Should governments in rich countries relax the laws controlling immigration?[GY]

Hello everybody, I'll be taking the Con so lets get right into the debate. Lets start off with definitions. -"rich countries" --I'm fine with the definition. -"should relax the law" --The wording is a little bit weird for me, but I'm guessing my opponent is basically saying there should be less restrictions for immigrants. If that's right just confirm it for me or else clarify what you meant. -"immigration" --Here I have a problem. I agree with my opponent that people immigrate to live in a new country, but I disagree about the work part. Somebody might be unemployed and go to live with a family member in that country. Somebody might just want to exploit the welfare opportunities available in a country. Somebody might have a rich inheritance and never want to live in a dirt poor country ever again. Regardless, not all immigrants go straight for work so ignore this part of the definition. Regarding my opponent's second paragraph. --A. My opponent assumes that all people immigrate from a country with terrible conditions to one with better conditions. This is false. Under the definition of a "rich country" I could argue that North Korea is a developed country, China is a developed country. Now maybe I'm just a patriot, but I'm pretty sure going from the US to either of these two countries is a step down. --B. I see no problem with illegal immigrants being exploited by employers, heck I have a job and I feel my boss exploits me out of the wage I deserve! Though in all seriousness, there are laws/regulations that work to prevent job abuses (not in all countries I know, I know). However, lets take a country like China. China is infamous for its bad practices in the labor force. However, these are not ILLEGAL practices, these are just unregulated practices, but in all due fairness are legal. Therefore, it doesn't matter if illegal immigrants are exploited, because it is not done illegally. Furthermore, lets use my opponent's logic for a moment. Abuses obviously exist for both legal and illegal citizens. If we want to stop abuses, which my opponent's rhetoric suggests, then we want to make it harder on corporations to find a readily available supply of labor. This means if anything! we want to stop immigration and make it even harder to have a larger labor force. Heck, lets take it one step further and limit the native population just to be safe! --C. Sir/Mam, I find it insulting the idea that illegal immigrants are instantly being involved in crime. That is a negative stereotype, because I've seen illegal immigrants protesting for their rights like good American citizens. Furthermore, crime existed before immigration and crime can fluctuate due to other factors such as Prohibition in the US which led to a spike in crime. --D. On taxes, if illegal/legal immigrants are able to avoid taxes, relaxing the laws is not going to make them suddenly start paying them. Not to be rude, but there is a lack of logic here, my opponent assumes people like paying taxes. Honestly, if my employer could get me out of paying MA outrageous income tax I would be thanking God! (not to offend anybody who does not believe.) ---E. Finally, my opponent has no solvency for any of her/his issues. Just because we relax immigration policies does not mean any of the social problems my opponent has listed will be solved. Therefore, there is no need to pursue her plans. -On the third paragraph. --A. We all know immigrants can perform unskilled labor, that's why countries give out working visas and we get those positions filled up. Furthermore, there are fears in countries that these jobs are being taken too fast by immigrants! If anything this only proves why we need to restrict it. China for example, with a booming population, is already maxed out on how many positions it can give out to unskilled labor, immigration would only make that worst. My opponent references a study with no citation at all, so for all we know she/he could have made it up. Furthermore, I have no information how they acquired that statistic and therefore I can not debate it properly, disallow it I insist. However, assuming it is valid, that is the situation in one country and does not provide a justification for a general trend. If I hate ice cream, I can not say all teenagers hate ice cream. --B. Not to offend anybody and I apologize if this is different in your case, but most immigrants are usually not generic unskilled laborers. If I come from the US and go to a different country, my first cry is not, Sweatshops, yay!!. --C. People always complain about unemployment, why not have jobs ready rather than full them all up and breed hatred toward another immigrant group? We don't need any more race riots thank you very much. --D. Finally, if we were able assume that all the other assumptions are true, that does not mean that immigrants will suddenly improve on their quality of life. If you're working at an unskilled job, you're not flying up in social ranks. Also, people move up and DOWN the social ladder, an immigrant can just as easily move down in class by immigrating. An unskilled laborer does not suddenly improve a nation's capital. That is done by business elites and finance experts. If one less immigrant is working at a sweat shop, the country is not suddenly in the red. Next, Immigrants are able to support their families in the modern world just fine, I don't see how we need laxed immigration to get more support for families. Finally, how does one's immigration suddenly help their home country? Millions of people have immigrated to the US from all over the world. I don't see the entire world suddenly becoming a utopia. In conclusion, this is a commonly argued topic that is saturated with contrasts between morality and practicality. However, my opponent's case unfortunately makes a long list of assertions that are not true, unavoidable, or unsolvable by a simple laxing of immigration standards. I hand the baton over to the Pro.