The United States government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the United

P1: The topic is The US gov. should substantially strengthen the regulation of immigration to the US. The issue is WHETHER OR NOT the US gov should strengthen the regulation of immigration to the US. The topic I see above doesn't say regulation of immigration in relation to US citizenship. Immigration: "an act or instance of immigrating", "a party of immigrants; broadly : the number of immigrants arriving during a given period" (http://www.merriam-webster.com... ). Regulation of immigration: directly relates to the regulation of immigrants. So I believe we ARE supposed to be debating the regulation of immigrants as individuals not belonging to the US. P2: I said the debate was about the regulation of immigration to the US. Meaning laws or rules put in place to CONTROL and MANAGE it.Not a fraud that only applies to immigrants who are already here. Again, Premise is unclear. Sentences 3 and 4 have no sources. Sentence 5 is off topic. I am going to state my Premise 2 as such: immigration to the US has no direct negative effect on the wages of the US citizens because it causes no competeitiveness between them. Immigrants often have a different skill set (manual labor), so they seek jobs different from those of US citizens. ( http://www.americanprogress.org...) *Ad hominem: "when an arguer rejects his or her opponent's conclusion on the basis of some characteristic of that person, typically his or her circumstances, social position, history, or personal associations." ( chapter 5 of the critical thinking textbook) I never rejected your conclusion, i rejected your premises, not based on your personality, but based on the fact they they did not support your conclusion. Perhaps you should re-read your textbook. P3: "The reason most come to the U.S is because the immigration system is as is." I believe i said most not all. Since you want to go back to my round one premises, maybe you should also look at the sources I've provided which allowed me to make such a broad statement. Begging the question means that my conclusion isn't stated and has to be assumed from the premises. I don't believe that happened either. Again, I didn't say all. " the arguer assumes as a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences such as the control of immigrants." That's my position as Con. This regulation will not assume "absolute control" of the immigrants bodies (never said that either), however a stronger regulation on immigration will lead to them not entering the US (as stated before). It's control, but it isn't absolute. As for the 1st sentence in premise 3 for my round 2 being a deterrent, If someone who is from another country knows that the US has stronger rules in regards to immigration and becoming a citizen (which you are arguing), they would be less likely to migrate here. "If we are not regulating and remaining current with the legal language in which we use to interpret the law to citizens the immigration system will become burdened with fraud and create corrupt theories which authorized citizens interpret and communicate with immigrants or potential U.S citizens." (PRO), my argument is not to stop regulation, it's against INCREASING IT. (the rest of this argument doesn't pertain to topic). C: The US Government should not substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the US.