BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The measure poses no threat

Some groups have falsely called SB 1070 a threat. We support the legal immigration, acknowledging immigrants have helped develop USA in various fields including sport, art or science. However, we support their legal immigration since as we have shown they do pay taxes and fulfill other obligations that make them perfectly owners of all the rights, unlike illegal immigrants who even shouldn’t be on the country, hence the word illegal. With this measure it would only be the illegal immigrants that would be arrested, while the legal immigrants or minority US citizens will have nothing to fear since firstly they are less likely to pose the reasonable suspicion but furthermore when questioned about their migratory status they would have nothing to fear about as just showing any legal document that proves they are there legally as a passport or driver’s license nothing would be done to them and having to carry an ID is not only very easy but is also an obligation since the 1940 Alien Registration Act for all immigrants to carry their identity documents[[newsblaze.com/story/20100428170852mcut.nb/topstory.html ]]. The fact that they are not used to it doesn’t mean that they are exempt. Yet again immigrants would not be detained for their race only, but it would be considered as a tool in reasonable suspicion that includes behavior and it is not only one race that would be subject to this law. Imagine a van is given a speeding ticket in a highway known for immigrant smuggling; the van has 10 individuals that don’t speak English: There is the reasonable suspicion. If they are legal they will be allowed to go on; they must carry their documents anyway. If they are illegal they will be detained and the policy will be successful. In any case there is no racial damage. The fact that they barely spoke English and were Latin is not wrong and isn’t intended to be seen as wrong but a research fact. Being called Latin is not discrimination: It’s a fact we are proud of!
The best solution for illega immigration is racial profiling as a tool for reasonable suspicion

Racial profiling doesn’t mean they would detain someone if they look Libyan or Kazakh (not only Mexican, as Opp misleads) but refers that it can be a basis (not only) of the reasonable suspicion to ask for documents (not just detain). Opp thought would win this debate with us saying racial profiling means detaining the probable 190 millions that “might look immigrant” one by one to see if they are legals or not, but that’s simply absurd, sorry. They see a problem with immigrants carrying documents, their obligation since 1940 and it’s very easy. Nothing to fear, nothing to hide. Opp’s alternative (below) is counterproductive and our tool is not mutually exclusive with tighter border control or improving México’s situation (if you find the magic formula I’ll thank you for life) as if it was the only country with immigrants, which is false. A clear example of racial profiling/suspicion: Before the attacks of 9/11, agent Kenneth Williams urged his superiors to investigate militant Muslim men whom he suspected of training in U.S. as part of al-Qaeda missions [[usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-16-racial-profiling_x.htm]]. The recommendation was not taken in consideration because of the concerns of how would the actions damage the image of the FBI if they were perceived as racial discrimination. We all know what happened next. If those men had have the resource of Racial Profiling things would have happened different, the terrorists would have been investigated without restrictions and their plans would have been revealed thus saving thousands of lives. Same principle here. We will have a greater impact than in 1954 (more immigrants now) through the same logic: Immigrants will self-repatriate before they could be detained as is happening in Arizona[[mexiconews.com.mx/internacional/68426.html]]. Unlike what Opp says right now there is few chance of being caught, since cops are not able to detain you for reasons like race even when obvious.
Goes Against Wider US Policy

Their policy is impossible and counterproductive: Economy: The Opp is telling us that it would be cheaper to give away the citizenship than to deploy more cops, but in fact it is completely the other way around: The cost of full amnesty would be $999 billion now (inc, while the cost of attrition by enforcement is as little as $14 billion[[numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/amnesty-costs-10-times-more-than-enforcement.html]]. This is 70 times bigger; and they will receive even more benefits as they become eligible for government benefits only permitted to residents of the United States. Also, since they perform riskier jobs than the US born, they are more likely to become injured; meaning more costs the US government has to absorb because of the medical insurance they must give to legal workers. Loss of American identity: Giving away the citizenship, not only Latinos will increase, but immigrants from all over the world will come and benefit from the situation. The number of immigrants will quickly outnumber the Americans, resulting in a multicultural country without a common identity, fading away with it the patriotism that Americans are so proud of, as is happening now. Overpopulation: If immigration continues at current levels, the nation's population will increase from 301 to 468 million in 2060, a 56% increase (CIS). That is considering the normal immigration pattern, but if we add a factor that would increase the desire of immigrating to the US, this could be tripled.[[endillegalimmigration.com/Illegal_Immigration_Facts_&_Statistics Unemployment: With at least 7.7 million employed immigrants, and the an unemployment rate of 9.50%; giving away the citizenship will only increase the unemployment of Americans, because usually immigrants take the lowest paid jobs and get hired easier than a regular American. This will be going against the basis of a democratic government, to represent the interests of their people, not the ones of the immigrants.
The problem of illegal immigration has to be tackled thoroughly

Assuming that citizens of a country somehow have a greater right than other to that countries' services simply because they were born there, this point still does not stand. The real situation in Arizona and the Southern US is not that illegal immigrants arrive and suddenly get to experience all the welfare benefits that exist there. They have to accept very low wages in jobs that no-one else wants, can't use banks, any social security service like the police, and can't get any form of health insurance, as all of these require some form of identification. By pointing to the figure of 7.7 million workers, the prop assumes that there would be 7.7 million US workers to replace them. In reality, every one of these workers is valued as cheap labour by the people in the US who employ them. Suddenly getting rid of all of these workers would suddenly mean no workers for these jobs, harming all of the businesses who hire them. If 7.7 million is the real figure, then that's a lot of harm to businesses. Agreed, stopping illegal immigration into the US is important, but suddenly removing all of the immigrants already settled there could result in a lot of harm. Even if these workers did get some benefits payed by the US taxpayer, they are often earning such low wages that they would be barely paying taxes at all, in fact they may be eligible for greater welfare than they already get because they are in such a low income bracket. Regardless, they are working, benefiting their employers and the wider economy and therefore they are making some contribution. It seems that the prop's problem in this point is that the immigrants don't pay taxes. A better solution would be to grant them citizenship so that they are in a position where they can pay taxes. That is the plan which Barack Obama is trying to implement [[http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5638358/obama_administration_mulling_amnesty.html?cat=9]], and it is directly contradicted by the policy.
It is racist

 The prop agrees with the opp, racism is never justified. But Racial profiling is a criteria, not discrimination. As the prop has stated before, it would be impossible to interrogate every single immigrant in the US to make sure they are not illegal. They have to be wrapped in a suspicious situation. Let’s take the example the opp gave us, we have a Mexican and an American looking person (not white because immigrants are not just "Mexicans" as the opp continuously states) which are doing the same thing. Lets say they are both caught painting graffiti, if the Mexican is an American citizen he would be fined just as the american man would, but if he ends up being an illegal, the american man would be fined and the Mexican would be deported. Since the legal status is not a race the Prop doesn’t understand how this or any similar situation could be racist, or even discriminatory. If Racial Profiling was approved, the status under the law of every legal US citizen wouldn't change a bit as the opp states, they would all still share the same rights. In the american law it already states that every single immigrant should carry at all time an identification, the fact they are not used to it, is no discrimination. Theres no denigration in getting asked for documents, it would just denote their race, which is no racism, being from different races is a fact and this would only be used as a criteria to ask for documents, which they should have not to get mocked or discriminated in any way. We believe the opp has failed to understand the definition the prop has used on racial profiling, which we limited to Bill 1070. Stating this is a tool which would make the police ask for documents to every foreign looking person, but it will be a criteria which they can use if catching them in a suspicious situation[[http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf]].
Even more benefits of decreasing illegal immigration

Violence, kidnapping and more violence, this is what illegal immigrants in the US do, or so the prop is telling us. Before addressing this I have a problem, how can the porp claim that 40% of illegal immigrants have violent backgrounds? Does this mean they know who they are? I can only assume that if the Amercian police know who has commited a violent crime in the past they must know who they are looking for, or else how would such a statistic be made. If the police know about these violent criminals how will racial profiling aid the police? To use racial profiling to assume a Latino is an illegal immigrant has little going for it but using it to try and find a known criminal seems a waste of time and if the police need racial porfiling to help them they need far more than "good tools" . The prop used the example of the MS-13. I do not see how this links to illegal immigration and racial profiling, unless the prop is suggesting that all Mexicans currently in the US, that is to say all 7.7 million[[ numbersusa.com/content/files/pdf/Putting%20Americans%20Back%20to%20Work(2).pdf]], need to be assumed to be a member of this international violent cartel[[http://www.altereddimensions.net/crime/ms13gang.aspx]] If this is the case, the police maybe need much better armament instead of tools because as the prop have said, this gang refuses to back down to even high profile authorities. So far the prop's point seems lacking. They have told us that 40% of illegal immigrants have a criminal past[[http://endillegalimmigration.com/Illegal_Immigration_Facts_&_Statistics/index.shtm]] however they have not provided any cases where an illegal immigrant had committed a violent crime in the USA. They asserted that kidnapping was rising in correlation to immigration in Arizona, they are making a causal claim without analysing other causes of kidnapping, sadly a lack of analysis . This point does not appear to have any substantial link to the props case.
Negative effects on Policing.

Again, the opp is trying to mislead the debate to a point that we have already clarified. First of all, police can only question the people if there is a suspicioun or criminal conduct, and added to that there must be the race factor; however police cannot detain them just for the color of the skin without the suspicioun or criminal conduct. We have also already exemplified how this system of racial profiling makes Israeli airlines the safest in the world and worked in USA in 1954, proving that THIS METHOD WORKS. Moving to the point of the cooperation with the police, first the opp tried to say that cooperation with the police will decrease and they also pointed in a previous point that aliens would rather recur to gangs instead of the police, which we have already proven absurd because gangs will not do the work of a policemen and people would not even be able to approach a gang without getting shot or dimembered first. MS-13 the saviors of the people, sure! Cholos and MS-13 usually target minorities! Also this point is based on an unfounded assumption, because why would people stop cooperating with the police when they are the ones working to keep them safe? Some might say that would be because of fear of being asked for documents and detained; but again, they cannot detain you just because of your race, they need a reasonable suspicion. People will be more confident knowing officers are doing a good job! Furthermore, there is a system in the US that offers the amnesty of some crimes in exchange for information that might help in other criminal investigations; so the same principle could apply by being not detained when helping the police, I can only observe a win-win situation in this very isolated case.
A measure that gives greater rights to who deserve them

The prop point to why life is better for illegal immigrants in the US, without showing negatives. Yes, people in the US pay for welfare, but none of this goes to illegal immigrants because they can't possibly apply for it without identification. We weren't arguing that life isn't better for the immigrants in the US, simply that they do contribute and aren't just a leach on society. The prop has misquoted their own article, the cost is much less than $4-6 billion [[judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/mar/county-spends-600-mil-welfare-illegals]], and the welfare pays for children of illegal immigrants who become citizens because they are born in the USA. Therefore they have the same entitlement to rights as the people the prop say 'deserve' to have them, because they were born in the US (why this makes people deserve the benefits of welfare more they still haven't explained). Because working illegal immigrants do make a contribution, they do deserve some benefits. In addition, the fact that these illegal immigrants have children in the US makes it even more difficult to ship them out of the country, leaving their children behind, and makes our model of a path to citizenship better. There may be 30 million unemployed in the US, but they won't all be able to take immigrants' jobs.Arizona has a comparatively low immigration rate [[http://roguecolumnist.typepad.com/rogue_columnist/2009/03/arizonas-mysterious-jobless-rate.html]] and it is hard to see how half a million people in Michigan [[http://www.michiganpolicy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=813:extended-unemployment-benefits-in-michigan&catid=16:employment-policy-briefs&Itemid=75]] will suddenly get the Arizona jobs. The point that employers, and hence the local economy, will suffer from lost employment still stands. Racial profiling will not remove violence. As we've discussed, it will create greater reasons to turn to gangs and greater discontent. It also won't stop illegal immigrants entering America.
México Summary

1 Needed? We say aliens take citizen’s jobs (maybe 20 at least 7.7 mil) with 30 mil unemployed in USA because aliens are hired by being paid less than minimum wage whilst poor people are affected: Wages fell in 44% and jobs lost; as citizens should be entitled to state protection. Opp’s replied there were no people to take the jobs: Yes, 30mil and Opp raised an impact to business' that abuse the system by paying aliens low wages instead of normal to a citizen, which we pointed is an unethical and illegal benefit to support. We showed another benefit would be that crime of aliens would be decreased. Aliens leech tax and we quoted $22 bn is spent on welfare benefits to them excluding social services, medical costs and incarceration. OPP said the welfare is to the children (false, those numbers aren’t added) and aliens aren’t given them for not having ID but the fact is they aren’t denied them, plus add normal government costs: Status Quo needs change. 2 Best? We said currently officers can’t detain aliens on obvious situations (later Opp asserts not) because obviously a reasonable suspicion includes race and that’s why we must allow race to be considered. We showed racial profiling works in Israeli airlines and how it was implemented USA (1954) detaining 80,000 and 500-700,000 leaving in their own for the risk of being caught whilst after lifting it immigration raised since in USA they can’t be detained and now would be, stopping them risking their lives immigrating and would return, as we showed is happening in Arizona now. Opp tried to fool by omitting words saying the SB 1070 doesn’t include race as means of suspicion, which does but not as sole reason, which we support because in any other case almost 200 mil. citizens would be checked; absurd. Only way Opp said this could fail is it “moving immigrants underground” which we proved could happen if they did it literally and Opp raised lack of cooperation with police, not providing logic for it but that wouldn’t happen since in those cases the law isn’t applied. Opp also said it creates “guilty until proven innocent”: False since officers act under the presumption that the person is a citizen but would be asked to show ID for the well of the society, nothing else. Opp’s alternative was making all citizens: We proved it’s economically ($999bn) and demographically (56% pop. increase) disastrous, plus unemployment and loss of identity. 3 Bring problems? Opp says it’s racist by creating a stereotype upon Latins without developing it well, we pointed how that isn’t true since they aren’t the only race and it is just a criteria that is needed as a base of suspicion to the illegal act of being an alien so legals will receive the greater benefit of preserving their rights. 70% citizens support it, including minorities. We reminded alien’s obligation to carry ID; Opp didn’t raise a problem on the need of carrying it so finally no problem and great benefits.
Efforts to reduce tax

Much effort is spent on reducing and eliminating the inheritance tax. First, people establish trusts that are usually taxed at a lower rate than directly inherited wealth. One can also minimize the tax burden by transferring gifts that usually are untaxed until a certain level (as much as one million dollars over the lifetime in US [[http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=164871,00.html]]). The gift and inheritance transfers have lots of exceptions, such as education, charity, or other destinations. Many wealthy people use offshore tax havens to reduce the tax. Take the Russians for example, who find Cyprus a proper place to store their wealth. People who are subject to the inheritance tax are those likely able to find ways to reduce the burden, thus further weakening any positive effects. What we find inappropriate is that people who are by no standards considered “the wealthy” are going to pay the death tax. The general level of wealth has been constantly rising and ever more people are subject to this “death tax”. For example, a pensioner, living in her well kept house that happened to be in the centre of a newly build financial centre in. Basically all people who have real estate in areas that are now very desirable would face the tax due to an unexpected appreciation of their property. Indeed, one of three British households (out of 24 million) would pay estate tax [[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1376184,00.html]]. The tax that was previously levied on the rich is falling on the shoulders of “ordinary” men, who have lesser opportunities to reduce the tax burden than the rich people, capable of employing legal and financial talents. Although this can be changed, what we find unacceptable is the arbitral nature of such taxation. It will be always debatable what is the threshold on which the tax is levied.
Inheritance taxes reduce entrepreneurial activity

One of the main forces that helped our society to become the way it is was entrepreneurial spirit of businessmen. The desire of theirs to make a fortune makes the lives of everyone easier and better. What we want to have in our society is a better environment for entrepreneurs where they can sustain their businesses – the businesses that are value-adding to the society as a whole. Estate tax is something that effectively destroys family businesses. We definitely do not claim that it is happening in all an every instance, but there are cases where such taxation is disruptive to businesses. Consider a family business of substantial value. It has been successful for many years, expanding at a rapid pace. The owner was happy to finance the expansion with retained earnings – but now he finds himself in trouble, because in case of his death, his son would not be able to pay without selling a share of his business. These are the situations we are extremely discontent with, because people who create the most value in our society are unjustly punished. Scientific studies show detrimental effects of inheritance taxes to entrepreneurial activity. Holtz-Eakin finds evidence that entrepreneurs would decrease business expansion if they would be subject to estate tax after death. [[Holtz-Eakin, Douglas. “The Death Tax: Investments, Employment, and Entrepreneurs.” Tax Notes 84 No. 5 (August 2, 1999): 782-92.]]. A recent study shows that if inheritance taxes were eliminated, probability of hiring would increase by 8.6%, payrolls by 2.6% and investments by 3% in family businesses[[Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Changing Views of the Estate Tax, February 2009, http://www.nodeathtax.org/files/AFBF_Holtz_Eakin_2009.pdf%5D%5D. This is very plausible indeed – when business owners are subject to tax, they will not expand their business so much, instead, they will put away some money so that they could be used in case of owner’s death to pay the estate tax.
Positive effects of wealth accumulation

There are a number of troubling assumptions in this argument that result in a number of even more troubling flaws. Firstly, this argument is an argument against any and every tax. Every tax would reduce the amount of wealth accumulated by an individual, and every tax would reduce their ability to save. However, we are not abolishing all taxes. They are pointing out the trivially true to note that taxes reduce the income in peoples' hands; what is unclear is why we should get rid of inheritance taxes because of it. Proposition then assumed that inheritance taxes are not redistributive, and are distinct from other taxes. Unfortunately we can not "easily conclude" that bit of analysis. States do not treat the types of revenue generated from taxes differently based on their source. In some rare circumstances the tax may be levied for a particular end, but usually not. Finally, it is unclear why all saving all the time is an a priori good. While it is true that capital accumulation is a component of long-term economic growth, it is always necessary to look at the utility tradeoff between capital accumulation and consumption. Often necessary societal goods, such as welfare benefits and other social programs, can only be accomplished with short term spending. It is overly simplistic to assign absolute value to capital accumulation at all costs.