European countries have a right to be anti-immigration, while America does not.

You should be careful when mentioning Nazi Germany in relation to an opponents points, odds are you will have fallen right into their trap. Just gonna point that out. P1 defense Unfortunately, Nazi Germany clearly had the right to commit mass genocide, because the state/nation is the one that can create and distribute rights, and therefore the state has infinite right. If Germany did not have the 'right' to do so, who would inforce it? Yes, other countries attacked, but that is not because Germany had no right to do what it did, but because, as I have mentioned, Germany had no justification to commit genocide. I should also like to point out that the German genocide was not just of Jewish Immigrants, but also of the native Jewish people. But, since we agree that justification is a better word than right anyway, I think that this entire defense is pointless. But, since Germany killed even native German-Jewish people, among other groups, clearly immigration was not the problem, it was simply anti-sematism, so my first does not lend itself to your second point, as you have claimed. Moving on... P2 defense Before I do this, I would like to mention that the 602% was a joke, and I made it clear it was so. But, I would be happy to go with my opponents 300 million, which is approximately the population of America. He gave the figure, so i assume he is good to use it. According to him (because, again, we can't check sources), the number of illegal immigrants in America is equal or greater than the population of citizens. Furthermore, the resolution merely says 'immigration'. This implies all immigration, and in context of America, most people who use the term 'anti-immigration' refer to illegal immigration. Let's not make this an argument of semantics, as, in America, the terminology is different than in Europe. Certainly, in Europe, we may use solely legal immigrants, as the majority of European anti-immigration speakers speak about mostly legal immigrants. But, in American immigration policy, anti-immigration refers to illegal immigrants almost exclusively. Your best bet would be to argue that America has no justification to argue against illegals, rather than attempt to change the American terminology of a word, which would, of course, be the terminology used when we are discussing American issues. Therefore, my second point clearly stands. P3 defense If one is not better than the other, why should it matter which culture is where and why and how and who makes what kind of food. In fact, your bitter explanation for why you support 'national identity' comes off nothing short of racist. 'Italians are italians' 'French are french'. What makes a Frenchman French? Someone is French even if they are immigrants from China who are citizens of Frace. Therefore, all citizens of a country still belong to that country. A French-residing citizen of France who immigrated from Mexico is still French. And why do these countries have a right to keep their identity? Besides, Identity is such an abstract concept, wouldn't it change according to how a culture changes over time? This 'something special' that you call identity sounds, quite frankly, non-existent. A made up idea, created by racists, to prevent other races from entering their states. There is nothing inherently 'French' or inherently 'Italian', as cultures will do what they have since the beginning of time -- adapt and change for differing times and circumstances. Perhaps I don't see where your argument in this point resides, other than 'there is something special' that magically makes your argument true. There is nothing 'special' about any culture that immigration would destroy. As to your best point, regarding ghettos, gangs, and racism, how is that not a problem as well in the US. If Europe has a right to be worried of that, so should Americans, both for legal and illegal immigrants. There are immigrant gangs in parts of America that are strengthened by increased immigration. Ghettos grow every year, populated largely by illegal and legal immigrants, as well as minorities. In fact, the biggest ghettos in the first world are not in Europe, but in America, cities such as Detroit and parts of LA. Also, if you would define the 'true American culture' as that of Native Americans, than it is native Americans who should have a say in whether or not we should be anti-immigration and, given the extremely poor conditions of the reservations, I would say they have total grounds to be anti-immigration. Furthermore, if America's 'testing ground for hundreds of cultures failed', than that means that America should be anti immigration, because they failed. Usually, if something is/will fail, you have a right or justification to be against that something, in order to prevent the failure from continuing. Your entire attack on my third point falls because of those reasons. P4 defense Well... I don't even really understand your first paragraph. Germany has a large population of immigrants (about 18.75%) you know, and their culture is one of the strongest in Europe. Not to mention Germany's booming economy, very powerful status, and good living conditions. They are getting tons of immigrants, they are doing very well, and their culture is not threatened in the slightest. Germany, by itself, disproves your argument, because the resolution states that European countries have this anti-immigration right, but Germany should not have it any more so than America. In order for your point to be correct, it must apply to all European countries (or, at least, the major ones, which Germany is). Even if it doesn't apply to Germany, your argument that they don't want any more culture is false. The BNP and other nationalist organizations are, usually, the ones calling for less culture. But, the majority of the population of nearly all European states support multiculturalism, the only exception being the United Kingdom. Also, your point that 'they have the internet for that' is kinda silly. Have you ever eaten authentic cultural food hand-made by a member of that culture through the computer? Or done/been to a cultural tradition or party through a screen? That's just silly. A computer can provide you information about a culture, but you will not experience it. P5: A country has every 'right' to go back on a mistake Apparently, according to you, a country, once it engages in a course of action is NOT ALLOWED WHATSOEVER to change that course in the slightest. In that case, France and Britain should still be at war, North Korea should forever continue concentration camps, Russia should never stop invading Ukraine, the conflict in the Middle East should never end, and Australia should only ever be home to prisoners and exiles of Europe. At least, that is what logically follows from your argument that a path that a nation goes on 'cannot go back'. Let me ask, what is to keep America from going back on that, exactly? Especially if it is for the benefit of its people? P6: Meanwhile, European countries have no right to defend an abstract idea I have already pointed out that 'identity' and 'culture' are abstract ideas and, as they are abstract, they really can't be physically defended and, being abstract, they provide no practical and physical use to a country whatsoever. You can't really argue that they have a 'magical property' that makes them so valuable as to defend. In actuality, I don't see any reason why identity, from a non-sentimental and practical standpoint, should be defended, even if they were threatened. Abstract ideas provide no physical value to a nation to defend unless that abstract idea allows the government of that nation to function (examples being political ideas such as democracy and communism. Not 'identity'.) You think you have destroyed my points when, in actuality, you have only weakened your own.