of empathy for the hapless agricultural interns for one so good-hearted, and I assume they were merely copied from somewhere else due to lack of time. We all can understand that perfectly, having all been pressed for time ourselves. I would like to address one point in particular, though; my worthy opponent states (and I quote): "Now, regarding my opponents alternative suggestion of imposing American sovereignty on errant African nations: the American colonisation of Africa would be difficult politically as most sub-Saharan African countries are members of the British Commonwealth who are committed to protecting democracy and human rights. Invading a Commonwealth country would lose the U. S. the friendship of Commonwealth members such as Canada, Australia, India and, of course, the UK. " He states this as if it were a problem. Of course, there will always be a few petty countries that get upset when the great and benevolent American people choose to alleviate the suffering of others; this is our burden, and we bear it stoically. The solution is simple in this case, however. As none of these countries have much of an economy or military themselves, they are obviously acting out of envy for the fortunate Sub-Saharan countries. We can be understanding about this; after all, it is only natural for them. It would be the simplest of tasks to extend our beneficence through conquest to these jealous little nations, and that is exactly what I propose. For the purposes of this debate then, consider the British Commonwealth countries (UK included) as being included in the category of Sub-Saharan African countries. There isn't such an important distinction between them after all, excluding that of geography. The colonization of Great Britain should pose no greater difficulty than that of Benin. My keen-witted opponent also brings up a concern about America's track record regarding colonization. With all due respect, it was not Americans who colonized the US; it was Englishmen. One can assume that the modern, enlightened, fair-minded american colonists and govenors will do a much better job than the insular, bigoted and ignorant 17th century English colonists. His fears on this head, then, are entirely unfounded. That concludes the debate. I have enjoyed this, and I hope both my opponent and you, the reader, did as well. May the best man win. C.