Debate:On Illegal Immigration

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by Javascap.

Following the massive and rapid growth of the talkpage to my essay, and after a consultation with Human, I have decided to start a debate portal on illegal immigration, feel free to post your beliefs on the subject, what you think, and debate below that. If you undergo a change of opinion as a result of this debate, feel free to change your input under the "Beliefs" section.


  • Javascap: Illegal immigration is, first and foremost, a crime. Regardless of political niceties, when a criminal breaks the law (Unless they aren't caught) they are penalized for what they did. I believe the same should apply to all illegal immigrants.
Illegal Immigrants have only committed one crime, a misdemeanor: Improper Entry. Improper Entry is punishable by a fine between $50 and $500. If you mean that they should all be charged at least $50, I'm sure most would be happy to oblige.
Speaking about the US-Mexico immigration issue: If Americans are so outraged about illegal immigration, they should boycott services that rely on illegal immigrants. So far, I haven't heard anyone proposing this. I can see why it's hard to support a boycott because so many important industries use illegal immigrants (restaurants, construction, and farms, to name a few)-- I don't expect average citizens to check if every single food item in their fridge come from farms that employ illegals. Illegal immigration continues because the government doesn't punish employers for hiring illegal immigrants. Like it or not, poor Mexicans will cross the border to improve their lives (put yourself in their shoes). Employers hire illegals because they can pay dirt for labor. The most effective way to force employers to change is through boycotting. Yet I think even the most die-hard opponents of illegal immigration have the guts to boycott(but if the crime is so heinous, what's the problem?).
From the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
(bolding/coloring mine)
Art. 3 Sect. 1. Do you challenge any of the blue statements? (I am going somewhere with this) Lyra § talk 16:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
I am going somewhere with this
I, for one, am extremely curious to know what was going to be the argument. Unfortunately for me, Javascap never replied :( (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


On the subject of illegal immigration, I find that most of the debate revolves around finding solutions to the problem. Except for a small group of human rights advocates who actually assist illegal immigrants in making it across the Mexican-American border, most Americans recognize illegal immigration as a problem (though some aspects of it are undoubtedly inflated).

I have noticed that among most of the political right in the US, the issue of illegal immigration is terribly exaggerated — the threat is severe to America, they say. I am, without hesitation, willing to say that much of this comes from their inherent contempt prior to investigation, which seems to stem from their nativistic and xenophobic tendencies. While morons like Lou Dobbs attempt to use the church in Mexico to criticize Mexican immigration policy (or lack thereof) and spew demagoguery over the airwaves by exploiting serious concerns of potential terrorism, disease containment, and drug smuggling, an attentive audience takes notes. The venom of the right is deeply concerning, for it hinders our ability to discuss the matter of illegal immigration responsibly when we have to constantly refute the idiotic suggestions of using border fences, implementing the systematic deportation of twelve million people, and violence.

I am in favor of pragmatic and sympathetic solutions to illegal immigration. Increased cooperation on behalf of the Mexican government, granting citizenship to illegal immigrants who are presently in the United States (for the purposes of tax payment, inoculation, and perhaps a payment of fines), increased border security, and implementing boycotts on/penalizing businesses who employ illegal immigrants are all available options which, if used in combination, would be effective in combating illegal immigration. --emc [TALK]

If we actually wanted to stop illegal immigration we'd go after those that employ them.

Illegal immigration is a tricky issue, mostly because few are willing to acknowledge the truth. America needs cheep labor, it's a great asset to import laborers. However, the social support structures (like welfare and medicare) can't support a large influx of poor people, to many immigrants too quickly can destroy a culture, and Republicans really don't want them to vote as they vote overwhelmingly democratic. The solution has been to import third class citizens. Declare them to be illegal so you're now justified in denying them the vote and denying them welfare. Don't make any serious effort to deport them if they behave and stick to providing cheap labor, but hold the threat ready to keep them from getting uppity. Finally, blame all your problems on them and make up some reason for not changing anything like "we won't do anything until the border is secure" never mind that that condition is to vague to ever be met).

One improvement would be to allow "guest workers", official second class citizens. We get cheap labor and they're better off than if they'd stayed in their home country.--TripleO (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Circular flow[edit]

One major issue is that ever since we've gotten obsessed with securing the border (the US-Mexico border is already the most militarized between two nations in peace), circular flow has collapsed. Ironically, fear of undocumented immigrants staying here has created laws that actually do cause them to stay. Circular flow is the flow of illegal immigrants between two countries, but the laws make it so hard to get in, that people just stay. Also, immigration courts have a system where the defendant is on Skype and the translator on the phone. It is drastically underfunded and understaffed, and natural-born citizens have been deported en masse. The immigration system is in crisis, and instead of fixing it, the GOP is bordering on scapegoating Hispanics. I personally support an open border, which would massively help refugees of the chaos that holds much of Latin America and the Middle East in its grip. And I feel that at least 25% of our immigration funding should go towards immigration courts (right now it's only 2%), and undocumented immigrants should get the government resources they pay for as much as any citizen or documented immigrant does. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 22:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)