Should Immigrants pay a fee percentage, on any money sent out of this country.

I will begin by pointing out how my opponent has offered nothing by way of a convincing case.My opponent begins his second round by stating:"Beaglehugs makes a compassionate argument that immigrants contribute more to America's well being than the monetary costs to the citizens that arises from their living in this country."I will point out that I have made a factual argument, not a compassionate argument. Attempting to mischaracterize my position as grounded in emotion will not work. I have made a fact-based argument that is based on cited studies. The facts show that immigrants contribute to economic growth for U.S. citizens and are not a burden on U.S. citizens. The facts show that foreign investment by immigrants is good for the U.S. The Constitution provides against arbitrary treatment of immigrant property based on their previous residency in another country, and it would be arbitrary to treat immigrants sending money abroad as somehow less deserving of rights than other Americans who send plenty of money abroad. These are all facts.My opponent, however, has yet to cite anything. His arguments are entirely his own opinions and some poetry quotations. My opponent's uncited, unsubstantiated opinions shouldn't merit serious consideration. If he wants to contest the facts that I have provided and cited, let him bring forward something more than his refusal to accept the facts. I have established a positive case that puts his proposition to rest, and he has offered nothing.I will now proceed by demonstrating that not only should my opponent's opinions have no weight as they are merely his opinions, but also that his opinions are factually incorrect. This is not, of course, necessary for me to prevail. It is just there, like an Everest of a different and smellier composition.Immigration in the past:My opponent claims that America has always welcomed immigrants in the past. This is patently false. While America has always had immigrants, some more voluntary than others, it has not been particularly kind to them. This has ranged from laws inhibiting immigration, to preferencing preferred groups of Europeans, to discrimination against immigrants. He may read some starter material if you are unaware of these facts (http://www.immigrationpolicy.org...; http://www.racismreview.com...;http://en.wikipedia.org...).Over-abundance of immigrants:My opponent claims that we now have an over-abundance of foreign-born people in the U.S., when what he means is that we have an over-abundance of non-Europeans in the U.S. I realize I am making an assumption about his meaning, but consider that, according to the facts, there has always been a great deal of immigration to the U.S., and, as my sources describe, it is only recent years in which immigration has not been predominantly from Europe. Additionally, in light of the actual facts that I have discussed, it is difficult to understand what my opponent means by an "over-abundance." Does he mean that we have too many immigrant businessmen creating U.S. economic growth and jobs? Of course, my opponent refuses to accept the facts and simply repeats his patently false claim that immigrants are overwhelming our systems.Constitutional law:If my opponent has so easily identified Supreme Court arguments about the changes in how our founding documents might be interpreted, why doesn't he cite those Justices and explain something about their arguments? I can tell you why. It is because he is making a disingenuous argument and misconstruing what Supreme Court justices have actually said. He's referring to a living constitution theory or a theory that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of modern times. But even Originalists will tell you that some provisions in the Constitution don't have any real meaning unless they are interpeted in light of current times: for instance, "cruel and unusual" has no relevant meaning if it was a snapshot of 1787. Scalia might not accept that critique, but the real intellectuals behind the Originalist movement--the ones you can have an honest conversation with--will tell you that some provisions simply must be interpreted in light of the times. As for people who aren't Originalists, well, we simply accept that the process of the legal interpretation and decision making constantly adds to our understanding of a document, which must be interpreted with our own current set of comprehension as the attempt to pretend we are from 1787 is both ludicrous and fundamentally dishonest. In fact, strict Originalists like Scalia are nothing more than tricksters, because their hard Originalism has never admitted of the full range of disagreement present during that time period, and instead has only admitted of their own personal policy preferences which they, unsurprisingly, find enshrined in the "original meaning" of the Constitution (despite a policy debate in 1787 that really intimated our own current debates). Hard Originalists are telling you that the document needs to be interpreted in light of 1787 so that you will give up because you don't have the historical background (neither do they, they just have gall); there is no honesty or realism to their position. But, I digress. But not really. As you see, the debate that my opponent has intimated has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. In fact, no matter whether we try the Originalists or any other group on for size, they will give you pretty much the same answer about whether we can arbitrarily deprive immigrants of property for doing the same exact thing that everyone else does. The answer is no.Closing:In closing, I note that my opponent actually did kind of cite a source. He cited FAIR, an organization that basically opposes all but bare minimum immigration. However, he doesn't provide any way for us to go to the article he is citing and evaluate it, perhaps because if we did, we'd find that it's exactly as it seems. In response to carefully accumulated data, his article spouts off some generalized nonsense about what the figures supposedly don't account for and spits out an unsubstantiated number. The articles I have provided are sourced. I'm not going to spend time doing my opponent's research for him; if he wants to cite an article, he can identify it clearly enough that I can discuss it. If he doesn't, we know why. Anyone who would like can assess for themselves whether FAIR is a reputable source of information: http://www.nytimes.com...;The ability to make your own assessment is more than my opponent will help you with. But I will point out my own conclusion based on my research. FAIR is anti-immigrant, not pro-reform, and has been influenced by anti-immigrant and even racist groups in developing its data and positions. The fact that FAIR dwells on the opinions of the Arizona governor should be revealing-why is it surprising that "illegal immigration" costs the state so much money, when the state has the silly and costly policy of requiring gestapo-like review of non-whites' rights to be in the state? In any case, unbiased assessment shows that FAIR's position is false--immigrants are broadly beneficial to the U.S.Even if FAIR's case were correct, my opponent is wrong. It's the lawfully present immigrants who would pay the fine he proposes. It's so absurd that it's not even group punishment. Why some asian guy with a programming background should be paying a fine because of my opponent's feelings about hispanics is beyond me. I think it's beyond any thoughtful person.It's nonsense.