Tag Archive | "illegal immigration"

Debate: Resolved, that the troops be mobilized for the southern border.

Background: Ever since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, illegal aliens crossing the border has been a hot button issue in US politics. George Bush, along with most Republicans, was in favor of strengthening border patrol. Along with illegal immigrants come many third world diseases and, most dangerously, the issue of drug cartels. By smuggling pot across the lightly defended Mexican border, the drug cartels have earned enough money so that they essentially control the borderlands and Mexican government, as insiders will attest. These drug cartels may also be smuggling in undocumented Muslim terrorists. Obama favors strengthening border security as well, but what part of the country and to what extreme should House Republicans and Obama take precautions to guard the border? Should he solely increase funding, or send national troops to strengthen security?

Pro:

  • US troop presence will politically intimidate the drug cartels.
  • Illegal alien trafficking will decrease as a result.
  • Citizens along the border will have an increased sense of security from Mexican drug cartels and smuggled terrorists.

Con:

  • Increased violence and attacks on illegal aliens may occur.
  • Troop mobilization may fuel a backlash from Mexico and the drug cartels.
  • Such a disproportionate response only increases our already over-the-top military spending.

~KS

DEC 2010

Posted in Domestic Affairs, MilitaryComments (3)

Resolved, illegal immigration has more economic benefit than harm.

Illegal immigration has been a controversial issue in the United States, especially since the second half of the twentieth century. Recently, Arizona’s government signed the Arizona Senate Bill 1070 into law, which is the strictest and broadest anti-illegal immigration measure in decades. Many argue that an increase in the demand for low wage laborers will cultivate the growth of the economy. Immigrants often take the jobs that most citizens will not do for a living. Illegal immigrants also contribute to the tax system by paying sales taxes. Opponents claim that illegal immigrants take jobs away from native born citizens, and are not forced to pay taxes on their wages.  Moreover, they argue that increases in illegal immigration directly correlate to an increased crime rate, which leads to a higher price tag for protecting American citizens and repairing any damaged property. Also, they point to the strain that illegal immigrants cause on our country’s already overextended healthcare system.  Is illegal immigration more economically advantageous or harmful to our country?

Posted in UncategorizedComments (1)

Resolved, that levels of legal immigration be reduced when the national unemployment rate is 8% and above.

With the national unemployment rate at a worrisome 9.6%, many believe that legal immigration should be scaled back in order to provide more job opportunities for American citizens. Despite that fact, the legal immigration level continues to rise.  Whereas illegal immigrants take jobs many Americans do not want, legal immigrants take jobs that American citizens desire. Many people demand that these jobs stay in the hands of Americans, and that more immigrants will only do harm to the economy. But others contend that reducing the number of legal immigrants allowed in the country only increases the number of immigrants who come illegally.  Should America limit the number of legal immigrants, or will that only worsen the already horrendous problem of illegal immigration?

Posted in Domestic Affairs, EconomicsComments (1)

Resolved, that the United States Constitution be amended to replace birthright citizenship with hereditary citizenship.

Known as the Citizenship Clause, the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states, “[A]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This clause, which establishes jus soli or “right of territory,” has been the center of recent controversy.  In light of record levels of immigration, legal and illegal, and measures taken to combat the influx of people from other countries, legislators across the nation have considered amending the Constitution to replace birthright citizenship with hereditary citizenship.  Proponents of amending the Constitution argue that birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigrants to have children in the country in order to avoid deportation. Supporters of birthright citizenship argue that it is an important part of the Constitution and is part of the reason why immigrants flock to the U.S. in search of better lives and greater freedom. Nonetheless, many maintain that drastic action needs to be taken to address the problem of illegal immigration.  Would amending the U.S. Constitution to replace birthright citizenship with hereditary citizenship be just drastic enough?

Posted in "Road Less Traveled", Domestic Affairs, Hot TopicsComments (0)