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

=The context of the words in the resolution=My Opponent contends that a relaxed immigration policy does not include providing more citizenship. This is false, because obtaining legal citizenship is a fundamental part of the current U. S. immigration policy. So arguments based on the financial negatives created when we create more impoverished citizens are valid. =Observation=My Opponent has not defined what exactly a relaxed immigration policy means, he has made vague refernces as to weakening our efforts to be rid of Illegal Immigrants, however he has never specifically explained WHAT a relaxed immigration policy means. I contended that it would create more legal immigrants, and my Opponent did not have a counter-definition, therefore in this round a "relaxed immigration policy" means that the Government would reduce the restrictions to qualify for citizenship, thus creating more legal immigrants. It is not about only Illegal Immigrants. =Rebuttal=A. "The point of relaxing or immigration policy is to use the $113 billion dollars that illegal immigrants currently cost tax payers for better purposes. " -my Opponent should've read my source before he made this claim. The costs illegal immigrants brought to the economy were not from our efforts to fight them, they were the costs of illegals using public institutions such as education, food stamps, criminal justice ect. "At present, taxpayers are unnecessarily overburdened with the task of keeping out a viable labor source at the expense of the opportunity cost of the prospective economic growth a relaxed immigration policy would yield" -my Opponent has not shown how much Immigrants help the economy. I have shown their costs. He has not given any evidence for their financial benefits, and even if he did, making illegals into citizens would reduce these benefits. I know my Opponent wanted a philisophical debate, not a source war, and I tried to give him one but there are some things (such as this) that you simply must provide evidence for in order for it to be a valid argument. "We are not talking about citizenship, or guest workers" -if we truly weren't, than you should've clarified more as to what a "more relaxed immigration policy" actually means. Regardless, I've still shown the negative effects from illegal immigrants. B. The Resolved states "should". As the negative, it is my job to show why the United States should NOT do the action called for in the resolution. Therefore my arguments about how this policy could be harmful ARE valid because they must be taken into consideration when deciding to relax the policy or not. C. "Immigration has a positive impact on the US economy. My opponent has offered no substantive evidence to the contrary. " -actually, in my rebuttal for your point A, and my C2, I provided evidence for how immigration can harm the economy. Furthermore, as the instigator it is your burden of proof to show how it helps which you have not done. "Citizenship is not at issue because a relaxed immigration policy would only allow workers to enter the United States, not necessarily obtain citizenship. " - if a relaxed immigration policy meant only allowing workers to enter the U. S. you should have specified that earlier in the debate. =Reconstruction=C1. "I would ask my opponent to turn on the news and listen to any news caster or politician describe Mexican immigration. They all oppose it vehemently, championing the cause of border security"-first of all, they are talking about illegal immigration in general, the only reason Mexico gets more attention is because the largest amount of Illegals come from Mexico. Furthermore, even if the news casters did discriminate, my Opponent has not shown how in the eyes of the law, and the current immigration policy, Meicans are discriminated against. Therefore this is invalid. "We don't afford the same level of intensity to the canadian border, for sure" -there is no need for such close scrutiny at the Candian border. The numbers speak for themselves, there are an estimated 65,000-75,000 illegal Candian immigrants in the U. S. [1], as Opposed to 6.5 million illegal Mexican Immigrants. [2]C2. "Where the cost of production is too high to remain competitive in an open market, companies go elsewhere to cut costs -and then who looses? The entire town. "-this is an excellent point, and I'm glad my Opponent brought it up. It doesn't apply for these reasons. 1. Legal citizens (which would increase with relaxed policy) are required minimum wage, so the price to produce here would still be higher. 2. When the immigrants take these jobs, the citizens who were already working these jobs suffer just as much as if the job were outsourced 3. the costs brought by illegal immigrants ($113 billion) offset these gains, presuming they exist and 4. many of the jobs taken from citizens by illegals cannot be outsourced. For example, farming jobs, or mining, or oil drilling.