The United States Should Expand Immigration

Legal Immigration or Illegal Immigration? I am very disappointed in Lee’s rebuttal, as it was completely unrelated to the premise of this debate, which is explained in the first round. As I said, “This will be a debate on whether or not legal immigration should be expanded in the United States.” All of Con’s arguments and rebuttals completely ignored every argument I made in support of legal immigration, and instead she talks exclusively about illegal immigration. Thus, I have nothing to rebut in relation to the topic of this debate, expanded legal immigration. I’m also unsure why con would define immigration by using immigrating within the definition. That is not very helpful. Here is a more proper definition of immigration: Immigration: "the process by which people come in to a foreign country to live there, or the number of people coming in.” http://www.yourdictionary.com... Rebuttals I understand that there is a debate to be had about illegal immigration, but that is not the topic of this debate. This debate is about the pros and cons of the expansion of legal immigration. In fact, the only time I even brought up illegal immigration is when I said legal immigration would decrease illegal immigration, which is something con would evidently support. I’m uncertain why she would ignore that argument. There’s also a point in her arguments where she states a quote, “If a wealthy person is to hire unskilled laborers, he is more likely to go for illegal immigrants as he can pay them less as compared to what he will have to pay a legal immigrant or a local unskilled laborer.” This claim actually demonstrates that she is supportive of legal immigrants, as she has concern over the pay of these immigrants. Again, why would Lee not support expanded legal immigration to cause a decrease in the demand of illegal immigration? Sources For the sake of keeping the debate professional and respectable, I’m going to bring up sources. To start, Lee did not correctly quote most of her sources. She simply copy and pasted many of the words from these sources and didn’t add any quotes or context. One of the most disturbing issues with con’s arguments is they have such terrible sources. First off, the first buzzle source leads to nowhere and the second buzzle source is an opinion piece of some random guy that didn't correctly source his article. It's much more reputable to find the original sources of any statistics, or atleast use a respected news organization or journalist. The primary source con uses throughout her arguments, Western Voices World News, is a white supremacist organization that has hateful, jingoistic propaganda all over their website. I welcome all to open the website and judge for yourselves. http://www.wvwnews.net... On the topic of immigration, their motives are clearly based on racial division and ensuring white supremacy. On the same website, you can find propaganda pieces like this flyer. As a Hispanic myself, I’m offended that this source was cited, and I would like con to be more careful with her choice of sources in the future. Conclusion My opponent has failed to quote many of her sources, failed to debate on the actual topic, failed to even acknowledge my arguments, and sourced the most white supremacist organization I’ve ever seen. So far, it’s clear that I deserve the conduct point on the grounds that she has not debated the given topic and failed to give the first arguments in round 1 as I requested. I have earned the argument points because I have been the only one to give arguments on legal immigration. I deserve the source points because my sources were reputable and hers were horrendous. I also deserve the spelling/grammar point as there was an abundance of spelling and grammar errors in her arguments last round. I will give Lee next round to explain her reasons for using these sources (I am assuming negligence), rethink her entire argument, actually respond to my round 2 arguments on legal immigration, and debate expanded legal immigration. I will be not adding new arguments this round for expanded legal immigration in order give her this chance. I sincerely hope con redeems herself in the next round.