The United States Federal Government should implement an open door policy.

*note: For some reason I thought I had one more day on the time limit of last round, so here is the argument that would have been posted there. First off, you began your argument with, "I never said that the taxation of these immigrants would have high returns. " To that I would have to say that you simply just nullified your own argument regarding that immigrants would contribute a significant amount of income to the nation. Also, you seemed to put a heavy emphasis on how the government would make more money, such as when you said, "Increased Government Revenue. Now this is a rather simple concept to grasp, more citizens means more tax revenue, simple yes? Now you may be wondering "Why should I care if the government is making more money? ". You should care. One, it gives the government more leverage on taxing, for example, lets say in the next 30 years there is a high influx of immigrants (50 million), the government can lower taxes on everyone for it will still be able to keep the revenue it already has, meaning less taxes for everyone, which for most people, is a good thing. Or if the government decides its time to start paying back that debt, if we had more citizens this would allow a higher tax revenue, this new found money can be used to pay of debt. Not only that but depending on the number of immigrants we could increase the budgets of some government agencies. So in summary, more immigrants=more citizens which equals to a higher tax revenue. " So what I get out of this is that you admit that my points regarding immigrants not directly contributing to a larger treasury are all valid, and you concede to them. Now referring to the story that you told about your family, with you as a primary source, all I have to say to that is that this is anecdotal information, and therefore holds no ground. If I were to find one immigrant that I knew of that was a murderer, and generalized that because they were a murderer all other immigrants are murderers as well, you would rightly say that this is wildly inaccurate, so therefore I make the same claim against your anecdote. I don"t deny that your family works hard, or that there are other immigrants that have made a good life for themselves, but your generalization of immigrants based upon your own family simply cannot be taken in as fact. Regarding my opponent stating that my argument towards the different cultures didn"t fit with the topics of government and economy, I would simply disagree. Because these people are not of similar cultures, things become much more expensive. They will have a much harder time finding work, as well, there will be increased expenses for government in order to help and protect these people, by doing things such as adding translations, special regulations, and increased diversity training and rules. As well there are many hidden costs in the form of police discrimination and misrepresentation of these minorities. Along with the carrying capacity argument that I made, all I have to say is that it was misinterpreted. I"m not referring to the carrying capacity of the United States economy, I was referring to the carrying capacity of the welfare system. How much more money can the United States really spend in order to support a massive influx of people? Now onto what my opponent was saying about social security being a time bomb. This bomb is going to explode eventually, of that there is no doubt, so we are left with a choice, do we let it go off naturally with minimal problems, or do we prolong this dangerous ponzi scheme until we simply cannot continue it, in which case it collapses anyways, but this explosion will lead to a crash bigger than any other crash any nation has ever seen. This is something that no one wants to see, so let"s end this Ponzi Scheme now, before it gets too big, and it becomes too late. Then you attempted to refute my economic argument regarding how immigrants would have adverse effects on the economy. First off let me say that the type of economics you describe in your argument tend to sound particularly Keynesian, a school of economic thought that one could argue has caused a multitude of problems with modern economies, such as massive government spending and never before seen levels of debt. Keynesianism puts an extreme emphasis on spending as a means to grow the economy, but it ignores other, just as important, aspects of the economy, such as savings. Spending isn"t all that matters in an economy, as well with recent trade unions such as NAFTA, money is much more liquid across borders. The individuals that would come to America can still buy American goods within their own nation, free trade has allowed for this to happen. Now we must also take into account your statement about jobs not being static, which is true, however government regulation has made it much harder to create new employment opportunities. Regulation such as the minimum wage makes it increasingly difficult to enter into the job force, which puts an increasing amount of stress on the welfare system. To sum up, we have to deal with this low birthrate problem in a different way than simply letting even more people in, which would just lead to an inevitable crash when the new block reaches retirement age. The incoming individuals will incur a net loss of the nation's economic welfare due to their inability to be used as a significant source of tax revenue, their inevitable use of the nation"s scarce resources through an inefficient welfare system, and the increased costs of the immigrants adapting to already established systems that are held dear by the inhabitant population. Overall an Open-Door Policy would be detrimental due to the existence of the welfare system. *Fixed links and new sources . http://www.reuters.com... . http://ec.europa.eu... . http://www.nationaljournal.com... . http://www.theatlantic.com... . http://openborders.info... . http://www.forbes.com... . http://www.themoneyillusion.com... . http://www.economist.com... . http://www.rense.com...