the US government should prioritize the humanitarian needs of refugees over its national interest.

I will begin my speech my attacking my opponents previous arguments and then build up my case ending with a summary of my speeches. My opponent has asked me to provide evidence on how the refugees are affecting European countries I will begin by providing a chart that shows where the majority of european refugees are. I will now provide evidence showing how the influx of refugees has negatively affected europe. Since Syria's civil war began four years ago, Turkey has maintained an official open-door policy for the victims of the Syrian conflict, absorbing about 2.5 million refugees and spending nearly $8.5 billion in the process.Last year, the EU reached a deal with Turkey, offering it $3.3bn to care for Syrian refugees on Turkish soil. However the other $5.2 billion has come directly out of Turkeys pocket.Right now, Turkey is trying to figure out how it will educate these people and find jobs for them. The country's deputy prime minister, told the media: "Turkey has reached the limit of its capacity to absorb the refugees." An interview with Switzerland resident Yannick Meyer showed that there was an impact there as well. He made these three points. Economic impacts: One of the major effects that refugees have on the host country is economic impact. It is frequently thought that refugees are of little economic value and make initial demands upon arrival on the host government that end up being at the taxpayer"s expense. Social impacts: The refugee presence in hosting countries has potential social impacts on the ethnic balance of hosting areas, social conflict, and delivering of social services. Furthermore there may be inequalities between refugees and non-refugees that give rise to social tension. Political impacts: The third major effect that refugees have on the host country is political impact. Most of the studies that are done on refugees show that the political and security impacts of refugees tend to be negative on the host countries. Refugees may hold extreme views in politics, for or against the government of their country of origin. In the case of germany a few people in the east are Neo Nazis and are totally against refugees and immigrants. With that many more refugees maybe more people will become active in the Neo Nazi scene." Just weeks after Merkel responded to the refugee crisis in Germany with the declaration: "Wir schaffen es " We can do it" " the euphoric mood has been replaced by a more somber response with the realization that the newcomers are here to stay, with all the consequences that entails. School authorities are calling for at least 25,000 new teaching recruits to cope with the large numbers of new pupils, police officers are being brought out of retirement in their thousands, and the nation is being scoured for suitable accommodation as winter approaches. These are just some of the negative impacts refugees and open borders have caused. I am now going to answer the two questions my opponents have asked. Q. "Do you believe that there is a burden of proof(benefits and harms have not been recorded accurately due to this being such a new issue) on both sides?" Though I do believe more statistics would be beneficial to this debate i think that I have still made valid points in my case against opening our borders to refugees despite it. Q.Do you believe that there is a PROBABILITY of refugees having the same benefits as immigrants do? I believe if anything they will be able to contribute money into our economy through taxes. I am sure my opponent can agree to this as well. I believe that after we have supported them for who knows how long. Given them english classes, taught them how to get and keep jobs, fed them, and housed them yes it is probable. However the refugees will not come to the states with money because of the situations they would be coming from. It would take time before the refugees would be able to afford to pay taxes. I will now attack my opponent"s previous speech. I never claimed that Germany can take and provide for the remainder of the immigrans. This is already taking a toll on their society. I was using Germany as an example for how large a number of refugees there are and that taking in refugees with open borders has taken a toll of their society. The problems regarding Germany and other countries in the EU are none of our concern. What is our concern is the people of the united states. With homeless and starving people of our own that we still don't have the required funds to take care of, how are we expected to take care of the starving and homeless of another country. Though I do agree with you on the fact that our military has much to big a budget, do you think that our government is going to cut that to take care of people that are not our own. The military budget put in place by congress probably has a reason for being so big. How much of the military budget do you think would need to be cut? How much do you think the government would cut? If we don't get funds from the defense budget then would you expect it to be brought out of taxes? What do you think should be done then? I would like to end my counter attack by asking if you have any evidence supporting your claim that it "is an extremely low probability of terrorists coming in"? Considering the evidence I showed in an earlier speech saying that over 400 terrorist attacks occurred over the course of 2015 and hundreds if not thousands of people died. Throughout my case I have stated why we are not morally obligated to help, why we can not afford it, why there is threat of violence, and finally what has happened to other countries that have open borders.It is for all of these reasons that I strongly urge a con vote. Thank you for your time and a wonderful debate. (I have run out of characters so i am going to put sources in the comments.)