This House Supports Free Immigration

I will now take this time to refute the arguments brought forth by my opponent. Before I begin, I would like to point out that the American Constitution though important, HAS NO PLACE IN THIS DEBATE, as the constitution is for American citizens only. Secondly, I am not against immigration, just FREE IMMIGRATION. People will still be allowed to immigrate legally to the United States. There is no evidence to support this. I’m sorry, but there are extreme amounts of evidence to support this. A name has been given to this effect, the “brain drain. ” - In 2006 over 250, 000 Europeans immigrated to America. Portugal lost 19.5% of its qualified population and currently struggles to replace those people - 68% of Ghana’s trained medical staff left between 1993 and 2000. Ghana has roughly 1 doctor for every 6700 people, while the United States has 1 doctor for every 430 people - Malaysia’s economic growth has fallen 4.6% annually since the 2000s since 305, 000 people left Malaysia to go overseas [1] Clearly this brain drain effect is very real and occurring. Free immigration encourages more people to leave their country and continually cripple these developing nations. Even advanced European nations such as Portugal are affected by brain drain, what will the effect be on developing countries? If Cons argument on overpopulation in America My argument isn’t primarily about overpopulation, it’s about an overpopulation of unskilled workers seeking jobs. This will kill the economy. America already has high unemployment rates, my opponent wishes to add to this. “I don’t believe in giving visas to software people from the Third World when we have got all kinds of unemployed software people here. ” This exactly proves my point. Unemployment will reach an all-time high under this resolution. However, in any case the problems of immigration and welfare are analytically distinct problems, and they must be treated accordingly. This is clearly incorrect. Welfare and immigration are clearly and distinctly linked with each other. One is not causation, but there is a correlation between the two. This is simple, more immigrants come and need welfare, thus welfare is overstretched and creates problems. Clearly the two are related. In consideration of the United Kingdom, I am currently here and have just started school at Harrow. Congratulations on that, but as this is a personal experience it cannot be considered evidence in this debate. Therefore, I cannot accept that the education has been affected in the UK. But this is merely in one area (and based off of personal experience) in the United States illegal immigration to California has affected their $42-44 billion deficit, causing teachers to be laid off and clearly effecting education. [2] My English Aunt who recently discovered she had cancer underwent emergency treatment and medication in 2010, she has since made a full recovery and has no bills to pay. Here it can be deduced that immigration has not affected the medical system as Con suggests. I am happy to hear that your aunt has made a full recovery, but as I have stated above this is personal experience and cannot be considered evidence. Furthermore, in Arizona $2 billion dollars of their $4 billion dollar deficit is directly attributed to education, health care, and incarceration of illegal immigrants. [3] This deficit brings down services for everyone because there isn’t enough money. If we accepted this resolution, even more people would come and drain more money out of our economy. No welfare problem or attack on social services (as Con has pointed out) is ultimately the result of immigration. I have shown (with sources) that social services are directly affected by immigration. Con argues that immigrants bring with them foreign customs, practices, and ideas, which, on balance, compromise the tradition of American liberty embraced by native-born Americans, I have never said this in my speech and I never will. My opponent is putting words in my mouth, I did not say that these cultures would compromise American culture. I have never denied the fact that immigrants have contributed an exponential amount to America. What I have merely said is that a mass amount of immigrants coming to this country will increase unemployment rates undoubtedly. These immigrants (being immigrants) clearly will be willing to work for less. Thus, jobs will be given to the immigrants over the Americans. I have NEVER said that this is a bad thing, but that this will undoubtedly cause racial hate. Imagine it, a job you desperately need is given to an immigrant. You are laid off and your job given to an immigrant. Instances like this spark racial hate and hate crimes. I have refuted all of the refutation my opponent has provided. I will now move on to refute the arguments brought forth by my opponent. The only question remains what to do about public property. The issue here with free immigration is not property issues at all. The problem here is that a country has a duty to its people and to its people first and foremost. In America, the American government has a duty to its people, not to the people of Mexico, or the people of France, but to the people of America. Now, with free immigration we allow anyone to become an American. The government then doesn’t have a duty to its people, but now it has a duty to potentially millions more who are essentially coming into the country to take advantage of our resources and liberties. These resources should be delegated out to the people of America first. Immigration controls are expensive. We already have immigration controls in place. What my opponent would rather do, is just open up the country completely. Instead of bothering to try and keep these people out, or maintain any sort of order, we should just give up because it is too expensive and let them come. Following this logic, we should abandon our efforts in decreasing obesity rates. 2/3s of Americans are overweight, so it clearly isn’t working, so we should just stop trying. This is ridiculous. Moreover, just like all the other socialist federal programs in America, free immigration is totally constitutional. As I have shown in the beginning of my speech, the constitution has no place in this debate. Article I, Section 8 provides no authority whatever to the federal government to close borders. My opponent is under the impression that I am against all immigration. This is incorrect, only free immigration. People will still be allowed to immigrate legally to the United States. The borders will not be closed. I have refuted all of my opponent’s points, refuted my opponent’s refutations to my points, and have provided sources and evidence to show why Free Immigration would be detrimental to all aspects of our society. Freedom is a great thing, unchecked freedom is anarchy. VOTE CON. SOURCES: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.familysecuritymatters.org... . http://www.aapsonline.org...