illegal imigration is wrong

The ambiguity in this resolution falls on the word "wrong". To maintain a uniform standard in this debate, I propose that illegal immigration should be judged on a scale of legality as well as how much it hurts (or helps) the US. Furthermore, this debate should only revolve around the illegal immigration into the US, as my opponent has tacitly implied. Contention One My first contention is that illegal immigration is definitely wrong on a legal basis. Section 1325 of the United States law code clearly states that illegal immigration is a violation. This contention is a clear voter for the affirmation as it is quite obvious that illegal immigration violates the law. Moreover, because the negation cannot change the law, this point is already won by the affirmation. Contention Two Illegal immigration significantly hurts the American health care system. A Rand study found that illegal immigration cost the system 6.5 billion dollars in the year 2000. Considering that the number of illegal aliens has increased since then, the 6.5 billion dollars is actually an understatement of what the US is actually losing. Contention Three Illegal immigration has allowed many dangerous Mexican gangs to gain power. A Maldon Institute report found that illegal immigrants are carrying illegal drugs across the border to the US. While not all illegal immigrants backpack the drugs, gangs such as MS13 are also considered to be escort services as they smuggle illegal aliens across the border; while the gangs further receive money in return. These gangs are responsible for the deaths of thousands of people while their control on the drug network only exacerbates the domestic drug problem. It is clear that illegal immigration has a detrimental effect on the United States. Not only is it wrong on a legal basis, yet its economic effect and contribution to the deaths of many innocent people across the United States are undeniable. Refutations My opponent's first contention discusses the Mexican citizens who flee to the US for protection. First off, my opponent has got his facts wrong regarding the violence. It is not the Mexican government that is turning on the people but the drug cartels and corrupted police. The president of Mexico is actually working to end this violence. Second off, the "illegal" immigrants who flee to the US are not illegal at all and thus this issue is outside of the realm of this debate. United States court law grants asylum to any refugees who want to escape the violence or terror in their home country. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2,231 Mexican citizens requested asylum in the U.S. in the year 2008. The Mexican citizens who request asylum are legally in the US, and thus are not illegal aliens. This legal form of entry does not take the 4 months which my opponent states but it is granted as soon as the refugee requests it. Moreover, my opponent's second contention is clearly flawed. Not only does it not take into account the economic detriment of their stay in the US, but their residence as a hardworking individual does not mean that the United States law does not apply. He or she is, sadly, still an illegal alien. Finally, I do consider the dreams of many people who want to start a new life in the US, but breaking the laws to achieve their goal is certainly not the correct approach. To sum up, my opponent's first contention does not apply to the resolution, as these refugees are not illegal aliens, and his second contention, which is his own opinion, does not negate the resolution.