This House Supports Free Immigration

I HAVE RECENTLY DISCOVERED THAT MY OPPONENT IS EXPLOITING AN UNFAIR BUG. THIS BUG ELIMINATES THE 8000 CHARACTER LIMIT WHILE I AM LIMITED TO 8000. AFTER ASKING AIRMAX, I AM THUS TO RECEIVE CONDUCT. I ask my opponent to try and limit himself to 8000 characters for the final round. I also notice a lack of sources which I can verify his information (a link). I remind my opponent NOT to post a new argument in the final round as I cannot refute it. A new argument I believe is a 7 point forfeit. As with the initial argument, brain drain (is an issue of pay and skill) should be separated from the issue of free immigration. This is a blatant lie; I have clearly shown that brain drain is a result of mass immigration. It is clearly related to free immigration and isn’t separate from it. Unemployment is not the sole matter of free immigration. True, but free immigration will lead to increased unemployment. This is basic and simple logic. People come with no jobs seeking jobs, they are unemployed. Exactly, I have unwitting answered my own argument above. This quote is clearly supporting my argument, a direct contradiction to what my opponent would have you believe. The proof is in the pudding. Not sure what my opponent means by this, I have shown how welfare is affected by immigration. I gave evidence quite clearly And I have given evidence clearly proving the contrary in numerous American states. Furthermore, Prime Minister David Cameron has admitted that immigration to Britain is becoming out of control and “the impact on British-born workers has been brushed under the carpet for too long. ” [1] I am not opposed to CA teachers being laid off, in fact I think we should disband the entire Teacher Union while we are at it. This is not a refutation, merely your opinion. As above, education, health care, and the justice system has nothing to do with free immigration. This is clearly incorrect. Education, health care, and the justice system are all affected by free immigration. It is obvious that all public services will be affected by increased population. You said: “it doesn’t encourage cultural diversity at all. ” I have shown it does. I showed how a MASS AMOUNT of new immigrants doesn’t at all encourage diversity (which you have not refuted). Yes it is, why do you not want new people in our country? Because as I have shown it will affect our country, their country, and all of our public services, not because of a lack of space. What my opponent would rather do is just open up the country completely. A: an absurd “no”. This is a complete contradiction in your case. Free immigration is essentially opening up the country completely to other countries. Direct contradiction. Yes it does, the courts have held otherwise and support the argument I advance. The constitution is not extended to anyone out of America. If it was, we are totally unconstitutional because Chinese people in China under our constitution are being oppressed. The constitution applies to all persons IN the United States, not possible people in the future. In the case of Plyler v Doe those aliens were in the United States. I will now refute my opponent’s arguments. EQUAL PROTECTION: THE CONSTITUTION As I have shown the constitution doesn’t extend to anyone not in America. Our constitution doesn’t affect anyone living in Malaysia who wants to immigrate to the United States. This point is invalidated. Immigration consists of no more than moving to a foreign country. For the purist libertarian, national boundaries are only lines on a map, demarcating one “country” from another This is completely ridiculous. Is moving to a different city in your state mere miles away at all similar to moving to, say, Russia? ? No it isn’t! Anyone can tell you that immigration is completely different from moving to a different city. You abide by different laws, different language, different culture, different, everything! ! and are escaping to another country in order to avoid paying the just penalties With free immigration this is allowed. I invite my opponent to respond to this. whose owner is willing to take him in (maybe for a fee) What about immigrants buying houses? Renting apartments and condos is fine, but when we suddenly have 350,000 people waiting to rent your condo there will be problems. This point in general is very obscure and unrelated to this debate. I have never said that the immigrants won’t have living quarters, but free immigration will destroy public services. This point seems to be related to what my opponent has said about the problem of free immigration is property. It isn’t. But by and large, the Progressive movement was one of the most harmful episodes for American liberty and constitutionally limited government in U. S. history. The Progressive movement was not at all harmful to American liberty and constitution. I have already refuted your argument regarding the constitution, plus I have shown why free immigration is harmful to society. A government has a duty to its people first and foremost, not to possible immigrants. The Progressive Movement was one of the greatest episodes of American liberty. This was tragic for those who wanted to enter America, most notably when huddled masses of European Jews sought refuge from Hitler’s terror but were denied entrance into the land of the free by Franklin Roosevelt, one of the most socialist president’s in American history. An American government has a duty to its people. At this time, America had not yet joined WWII. Countries shielding Jews were attacked by Hitler. What the American government did at the time was prevent a possible war that they didn’t want to enter. Furthermore, Franklin Roosevelt is considered by many to be a great president. Is anyone whom is against free immigration a socialist? ? Thus, David Cameron is a socialist. Obama is a socialist. This is completely ridiculous to associate socialism with immigration controls! and it shows the socialist origins of anti-free immigration controls. In its history, its theory, and its practice, free immigration controls are just one more boondoggle of dysfunctional, immoral, unconstitutional, and socialist central planning. Free immigration controls are what have prevented many an economy and civilization from collapsing. The constitution here is irrelevant, and socialism cannot be associated with immigration controls. Severe restrictions on free immigration compromise the liberty of people inside as well as outside the borders People outside of the border don’t have our liberties. our occupancy of this country would be legally questionable. My opponent is blurring the line between free immigration and immigration. PEOPLE CAN STILL IMMIGRATE LEGALLY. FREE IMMIGRATION IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM IMMIGRATION. Our occupancy is completely legal. This is ridiculous. I refer back to all of my original points, specifically the 98% that con failed to acknowledge Many of your points are pretty irrelevant, plus you had a whopping 20 000 character response! ! I am limited to 8000, of course I will not address all the back story, irrelevancy, and every word of your 20 000 character speech. I would like to mention the lack of serious refutation on my opponent’s part too, merely referring to personal experience as evidence. checked freedom is NOT freedom in the slightest. This is a ridiculous. I desire to steal from a store. My freedom is being checked by the law, thus I am not free. A lot of my points my opponent has not addressed sufficiently as I have refuted all of his points, his refutation, and provided sources for it. Once again, I AM TO RECEIVE CONDUCT for the bug. All my arguments stand, I have refuted my opponent’s arguments, it is an easy VOTE CON. SOURCES: . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...