Border Defence

>I thank my esteemed opponent, crackofdawn, for his rebuttal. >My opponent begins with saying that the quota system is why people illegally immigrate (agreeing with me). This is quite obviously true, and his has not yet told us why the quota system is acceptable. >My opponent is probably unaware of this so please do not penalize him: Value Criterion =/= Value of Criterion. However, it is very funny to hear someone use that terminology. Anyway, as I predicted, my opponent contradicts himself. He says that "all people are not equal." He then says that "people should have equal chances." If all people have equal chances then we value them equally. That is fundamental logic. Ergo the contradiction. >My opponent says that should I support illegal immigrants, I must then support illegal immigrants paying taxes. This is entirely false. I can support one thing without a related thing. For example, let's say I support the Democratic Party. I am 68% Democratic. Does this mean that by supporting the Democratic Party I automatically support all of their beliefs and actions? No. Partial support is possible on Earth, where my opponent lives I cannot say... >Next, my opponent claims that I have conceded his point. As I clearly stated "This is sadly (for him) invalid," I clearly have not conceded it. I agree with the fundamental principles of his logic but if he does his math correctly he will still find that the United States economy would be severely hurt because of the lack of illegal immigrants. >My opponent blatantly admits that his source was biased and therefore it should not be used in any way towards your individual voting decisions. As I stated one point ago, my opponent's math is INCORRECT. My opponent must also consider one more thing when he considers the current United States workforce. While not all of the workers are Americans, can this be a good this for society? If the illegal immigrants got the job which the Americans didn't could they be better qualified, have better skills? Indeed, yes. So even if this were to hurt the unemployed population, it actually does still help the United States as a whole. >My opponent makes the semi-accurate assertion that I did not respond to one of his points last round. I apologize for this lack of clarity, but I did defend my first contention which that statement was attacking. ---:: Opponent's Case::--- >My opponent begins his case with a mention of unemployment. My refutation of this goes back to my value and value criterion. Why don't the illegal immigrants deserve these chances to get jobs when Americans do? >My opponent is less than half correct. Most of the money made in the United States by illegal immigrants is actually kept in the United States as the person who made their money generally wants to live with their family in the United States. Next, as previously states, the illegal immigrants do work and help the companies that they work for make a profit through products and services. >My opponent closes his case by saying that governments should protect their own people. This is true. However, most illegal immigrants are from Mexico and the Mexican government does not offer this. This is why immigrants come to the United States. >I await the next response of my respected opponent.