#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Pro wall prove me wrong
Agree
Side Score: 27
|
 |
Don’t agree
Side Score: 26
|
|
3
points
Pro wall prove me wrong I am pro wall too. However, my main problem with the idea is that, under present plans, Trump intends only to build it across Mexico. My idea is much bolder. I think you should surround the entire country with this wall, so that your insane culture is precluded from leaving its point of origin and the rest of the species is spared interaction with a population of regressive, science-denying idiots who voted to elect a psychopath as leader. Even better, don't build any gates in the wall, so that your troops are unable to get out and liberate any sovereign UN states. Side: Agree
2
points
He doesn't think things out that far. No liberals do. And in your next post, you demonstrate your complete ignorance of history. America has never saved anyone you fucking retard. You arrived late for both world wars and the Nazis were turned back at Britain. If anything, you have us to thank for stopping them crossing the Atlantic. You're a daft brainwashed cunt Bronto. I hope you get cancer of the eyes. Side: Don’t agree
America has never saved anyone you fucking retard. Well I was there, so I knew instantly this post was a bold faced lie. Iraq invasion of Kuwait https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion ofKuwait The Invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990 was a two-day operation conducted by Iraq against the neighboring state of Kuwait, which resulted in the seven-month-long Iraqi occupation of the country. These events came to be known as the first Gulf War and resulted in the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the Iraqis setting 600 Kuwaiti oil wells on fire during their retreat. Side: Agree
1
point
1
point
0
points
I absolutely love the idea of the wall because my sister was in a near fatal car wreck because of three high illegal immigrants, Molly tibbets was killed by an illegal immigrant, and more than 60 percent of drug trade is from Mexico so call me racist all you want but whoever calls names first, lost. Side: Agree
I absolutely love the idea of the wall because my sister was in a near fatal car wreck because of three high illegal immigrants Cool story bro. I absolutely hate the idea of a wall because my sister was in a near fatal car wreck because of three corrupt Conservative nitwits who were spared jail because one of their daddies is a senator. Side: Don’t agree
|
3
points
The wall fails at everything it sets out to do. Most illegal immigration in the U.S. comes from people overstating their visas. The drugs that comes from the south don't necessarily go through the border, but are brought in in private cargo ships and private airplanes (DEA has actually found "submarines" used for drug trafficking). People that come through the border aren't any more violent than your average American. It doesn't fix the problem of illegal people already in the U.S. It's going to be an incredibly expensive structure that won't pay for itself. The wall is going to cause massive environmental damage. At the end of the day... the money that could be used to build the wall could be used to actually address the issues the wall is supposed to fix. Side: Don’t agree
1
point
4
points
1
point
Not true at all. Walls work Hello marcus: The question ISN'T whether walls WORK.. It's whether we NEED them to work. Since the only people coming here, these days, are asylum seekers from Central America, who we don't WANT to keep out, the wall isn't going to DO what right wingers THINK it'll do.. That's cause, of course, your average right winger thinks hordes of sex trafficking, diseased, Mexican drug lords are POURING in RIGHT NOW.. There is NOTHING that can be done with such epic ignorance.. excon Side: Agree
1
point
Hi, Excon. Since the only people coming here, these days, are asylum seekers from Central America, Not true. Folks are being apprehended from Pakistan, India, China, South America, Africa, and on and on. Just because they are asking for asylum does not mean they have valid asylum claims. "Mi esposo me pega," "Tengo miedo porque hay criminales en me patria," and "No puedo obtener trabajo," are not legally valid justification for claiming refugee status. your average right winger thinks hordes of sex trafficking, diseased, Mexican drug lords are POURING in RIGHT NOW. That is a libel, and you know it. We on the right acknowledge that the majority of people illegally coming across the border are otherwise decent people. That does not make it acceptable to allow the minority who are criminals (murderers, rapists, drug smugglers, thieves, sex slave traders) and people carrying TB, chagas, etc to just walk across. The reason there are rules and processes for legal entrance into the US is so that we can keep out ALL those who will make this a less safe, less healthy, less prosperous country. Those people who violate these rules for any reason are causing that system to work even worse than it already does. That increases the risk to citizens and all those immigrants who come here legally. By doing this, they DEMONSTRATE that they are a hazard, even if they would otherwise have been allowed in had they gone through proper channels at a port of entry. If some stranger broke into your home, would YOU invite them to live with you? Side: Agree
That's cause, of course, your average right winger thinks hordes of sex trafficking, diseased, Mexican drug lords are POURING in RIGHT NOW.. Statistics and factual data believe it too. There is NOTHING that can be done with such epic ignorance.. Reading stats would clear up such epic ignorance. Side: Agree
1
point
Building a fence to around your house and building a 30 foot wall across an entire continent are very different things. If your concern is illegal immigration than your focus should be on visa reform. If your only concern is only with immigration from the border a wall that'll cost billions of dollars is not the cost effective way to accomplish that. Side: Agree
1
point
The two are not mutually exclusive. What is required to most illegal immigration is: - 1 - Physical & natural barrier combined with patrols, surveillance, & bullets. - 2 - A check-in, check out system combined with ankle monitors. When people come through ports of entry on student, work, travel visas, Customs checks them in. When they leave, they get checked out. Anyone overstaying a visa is tracked down by their ankle monitor and heavily fined (minimum $5,000 plus the cost of tracking and processing). We should have a system like Australia such that visitors have to have $10,000 in escrow BEFORE entering, to ensure they can pay any necessary bills. - 3 - Improved scanning at ports of entry of shipping containers, trucks, etc. at the shippers' expense. - 4 - MOST IMPORTANTLY, Social welfare benefits only for citizens. Educational benefits(including public school) only for citizens and people who have valid visas. Non-citizens (here legally) at hospitals must be insured and pay the deductible before going home. Illegal aliens (no proof of citizenship or visa) get no treatment that is not pre-funded, and then go straight from the hospital to their country of origin without even stopping home to say goodbye to their kids or to get a toothbrush. Both children and all adults in the home must show proof of legal status. (If grandma came over illegally, and lives with her kids and grandkids, her citizen grandkids get NOTHING until she is deported. Side: Agree
1
point
Point "1": The cost of running such system does not outweigh its benefit, especially since border crossing have been decreasing since the year 2000, and calculating the economic cost of illegal immigration is extremely difficult. There are estimates that go from 20bil net gain to a 50bil net loss to the economy; those estimates include all illegal immigrants in the country like visa overstays, not just the yearly cost of the ones crossing the border. This is because everyone wants a wall before even doing an actual independent cost-benefit analysis if a barrier (or patrols, surveillance & bullets) is an effective way to control border migration. Point "2": There's a notion in law called the presumption of innocence. Treating immigrants like criminals would go against that. Tracking people communist China style simple for wanting to study or work abroad I think goes against basic notion of American freedom. That system will backfire as foreign talent would simple go elsewhere. Name another country that would consider this a rational solution; North Korea at least has the decency to give you a "tour guide". How about instead we do surprise wellness checks, which seems more reasonable. Point "3": I agree, I also think that such system would work. Just expect the price of goods to increase. Point "4": Federally funded programs do not provide for illegal immigrants, except for medical emergencies. Your state might offer state-funded welfare programs to undocumented immigrants. It is a fact that both documented and undocumented immigrants pay more into public-benefit programs than they take out. Did you forget they pay sales tax? Some pay property tax, income taxes, etc. Arizona and Florida both studied the cost of illegal immigrants on their state; Arizona found that immigrants generated $1bil more than they used, and Florida estimated that immigrants pay $1500 per capita more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Non-citizens (here legally) at hospitals must be insured and pay the deductible before going home. Illegal aliens (no proof of citizenship or visa) get no treatment. [...] Emergency medical service is a human right. Why would be the first country in the world to deny emergency medical services based on ability to pay? Hospitals already kick out uninsured patients if they come for non-emergency reasons. Due to federal privacy laws; everything said, done, or provided at a hospital is confidential. How would hospital staff be able to report a undocumented immigrant without violating a possible citizen's privacy? Are you suggesting American citizens should give up their privacy? Both children and all adults in the home must show proof of legal status. What would that accomplish? --------- I agree this is a problem, but it's a complex problem that requires well-researched and effective solutions. You have some solutions that I agree with, but others still require some thought. Side: Agree
1
point
Both children and all adults in the home must show proof of legal status. What would that accomplish? The problem with most of our welfare, etc. benefits is that they are aimed at the individual (usually a child) but often used by guardians or cohabitants. For example, illegal alien mom applies for food stamps for kid born in the US. The benefits are awarded to the kid, and the parents live off of them. If the applicant guardian must be a citizen, that removes the incentive to come and sponge off of the welfare system. Obviously, this is second best to abolishing all government handouts to individuals, organizations, and businesses. I would include all earned income tax credit refunds (refund is greater than the withholding); nobody should ever be paid by the government to be in the country. Emergency medical service is a human right. No it is not. Who told you that? It is fair and just to require all people to ALLOW others to have homes, medical care, food. This leaves the acquisition to the person who needs it. Truly a human right. Your statement implies the belief that it is okay to enslave some people to PROVIDE the needs of others. Are you really in favor of slavery? Human rights are all about individuals being free to DO things without interference by others in a way that does not interfere with the same freedom of others. Individuals' human rights all balance out such that no person's human right creates an involuntary obligation that infringes on the ability of others to exercise their human rights. When you say it is a "human right" that somebody else does something FOR you, the de facto situation is that you have espoused enslaving whoever is required to do that thing. For example, the minute you pretend that having things like housing, medical care, or food are human rights, (as opposed to the pursuit of them being a right) you have trampled all over the rights of others to choose their own actions for themselves. They no longer have the right to not give someone else their home, medical care, some of their food. You have made the right of one person to have something into the responsibility of another person not only to allow, but to provide. Side: Agree
2
points
I don't think this is a productive discussion. You are coming from an emotionally charged point of view and you are not being reasonable at all. I'm getting the impression you perceive undocumented people as less than human, not worthy of respect or dignity. Without at least a solid ground of basic human rights, this becomes a discussion why not all human should be treated equally. Illegal immigration is a problem in any country, but treatment of the people that crossed an arbitrary border is also is a problem. --- I want to answer your question about emergency medical care as a human right. After WWII with the formation of the United Nations, a wing of the UN was formed called the World Health Organization. It was formed out of this idea that health is a human right called "right to health". It became entrusted with promoting health and wellbeing around the world. The US is one of the countries that has signed its constitution. --- Lastly, if you are going to argue a complex subject avoid using fallacious reasoning. Your statement implies the belief that it is okay to enslave some people to PROVIDE the needs of others. Are you really in favor of slavery? Slavery is an institution of ownership. You own a person like you own property. Providing welfare through taxation does not imply ownership of anyone. The government doesn't own the people it taxes; therefore it is not slavery. Human rights are all about individuals being free to DO things without interference by others No, human rights is the idea that individuals are born with innate rights that should be protected by institutions. What those rights should be are arbitrary but many countries have agreed on many of them. I think a more productive discussion would be: if healthcare should be considered a human right. If so, should it be limited in some way? When you say it is a "human right" that somebody else does something FOR you... You are making a strawman argument here. Emergency workers are paid to do their job, they are not property of anyone. Treating an undocumented person does not make the emergency worker a slave anymore than if they were to treat you. Now if your argument here is about paying into welfare. Again, the government does not own the people that pay taxes. You have made the right of one person to have something into the responsibility of another person not only to allow, but to provide. You are not arguing about human rights anymore. You are making an appeal against welfare. That is a different topic and not what we were discussing. Take note that you've been jumping from topic to topic without any focus. Side: Agree
1
point
Joe Avocado, I don't think this is a productive discussion. I totally disagree. People who disagree should talk with each other. You are coming from an emotionally charged point of view and you are not being reasonable at all. My viewpoint is not emotional at all. I am simply not weighed down by the emotions used to drive the Let-Them-All-Come-In-Because-Their-Live This is a practical problem. There are some realities that are important to acknowledge without inserting any emotion into them. Reality 1- Countries are defined by their borders. Borders are where laws and jurisdiction changes. Walk two feet, and US laws no longer apply, and Canadian laws do. Where you are relative to a border defines what legal rights you do or do not have. When borders are disregarded, so are legal rights. In order to keep peace and order in the world, these legal mechanisms must function, and to do so, borders must be enforced and national sovereignty must be respected. If the governments or citizens of one country disregard the borders and laws of another country, that is an intrinsically hostile act. No nation can tolerate or, worse, encourage it and hope to survive. If you think I am overstating this, ask a Cherokee or a Sioux or a Visigoth what happens when people from another nation simply move in uncontrolled. Reality 2- There are literally BILLIONS of people who live in horrible places under terrible conditions, and we cannot help them all. ALL of them would have better lives in the US. However, there is not room for them all in the US. The US already takes in far more immigrants than any nation in the world, yet there is still an endless line of people wanting to come in. If that tide of humanity rolling across the US border is not controlled, the US will ultimately cease to exist as a nation. Again, If you think I am overstating this, ask an Apache or a Navajo, or a Gaul what happens when people from another nation simply move in uncontrolled. Reality 3- Governments are responsible for the needs and safety of their own citizens BEFORE they are responsible for anyone else. This is why it is so important for a government to effectively regulate immigration. It is the government's responsibility to ensure, to the degree possible, that no people come into the country who will in any way, intentionally or unintentionally, be bad for any of the citizens. If there is a doubt, the responsibility is to err on the side of protecting the citizen. This is why who immigrates must be controlled, and why borders must be stringently enforced. It is exactly like letting people into your home where your family is. The point of the locks on the doors of our houses is so that we can ensure that nobody comes in who even possibly MIGHT hurt our families. Our responsibility is for our kids' safety before it is for the wants or needs of anyone outside the house. Side: Agree
1
point
Joe Avocado, In response to my observation, "You have made the right of one person to have something into the responsibility of another person not only to allow, but to provide." You responded with the following. You are not arguing about human rights anymore. You are making an appeal against welfare. That is a different topic and not what we were discussing. Take note that you've been jumping from topic to topic without any focus. Actually, I am focused. 1 - If we had no social welfare system, no free health care for non-citizen indigents, etc., no citizenship by-birth to an illegal alien, then illegal immigration would not be a flood, but a trickle. So, yes, illegal immigration and welfare are already connected. 2 - The whole question of the welfare state (and socialism, for that matter) is already a human rights issue. I am just looking a little deeper into the implications and ramifications of the relationship between individual and society than most liberals I have ever conversed with (and I am still barely scratching the surface.) The general core of the liberal argument against strict and effective immigration control tools are the same as their arguments in favor of social welfare programs. That argument is always that it is somehow just to take without permission from some people, and give without demonstration of merit, but only need, (or even mere desire) to others. They use this argument with immigration, welfare, health care, foreign aid, etc., ad nauseum. The problem with this core argument is that it advocates a system that is intrinsically oppressive. In the case of welfare, etc.. it oppresses the wealthy minority, by forcing them to pay more. In the case of immigration, it oppresses the entirety of our nation's citizenry, forcing us to give up control over our home and who may enter it, and handing that control over to the aliens who come over the border without respecting our laws. The libs think human rights only apply to the disadvantaged, the have-nots. Thus they fail to recognize the obvious reality that when you trample or diminish the rights of some to grant some of their advantages to others, you have lowered the baseline of what EVERYONE's rights are. Liberty and justice matter. The heart of liberty that EVERYONE is responsible for themselves, accountable for their own actions, and thereby free to do as they choose, provided only that they not interfere with the person, property, or rights of another. Justice is that NOBODY may be held responsible for the actions or situation of another person, and that ALL rules apply to ALL people equally. Lax treatment of illegal aliens, like the welfare system violate both these tenets. Side: Agree
1
point
If we had no social welfare system, no free health care for non-citizen indigents, etc., no citizenship by-birth to an illegal alien, then illegal immigration would not be a flood, but a trickle. The reasons many undocumented people stay in a country is none of those things but mainly for work opportunities. Many times to send money back to their families back in their country of origin. The whole question of the welfare state (and socialism, for that matter) is already a human rights issue Welfare, human rights, and socialism are distinct topics with no clear connection. There's also such thing as conservative welfare programs, especially in red states. Many that have implemented merit based welfare. . That argument is always that it is somehow just to take without permission from some people, and give without demonstration of merit, but only need, (or even mere desire) to others. Paying taxes is a social contract, it is how we fund a functioning government (military, retirement accounts, etc). Without them the government would have to look elsewhere for funding, like China where it owns the country's enterprises. I think the bigger questions should be: Are taxes fair for all members of society? Are taxes being used effectively? Do welfare programs work? Merit based approach to welfare have been tried. In my state of Indiana, it had very negative effect as poverty rates actually increases in several cities. Merit makes a critical assumption: "poor people are lazy". While the reality is actually different, poor people are... poor. They don't have the resources needed to move up the socioeconomic scale, and welfare system provides this push. That argument is always that it is somehow just to take without permission from some people, and give without demonstration of merit, but only need That's because need-based welfare has been shown to work in many countries like Costa Rica, Denmark, Germany, and even the US. As it turns out merit based approaches can actually have a negative effect on poverty rates. And zero welfare would send us back hundreds of years where there was no escape from poverty, you were born poor and died poor. In the case of welfare, etc.. it oppresses the wealthy minority, by forcing them to pay more. Oppression means someone is committing an injustice against them, subjugating them to cruelty. No one is doing to the wealthy. Having higher taxation on people that earn millions of dollars can insensitive them to reinvest back into the economy, instead of the current system that incentivizes them to sit on their money. In the case of immigration, it oppresses the entirety of our nation's citizenry, forcing us to give up control over our home and who may enter it, and handing that control over to the aliens who come over the border without respecting our laws You keep using that word oppression... no one is being oppressed in this instance. You are not being treated in a cruel way by illegal immigrants. Many undocumented people are simply trying to escape circumstances back in their country of origin or looking for work opportunities in the US. The libs think human rights only apply to the disadvantaged, the have-nots. The liberal argument is that the disadvantaged should get government protection and assistance. Not that the disadvantaged are the only ones entitled to more freedom of speech, you are making another strawman argument here. [...] when you trample or diminish the rights of some to grant some of their advantages to others, you have lowered the baseline of what EVERYONE's rights are. Human rights aren't a zero-sum game, it is possible to protect they rights of each individual while giving special protections to some. I mean, we live in a society that has deemed it important to give human rights protections to corporations and yet you are still protected under the Bill of Rights. Lax treatment of illegal aliens, like the welfare system violate both these tenets. You have your own personal philosophy, and I think it's more ideological than it is practical. Because in the same breath I could say: "Liberty and Justice is only possible when all members of society are given equal opportunity to succeed. Strong protections for the underprivileged classes and a need-based social welfare program guarantee the freedom of individuals to move up the socioeconomic ladder. This allows people to be free to do what they want despite the circumstances of their birth. Justice means that everyone has equal opportunity in society and is equally accountable for their actions." Side: Agree
2
points
Joe Avacado, "Liberty and Justice is only possible when all members of society are given equal opportunity to succeed. .. Justice means that everyone has equal opportunity in society and is equally accountable for their actions." I whole-heartedly agree with you on this. Strong protections for the underprivileged classes and a need-based social welfare program guarantee the freedom of individuals to move up the socioeconomic ladder. This allows people to be free to do what they want despite the circumstances of their birth. I disagree with you on this. I think the core of it is that you seem to think that "freedom of individuals to move up the socioeconomic ladder" (which I agree is a societal responsibility to protect) implies a societal responsibility to make them ABLE to move up the socioeconomic ladder in the event that they cannot do it on their own. (To point out the distinction: Just because I am FREE to own a Ferrari, does not imply I am, or should be ABLE to buy a Ferrari. I also think (and forgive me if I am wrong) that you think societal responsibilities automatically should be fulfilled by government action. My view is that protection of the right to earn money to buy food and medical care is a government responsibility. The ensuring of the ability to earn money to buy food and medical care is a private responsibility. Side: Agree
1
point
I whole-heartedly agree with you on this. I'm glad we have found some common ground. Just because I am FREE to own a Ferrari, does not imply I am, or should be ABLE to buy a Ferrari. A Ferrari is not a basic necessity, it's a luxury. Replace Ferrari with food, shelter, or healthcare and you can see what my issue with your analogy is. [..] implies societal responsibility to make them ABLE to move up the socioeconomic ladder in the event that they cannot do it on their own. Before welfare systems were created, the world lived in extreme poverty, it was no-one's responsibility which lead to people being born poor and dying poor. Welfare has continuously shown it's effectiveness at allowing social mobility, and an escape from poverty. you think societal responsibilities automatically should be fulfilled by government action That's because established governments have shown their competence in running such systems. They have the resources, data, and labor to be able to fulfill the need of their citizens better than private enterprise. My view is that protection of the right to earn money to buy food and medical care is a government responsibility. The ensuring of the ability to earn money to buy food and medical care is a private responsibility. The problem is that poor people don't have the resources that allows them to earn higher incomes (social mobility). The majority of poor people already work, they are so strapped for income and time that they are limited in their ability to acquire better work skills through education. Welfare programs relieve this stress, not only for an individual, but also for their children. Welfare programs also put a safety net for people that suddenly have mass financial loss so they don't end up in extreme poverty, due to say... getting cancer. Side: Agree
1
point
Joe-Av, A Ferrari is not a basic necessity, it's a luxury. Replace Ferrari with food, shelter, or healthcare and you can see what my issue with your analogy is. My point in using the Ferrari analogy was merely the difference between a right to have a thing, and the right and a right to a thing. The former leaves the onus on the individual to obtain, whereas the latter places the onus not on the individual, but on EVERYBODY ELSE to ensure they get it. This distinction is where I think you and I differ on our world views. My bet, based on other things you have written on this topic, is that you believe individuals should be protected by others from natural selection. I totally disagree that anyone has any sort of right to necessities of survival. I think it is foolish for us to disregard the mechanisms of nature, including natural selection. Natural selection within a society is important if we want prosperity, and ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL if we want peace. If we do not allow the mechanism to function that selects against useless or antisocial people who do not (even if it is because they cannot ) contribute to the society, then we lose the cohesion that forces people to get along with each other (which is already tenuous at best.) When you assert a right to survival, you are bypassing the mechanism that ensures people need to integrate into the society, and that eliminates those who do not. It sounds nice to say that every person has intrinsic value, but we do not. We need to find ways to make ourselves valuable to other people. To survive in any society, people must exhibit particular sets of attributes, abilities, and attitudes, not least of which are those things that make each individual of value to other individuals. Being of value to others is how we get jobs, prosper in business, make friends, and get other people to want to help us when we are in need. This is the mechanism that forces everybody to contribute something worthwhile to the society, including being a nice enough person to to make other people like you enough to want to help you survive. If you cannot do that, the society is better off without you. This is not even a particularly high standard. Welfare has continuously shown it's effectiveness at allowing social mobility, and an escape from poverty. You are confusing welfare with education and responsible behavior. Only three things are required to avoid being permanently poor in the US: 1) graduate high school 2) get a job, ANY job 3) do not reproduce until after you are married 98% of people who do these three things move past the poverty line before middle age. That's because established governments have shown their competence in running such systems. Are you really asserting that the US government is competent? Even if you have ignored the bulk of US history, have you paid any attention to the last ten years? Or even the past two months? Side: Agree
1
point
The main point is that the wall doesn't solve ANY problem, especially for its cost The Berlin Wall seperated East and West Germans successfully for decades. The government spends more than $5 billion on nonessential things all of the time. It's pocket change by government standards. It also costs less than barriers proposed by Democrats in the past. Side: Don’t agree
2
points
So your point is, analogously, that because going to the gym for a half hour a day does not solve ALL my health problems, I should not go the gym and work out. So your point is, analogously, that if you develop cancer, you should ignore chemotherapy and/or surgery, and focus all effort on going to the gym. Side: Agree
1
point
|
