Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Deporting illegal immigrants in the US

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 18:54, 16 July 2010 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Pro)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 19:02, 16 July 2010 (edit)
Ifisher18 (Talk | contribs)
(Pro)
Next diff →
Line 96: Line 96:
*'''Illegal aliens have no moral right to remain in the US.''' [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14953 Ian de Silva. "How to Deport 10 Million Illegal Aliens." Human Events. May 18th, 2006]: "As a legal immigrant and naturalized American who waited years for a green card, I mince no words when I say I have no sympathy whatsoever for illegal aliens. They have no right to be here, and their claim that their marches are the latest struggle in civil rights is poppycock. At this rate, a burglar who invades your house will have an equal claim of ownership to your house merely because he is inside the house." *'''Illegal aliens have no moral right to remain in the US.''' [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14953 Ian de Silva. "How to Deport 10 Million Illegal Aliens." Human Events. May 18th, 2006]: "As a legal immigrant and naturalized American who waited years for a green card, I mince no words when I say I have no sympathy whatsoever for illegal aliens. They have no right to be here, and their claim that their marches are the latest struggle in civil rights is poppycock. At this rate, a burglar who invades your house will have an equal claim of ownership to your house merely because he is inside the house."
-*'''Deporting illegal immigrants maintains moral goal of security.''' The primary purpose of the government is to maintain national security of its people. Deporting illegal immigrants, who potentially pose a security risk to US citizens, is potentially a matter of security. This is particularly true when referring to illegal aliens who commit crimes or who are suspected ties to terrorism.+*'''Deporting illegal immigrants maintains moral goal of security.''' The primary purpose of the government is to maintain national security of its people. Deporting illegal immigrants, who potentially pose a security risk to US citizens, is potentially a matter of security. This is particularly true when referring to illegal aliens who commit crimes or who have suspected ties to terrorism.

Revision as of 19:02, 16 July 2010

Should the US adopt policies to deport all illegal immigrants?

Background and context

Illegal immigration is a significant issue in the United States. While some advocate for deporting all illegal immigrants, as a matter of policies, others say it is too difficult, particularly in the context of there being somewhere between 12 to 20 million of them.


Contents

Feasibility: Is mass deportation a viable option?

Pro

  • The US is capable of deporting all illegal immigrants. CNN’s Lou Dobbs said that, "When this president and open-borders, illegal-alien-amnesty advocates say, ‘You can’t deport them,’ my answer is, ‘You wanna bet?’ Because this is the United States."[1]
John Lillpop. "Most distressing is Bush's assertion that deportation of millions of illegal aliens is 'impossible.'" Canada Free Press. January 20, 2007: "How in the world can it be "impossible" for the most powerful and technologically advanced nation in the world to remove criminals who have invaded our nation at time of war?"
  • Deporting illegal immigrants in smaller numbers is feasible. Ian de Silva. "How to Deport 10 Million Illegal Aliens." Human Events. May 18th, 2006: "no one is seriously talking about mass deportation, for anyone with a modicum of common sense knows we could not round up all the illegal aliens at once. [...] However, we can round them up in smaller numbers, and over time, the cumulative effect of round-ups will have an undeniably deterrent effect."
  • Mass deportation under Operation Wetback was successful. Operation Wetback was very successful in the removal of nearly one million illegal immigrants from the United States in 1954.
  • Illegals should be deported, not given amnesty. Jim Gilchrist, MBA, CPA, Founder and President of The Minuteman Project, in a May 31, 2007 Global Politician interview titled "Jim Gilchrist of Minuteman Project on Immigration, Terror, Elections": "I’m pro-deportation or if you want to use a nicer word, pro-repatriation. You cannot have a defeatist attitude towards the problem and have a solution. The repatriation of illegals must begin with a recognition of the problem and a plan. We may be called names, but the names our grandchildren will call us will be worse when they have to live in a destroyed country. There must be a multi-faceted approach, including arresting illegals and also cutting off social welfare programs to them."[2]
  • Path to citizenship is more difficult than deportation. Joe Guzzardi, English Instructor at Lodi Adult School. "Joe Feels Good About Immigration Bill..." VDARE.com. June 2, 2006: "S. 2611 is not administratively manageable. Has anyone wondered how many hundreds of millions of pieces of paper would have to be processed to legalize tens of millions of aliens? Forget it."[3]
  • Costs of deportation made up for by savings to taxpayers. Edwin S. Rubenstein, MA, President of Edwin S. Rubenstein (ESR) Research Economic Consultants, in a Jan. 26, 2006 VDare.com article entitled "No-one’s Suggesting Mass Deportation—But It Would Pay For Itself,": "even if $206 billion was a reasonable cost estimate, mass deportation would be well worth it. Just consider the economic burden illegal aliens impose on the rest of us... Total fiscal benefits of deportation are thus estimated at $51 billion per year... At this rate, mass deportation would pay for itself in about four years. Plus, of course, we’d get America back."[4]
  • General statements for deporting illegals from US. John McCain said during a July interview on KQTH-FM in Tuscon: "No amnesty. Many of them need to be sent back."[5]


Con

  • Deportation of at least 12 million illegal immigrants would be impractical. To send 12 million illegal immigrants abroad by plane would require about 30,000 flights. To deport that many people by bus would be cheaper, but would still require 240,000 bus loads. Furthermore, these assumptions neglect both the possibility of trial, and the fact that illegal immigrants come from places other than Mexico.
  • Mass deportation would be very expensive. The deportation of all illegal immigrants could cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion. Given the current economic crisis, it is simply not wise nor practical to deport all illegal immigrants.
  • Deportation is not feasible; legalization is only option Michael R. Bloomberg, MBA, 108th Mayor of the City of New York, in a July 5, 2006: "We need to get real about the people who are now living in this country illegally – in many cases raising families and paying taxes. The idea of deporting these 11 or 12 million people – about as many as live in the entire state of Pennsylvania – is pure fantasy. Even if we wanted to, it would be physically impossible to carry out. If we attempted it – and it would be perhaps the largest round-up and deportation in world history – the social and economic consequences would be devastating. Let me ask you: Would we really want to spend billions of dollars on a round-up and deportation program that would split families in two – only to have these very same people and millions more, illegally enter our country again? Of course not. America is better than that – and smarter than that. There is only one practical solution, and it is a solution that respects the history of our nation: Offer those already here the opportunity to earn permanent status and keep their families together."[6]
  • Deporting illegals would be economically damaging "The GOP's Immigration Fumble." The Wall Street Journal. Aug. 4, 2002: "Deporting them for the duration of the application process would break up families. It also would disrupt businesses that depend on foreign labor for jobs that Americans don't want... The U.S. needs policies in place that recognize the economic realities that come with a long, porous border between an immensely rich country and a poor one. We need programs that will legalize the status of foreigners who are here already and contributing to our economy. We need more legal channels, such as temporary work programs, to handle future arrivals. And we need to speed up family reunifications."[7]
  • Deportation disrupts immigrant families The Wall Street Journal, in its Aug. 4, 2002 editorial titled "The GOP's Immigration Fumble," offered the following: "Deporting them for the duration of the application process would break up families."
  • Lax enforcement of the Harris Bill highlights the impracticality of mass deportation. Though a bill providing for the stoppage of all immigration to America for five years was passed by a vote of 51-16 in 1922, enforcement was proven to be the primary cause of its ultimate failure.


Economics: Will the deportation of all illegal immigrants support the economy?

Pro

  • Illegal immigrants deprive Americans of social services. These include government welfare, housing, food, and shelter.
  • Exploiting cheap labor should not support allowing illegals. In a letter to Sen. William Fulbright, Eisenhower quoted a report in The New York Times that said, "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican ‘wetbacks’ (rooted from the watery route taken by the Mexican immigrants across the Rio Grande) to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government."[8]


Con

  • Mass deportation would be very expensive. The deportation of all illegal immigrants could cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion.
  • Immigrants are potential taxpayers and workers, and can contribute to society. By deporting all illegal immigrants, the United States could potentially lose both taxpayers and hardworking individuals, who can be beneficial to society.

Morality: Is mass deportation of illegal immigrants morally acceptable?

Pro

  • Illegal aliens have no moral right to remain in the US. Ian de Silva. "How to Deport 10 Million Illegal Aliens." Human Events. May 18th, 2006: "As a legal immigrant and naturalized American who waited years for a green card, I mince no words when I say I have no sympathy whatsoever for illegal aliens. They have no right to be here, and their claim that their marches are the latest struggle in civil rights is poppycock. At this rate, a burglar who invades your house will have an equal claim of ownership to your house merely because he is inside the house."
  • Deporting illegal immigrants maintains moral goal of security. The primary purpose of the government is to maintain national security of its people. Deporting illegal immigrants, who potentially pose a security risk to US citizens, is potentially a matter of security. This is particularly true when referring to illegal aliens who commit crimes or who have suspected ties to terrorism.


Con

  • The Trail of Tears clearly demonstrates the injustice and hardship caused by mass deportation. "In all some ninety-thousand Indians were relocated. The Cherokee were among the last to go. Some reluctantly agreed to move. Others were driven from their homes at bayonet point. Almost two thousand of them died along the route they remembered as the Trail of Tears."
  • It is the duty of the United States to shield immigrants from hardship they may face in their home country. As the world's leading superpower, it is the responsibility of the United States to serve as a haven for immigrants escaping devastating conditions. Many immigrants are fleeing from famine, war, political strife, or religious persecution, and it is our duty to protect these people by allowing them to take refuge.


Politics: Is deportation of illegal immigrants politically feasible?

Pro

  • Angering hispanics should not stop enforcing law, deporting illegals. David Sheets. "Start deporting illegal immigrants." DesMoinesRegister. July 1, 2010: "The U.S.-Mexican border is allowed to be porous because of misguided attitudes that border security will anger Hispanics in the United States and the Mexican government. Failing to act, regardless of who is angered by enforcing the law, is an abdication of government responsibility to regulate the flow of people into and out of this nation's borders."


Con

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here



Constitutionality: Does the Constitution support the deportation of illegal immigrants?

Pro

  • The right to free movement only applies w/in borders. These rights are granted by the Constitution, so can only apply within the confines of those national, sovereign borders.


Con

  • Freedom of movement is an unalienable human right. Whether written in the Constitution or not, the freedom of movement is an unalienable human right that must be protected at all costs.


Opinion: Does public opinion support deporting illegal immigrants?

Pro

  • Some polls find Americans support deporting illegals. A CBS News/New York Times Poll dated September 2007 asked, "Should illegal immigrants be prosecuted and deported for being in the U.S. illegally, or shouldn't they?" In response, 69% of American citizens believed illegal immigrants should be deported for being in the U.S. illegally, while only 24% believed they should not.


Con

  • Americans oppose the deportation of all illegal immigrants. A USA Today/Gallup Poll dated March 2007 asked, "Should the government deport all illegal immigrants back to their home country?" In response, only 24% of American citizens believed the government should deport all illegal immigrants. Furthermore, 59% of American citizens believed the government should allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens, but only if they meet certain requirements.


Pro/con sources

Pro


Con

See also

External links and resources


Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.