The United States should adopt a more relaxed immigration policy with Mexico.

=Objections=1. Since the resolution states "immigration policy" not our policy towards illegal aliens, we must presume that this resolution is addressing creating a policy allowing for more legal immigrants, thus the benefits provided by illegal immigration are irrelevant for this round. 2. My Opponent is arguing for a relaxed policy towards illegal immigrants. If that is what he wished to debate, he should have specified it in the resolution or his opening round.=Rebuttal=Despite the fact that my Opponent and I are in disagreement about the wording of the resolved, I will now answer his contentions as if he was correct about the wording. I cannot emphasize enough that this is NOT a concession to the wording of the resolution. A. "The economic benefits of a relaxed immigration policy are the cause for adopting a relaxed policy" -I do not know exactly how much Illegal Immigrants help the economy but the amount that they harm it certainly is known. Indeed they cost tax payers $113 billion annually[1]. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that the jobs done by Illegals cannot be done by natural born citizens or legal immigrants. I concur that illegals will work for less money, however this decreased cost of production is not enough to offset the $113 billion costs."Adopting a more relaxed immigration policy does not require the US to grant citizenship to all who wish to come to the US, only lessening the intensity which we keep people out of our country" -Yes, lessening the intensity of the restrictions for legal immigration, meaning citizenship or guest workers."My opponent wishes to define specifically what a "relaxed immigration policy" is, beyond the scope of the resolution." -if you could please elaborate on this, I do not understand your meaning of how defining the wording of the resolution is irrelevant."The resolution simply calls for a debate of wether we should relax our immigration policy or not -not how we would implement such a relaxation." - I disagree with this, like you've stated we have to look at the cause for action, so the implications behind relaxing the immigration policy are very important to this debate.B."Again, my opponent wishes to engage in a discussion of how to implement a relaxation of immigration policies rather engage in the debate required by the resolution, and that is to discuss the merits of the action -not the means of implementation." - I think you misunderstand me. My objections about how relaxing the policy would be harmful are discussing the merits of the action.C."My opponent agrees that illegal immigration has a positive impact on the US" -actually I never agreed to this, in fact if you look at my response to his point A I state "My Opponent states that Illegal Immigration is good for the economy. While this certainly is debatable, I feel that this point is irrelevant in this debate", that is not a concession."He assumes, though, that all immigrants would be granted citizenship and afforded full rights of US citizens" -surely not ALL, but many more. A less stringent policy would allow for more illegals to be granted citizenship."I do not suggest that we grant every Mexican citizen who wishes to find work in the US citizenship, as my opponent would imply" -my apologies for implying that, it was not intended.=Reconstruction=C1."Even assuming that doing so is discriminatory, he did not demonstrate cause for equal treatment among all nations of the world."- interesting, considering how in your attack on my second contention you state "I have always believed that all people are created equally, regardless of nationality." I agree, all people are equal which is exactly why relaxing the policy towards Mexico alone is discrimination."Unless there is a reason to treat immigrants from Europe or otherwise with the same level of deference as Mexican immigrants there is no cause to do so." - there IS reason to treat them the same, because they're all people and should be treated the same! You yourself even stated this! "Did we build a fence spanning the length of our atlantic coastline to keep europeans out?" -No need, we have the Ocean as a border. Not to mention the fact that Europeans are far less likely to illegally immigrate due to their countries being more developed than Mexico. "simply treating mexican immigrants the same way as other immigrants would be a good start -and a relaxation of current policy." -my opponent is claiming that Mexican immigrants are treated more poorly than the rest, he must prove this claim. C2."my opponent firstly assumes that there is a fixed number of jobs to be had" -actually no it is not fixed, jobs are currently decreasing, particularly blue-collar low skill jobs.[2] "Why natural born citizens are entitled to work more than immigrants I can not fathom."- because they had the job to begin with. How would you feel if you got fired because someone was willing to work for less than you were?Please negate. Sources in comments.