Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Should Trump Deport Illegal Immigrants?

I think that Trump should deport illegal immigrants as well as their children that may have been born in the US.
Should Trumo deport illegal immigrants?
  1. What do you think?31 votes
    1. Yes
    2. No


  • agsragsr 489 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    It cannot be black and white, but there should be a deliberate program for deportations, qualifying many preexisting conditions and family situations. It is a difficult social and ethical issue, and I would suggest initial focus on incoming immigration.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • There should be deportations as I mentioned in agsr's previous debate.
  • Yes, he should do this and immediately. As he said, they bring nothing good to this country or for the most pry in general as well.
  • I am in america illegally with a mansion and can't leave. My whole life is here! You can't just pick me up by the croggy and THROW ME OUT LIKE A DOG
  • DericWM2001DericWM2001 12 Pts
    edited January 29
    Yes, Donald Trump should deport illegal immigrants! Why not?! If an illegal immigrant is found then that illegal immigrant should be deported out of this country as soon as possible.
  • Hi DerikWM2001, thanks for being such an active user in the community! We would really appreciate it if you could spread the word about us! Keep it up, you are earning badges/points fast, try to get on the leaderboard. The more referrals, the greater pints and possibly prizes. Anyway, I believe that Trump should deport illegal immigrants based on their status.
    Schatzi11 Founder/Administrator | Contact Me Via Private Messaging (aarong), Contact Support At | Happy Debating! 
  • VaulkVaulk 199 Pts
    I believe that it's wrong (Illegally) to enter the U.S. through a course of action that is deceptive and illegal in nature.  I believe that it's wrong (Morally and Ethically) to give special and privileged treatment to those who have broken our laws simply because they got away with it for so long.  So let's argue this from a moral standpoint (Since most of the opposition seems to be willing to overlook the legality of the idea): Is it right to give special treatment to illegal immigrants simply because they managed to get away with their crime long enough to create a Family in the United States?  If so...what other crimes should we excuse on those grounds?

    Essentially, the left side of this argument is that it's acceptable to overlook a certain type of crime because of the circumstances involved years after the fact.  I'm sorry but I disagree, no circumstances created "After the fact" could possibly excuse you from the long established repercussions for committing a crime. 
  • Yes, Trump should be deporting illegals and fast. I was very happy with Trumps tax plan released as well.
  • LogicLogic 215 Pts
    What makes murder wrong? In a world where we don't use our human feelings/nature, To say what is right or wrong, And we define everything by a set law, No matter how cruel it may be? Do you think that sounds like a good world? So we should use our humanity, To attack this problem.  When someone comes to a country to lead a BETTER life, They should be kicked out? Even if they couldn't come the legal way? If that's justice, Then i will take to part in association in such a corrupt form of 'justice' If you can even call it that.
  • inc4tinc4t 128 Pts
    @Logic, so if someone works really hard to rob your house because they want a better life for themselves, would by the same logic you would say that's okay?
    i wouldn't.
    I agree with you that we should show humanity, and given the impact we can do deportations in stages and have in some cases a legalization process.
    Nevertheless, illegal immigration is stealing money from honest american tax payers, who also work really hard for a better way of life for their families.
  • LogicLogic 215 Pts
    @inc4t Wow, I never really though of it that way. You opened my eyes to a new possibility, But we should STILL show some humanity when dealing with these people.
  • inc4tinc4t 128 Pts
    @Logic, thank you.  I am glad that you gained an additional perspective.  I also agree with you that we need to demonstrate humanity and dont just kick everyone out overnight - after all there are 11 million people who are here for generations in some cases.
  • VaulkVaulk 199 Pts
    I agree with @inc4t , I do believe in compassion and humanity but can't overlook the negative repercussions of illegal immigration simply because there are people involved.  In this case I don't think there's a wonderful answer to the problem, I think this is going to come down to the lesser of two bad decisions and the lesser in this case is removing the people that should never have been allowed to be here in the first place in order to provide justice for those who are here rightfully so. 

    I understand the position of the illegal immigrant, it's hard, they had a bad life, they're trying to make a better life...but at what cost?  It cost taxpayer dollars to support them, they've broken our laws to achieve their better life, they've spat in the face of our legal system and in the faces of the immigrants who came here legally and what's worse than that is the fact that they're continuously spitting in the faces of those that are currently struggling to gain legal citizenship as we speak.  We cannot simply give them special treatment when there are hundreds of thousands of people still in line who DO respect our laws enough not to break them.
  • agsragsr 489 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Vaulk, given your personal experience I think that makes you most qualified to offer an opinion on this topic.  You have see many of them in correctional facility.  
    I agree with you.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • I agree with @vaulk who provided his valid personal experience as @agsr mentioned. This is great evidence to support your debate and there for so agree with your point. There are really two majorities for this debate. Let Illegal immigrants stay or keep them out of here. On one hand, most illegal immigrants whether they're coming from Mexico, Canada or any country, want a better life for themselves and their families. This could be a reason Trump decided to potentially keep the Dream act, Obama put in place during his term. On the other side, Illegal immigrants are taking American jobs, killing people, selling drugs, and much more. I believe in high border control, especially on our American-Mexican border. My position, is the same as @vaulk 's and @agsr . We need to keep illegal immigrants out. I also believe in the dream act Ibama put in place and Trumo decide to to keep for his term as well. This is my side on the immigration stand point.
  • CovenyCoveny 268 Pts
    Deportation hurts the economy, is unfair, and way too expensive.
  • I agree with @coveny . It will be very expensive and takes time.
  • VaulkVaulk 199 Pts
    @Coveny and @sportsonter , I would propose what Ann Coulter has proposed several times.  Now everyone get on your big boy pants because this one might sting a little lol.  The idea for removing Illegal Immigrants from the U.S. is simple...make it illegal for them to be here.  It sounds silly or too simple to work but in all actuality, if we had implemented this system in the first one would be here illegally...ever.  Let me ask you something: What would happen if the United States required you to be a citizen in order to benefit from ANY goods or services available in the U.S.?  What if there were severe penalties for the crime of hiring illegal immigrants to work for you?  Well, employers would eventually get the hint and stop hiring illegal immigrants.  What if subsidized programs were suddenly ONLY available to U.S. know...the way it was supposed to be in the first place?  Well, then there wouldn't be any welfare, WIC, foodstamps, medicaid, medicare unless you were a citizen...which makes perfect sense because these are all services that are paid for by taxpaying citizens.  What if you couldn't receive medical treatment in the U.S. unless you were a Citizen? 

    It's really simple, we don't cater to illegal immigrants...they eventually go back to where they came from and go about citizenship the right way.  T  It sounds really harsh I know...but that's really only because we know they're already here...and the fact that they've already committed the crime should not ever be considered as a determining factor in our decision to remove them.  Ann Coulter has proposed this very idea and has taken heavy hits for it but in all actuality...she's right, it should have been this way since the beginning.
  • CovenyCoveny 268 Pts
    @Vaulk I would purpose you actually do some research. You can't get any of that stuff unless you are here legally. (except for emergency medical treatment because it's tough to ask nurses and doctors to just watch someone die in front of them that damn hippocratic oath!) As for the more stringent on companies that hire them, I guess you could do that, but it would cost money to get enforcement and whatnot when it really doesn't matter more of them are already leaving than entering the country. 
  • VaulkVaulk 199 Pts
    @ Coveny, since every U.S. Government organization admits openly that there is no possible way to calculate with ANY accuracy the number of illegal immigrants entering the country, then I need to know how it is that ANYONE could claim that more of them are leaving than coming.  I need to see some Source data or some logical deduction before I'll agree to contest this.  Meanwhile:

    You'll like this one, it explains how illegal immigrants get access to Federal Programs that you've claimed they can't get access to unless they're legal:

    Here's some great videos on how Illegal Immigrants are getting government subsidized amenities like welfare, WIC, TANF, FoodStamps, government housing ect ect.

    But to recap the supposed *Myth* of illegal immigrants collecting welfare:  You come to the U.S., have a baby, then the baby qualifies for Social Security benefits, Welfare, TANF, WIC, Medicaid ect ect.

    The current pew poll uses an equation that includes the following variables: (U)  Unauthorized Immigrants =  (F) Total Foreign Born Population  -  (L) Estimated Legal Immigrant Population.  The issue here is how to identify (U) as a quantifiable variable...the problem is that it simply cannot be quantified.  Illegal immigrants cannot be counted entirely or even majorly simply due to the secretive nature of their existence in the U.S..  "Excuse me, would you mind telling the Census Bureau if anyone living here is an illegal immigrant"? 

    So without being able to accurately calculate the number of Illegal Immigrants entering the Country, or how many are here...then how can you accurately calculate how many are leaving?  The answer is: You simply cannot.  Therefor no one knows with any certainty that there are more leaving than coming and I concede as well that no one can know if there are more coming than leaving...the argument could go on as long as the origin of the Earth and neither side would win...which is why this isn't a debate on how many rather it's a debate on whether they should all be deported and I maintain my stance that they should be.

  • CovenyCoveny 268 Pts
    @Vaulk I concede that you can't know for certainty, but what difference does that make? We have to use some estimates if you aren't going to accept any numbers, then I guess there aren't any right? If you are actually interested in the information.

    I can not tell you how ironic I find it that you are on the side of "we can't know how many there are" and also on the "they are all using welfare". 

  • I am on a very interesting side right now. I agree with both @vaulk An do @coveny . On one hand, you can't be certain how many illegals use welfare programs. Although, the probability is most likely very high as well. 
  • VaulkVaulk 199 Pts
    @Coveny , I'm not on the side of "They all use welfare" nor did I make that statement.  If you believe I did as you've stated then I suggest you read my post again.
  • CovenyCoveny 268 Pts
    @Vaulk sorry I shouldn't have used the word all. Really though they aren't on welfare their children are, who are US citizens. We got this funny thing where we don't want children to starve to death. We are such wimps in this country. :smiley: 
  • love2debatelove2debate 139 Pts
    @Vaulk, I agree with your position on this.  We need to take a position on a spectrum of being ruthless, but doing what's right 
    being humanitarian and not doing anything

    I opt for the doing what's right
  • VaulkVaulk 199 Pts
    @Coveny , We've become this nation that somehow doesn't hold people responsible for their actions.  If the Illegal Immigrant chose to come here illegally (Regardless of why) and then chose to have a child (With the rare exception of rape which has never been the majority of circumstances) then how is the U.S. somehow responsible for their actions?  More importantly, how are U.S. Citizens financially responsible (Tax Dollars) for the choices of the Illegal Immigrants who have no legal right to be here in the first place?
  • CovenyCoveny 268 Pts
    @Vaulk I agree there are people in this country who are on government hand outs that the U.S. Citizens are financially responsible for and aren't held responsible for their actions, it's the 1%. (you know like your boy Trump who brags about how paying taxes is for losers) Immigrants can't afford the tax loopholes, and they help the economy rather than leeching off the people. I mean I get it, like when the soldiers came back from the vietnam war and everyone crapped all over them it's easy to blame the poor who are just doing what they have to do to make ends meet because they can't afford to get away from you. I mean it's clear that "illegal immigrants" are the ones who created the housing bubble and destroyed million of peoples retirement. Look while you are busy being mad at your fellow poor person the 1% continue to screw the rest of us over. They have corrupted our democracy. But ya man it's the mexicans that are the problem, and spending millions deporting them and hurting the economy is totally gonna help...

  • VaulkVaulk 199 Pts
    @Coveny , I can't follow the tax loophole idea for Illegal Immigrants.  We're talking about people who don't have a social security number and who are majorly paid under the table for their services as they're not able to seek out and establish legal employment. exactly are they helping the economy?  If you can't pay income tax because you're income is paid under the table, and you can't pay social security tax because your income is paid under the table...then what exactly are you putting into the economy?  Sales Tax? 
  • CovenyCoveny 268 Pts
    @Vaulk you are of the position that immigrants not here legally are costing this country money, and yet you are requesting my help to understand how the economy works. Should you really be in this debate? Regardless you asked so I'll answer. <teacher mode on>

    The US is a consumer based economy in that the economy does it's very best when money is being spent rather than saved. When you buy groceries with you paycheck that helps the economy, anything that keeps money moving helps the economy. The reason for this is that supports businesses, and expansion because there is a demand for good as money is in the hands of those who are spending it. Anything that takes money away from this system hurts the economy, and this includes taxes. When the taxes are spent, they go back to being a positive and help the economy. (However that period of time from when you pay them to when the get used still "hurts" the economy) Anyone who saves money hurts the economy because they have taken money out of circulation and made money more scarce. (reduced supply) The economy doesn't care where the money came from, it just cares that products and services are getting purchased.

    Now to take all that and compare the 1% versus immigrants. Immigrants (and the majority of Americans) work paycheck to paycheck. This means every dime they get they spend. This is the ideal situation for the economy. The 1% on the other hand save money... they save millions, the 1% of the 1% save billions. This is terrible for the economy. As less money is in circulated, it becomes more difficult for anyone to get jobs, get paid, and spend their money, so the whole economy gets more and more crippled by this. To offset this the federal reserve prints more money, so we have it for circulation. This causes inflation as there is now more money total in the system, the value of each piece is lowered. Then as the new money enters the system, the 1% start grabbing it up, which makes the federal reserve print more, which makes the value continue to drop.

    Inflation (the dropping value of our money) is most acutely felt by salary/hours employees. This is because if they do manage to save any money, every year those saving have less and less purchasing power. This makes it more and more difficult for the model of work 50 years, save, and then retire. So we have fewer and fewer people who can afford to retire because of this. If their saving dodged the housing bubble, then what they made 30 years ago isn't worth but about 60% of what it was when they saved it. So to cover that difference they have to get back on the "job" treadmill to make ends meet.

    This causes a higher supply of workers in the work force, so the demand for workers drops. When the supply of workers is high companies can afford to pay workers lower wages. This also aggravates the problems with the economy as the poor (who spend every dime) they have less money to spend. As there is less money to spend, the economy drops and business begin to hurt. As they begin to hurt they lay off workers and the problem gets worse. The economy loves people who live paycheck to paycheck and hate people who save. Immigrants live paycheck to paycheck and the 1% saves.

    <teacher mode off>

    The 1% of this country don't pay taxes, their highly profitable companies ... don't pay taxes. As they hoard money they are able to pay workers less and less even though productivity keeps rising. So they don't have to spend, they don't have to pay taxes, and all they do is keep getting richer and richer, and hurting the economy more and more. It doesn't matter if immigrants pay income tax, when they spend there money someone else pays it, and as they are being paid under the table they have lower than minimum wages anyway so the amount of income taxes they would have to pay is almost non-existent anyway.  
  • randalrandal 59 Pts
    I agree with @Coveny . Not all illegal immigrants are costing the country money. Instead, they are greatly contributing to our society and the American economy due to them taking very low wages and doing a large amount of work. The work down is usually labor. Also, why are we only thinking about Mexican immigrants opposed to all illegal immigrants, globally not just at our borders. I don't Brielle ind deportations, due to the high cost and lowering our economy which it's just another huge factor in that action.
  • melanielustmelanielust 226 Pts
    I don't believe they should be deported. It would be better to have a system that makes the path to citizenship easier and more accommodating of underprivileged Mexican families so that less people come into the US illegally. Most of the immigrants who are already here illegally do very beneficial work for society, especially in industries that need a lot of labor that not many people are willing to do.
  • melanielustmelanielust 226 Pts
    Coveny I'm curious as to where you got your information. The top 1% of America are more heavily taxed than any other group. The majority of the 1% puts more money in circulation than any other group as well. Think about who the real people are: the rich CEOs, the business magnates; they are the people who have and continue to put money into circulation, they create jobs with their companies and they facilitate the payment of thousands of people. It is necessary to have the 1% so that there can be a high standard for people to strive for, in addition to a plethora of philanthropical opportunities.
  • VaulkVaulk 199 Pts
    edited May 7
    @Coveny ,

    Before we get into that, see below.

    The tax code is broken in the United States, so before we ever argue that a group is or isn't paying their fair share...we'd have to have a reasonable tax code.  Our current code is a disaster.

    Oh and view this:

    And lastly, we can take a look at what illegal immigrants are getting compared to some of the other more deserving citizens of our country.

  • CovenyCoveny 268 Pts
    @Vaulk did you finally do some "research" into economic and decided to come back?

    It begrudges me to say that I agree with you the current tax code is a disaster.

    And then you went there... sigh. A progressive tax code is considered most "fair" in that the people who can most afford to pay taxes "should" pay the most. What that video is references is call the flat tax, and if you do some research you'll find it favors the rich heavily, and it's not "fair". See the problem is this if you have two people and one makes 30k while the other makes 100k when you tax them equally the one making more pays more true, but that doesn't take into account cost of living. If we assume a gentle 1k in rent, and another 1k to cover groceries, car payments, utilities, blah, blah, etc blah then we come up with a minimum of 2k a month or 24k a year. We tax by gross income, so lets say we tax'm both at 20% because the numbers work out well. So 30k pays 6k leaving 24k, and 100k pays 20k leaving 80k. Now we take out basic living expenses from the both 30k > 24k > ZERO whereas 100k > 80k > 56k. So you tax out every dime of the 30k guy, but the 100k still has over half his check afterwards. Make sense?
  • VaulkVaulk 199 Pts
    @Coveny , I'm also surprised to say that I agree with your points.

    I think however, what we're leaving out of this equation is the "Why" portion.  From a simple view, if (Let's call him "Bob") Bob makes 30k and (We'll call the other "John") John makes 100k, then it appears that Bob is suffering more than John when it comes to cost of living.  We however, haven't taken into consideration "Why" Bob is making substantially less than John.  Without taking into consideration "Why", we're insinuating that it's somehow a fault that John's is making higher earnings...why else would you penalize someone more heavily than someone else?  Well in this case we need to consider that John (Let's assume he's a hard working American) hasn't done anything wrong, his situation isn't the result of wrongdoing or some sort of exploitation of our system.  John could've come from a wealthy family, which wouldn't be his fault.  John might've just been in the right place at the right time, which wouldn't be his fault either.  Or maybe John's just a really hard working American who wanted the best out of life.  Who knows? 

    The point here is that while no one can deny that John is definitely financially better off than Bob, if John hasn't done anything wrong to obtain his wealth...then what are the moral implications of penalizing someone for being more successful than someone else?  Can we really say that "Because you are able to make more money...that means you should contribute a larger percentage of your personal wealth than others who are not able to"?  And if we can say this...what else could this standard be applied to?  Maybe if John has a better work ethic than Bob then we could require that John pay another Tax designed for those with good work ethics.  Maybe if John went to College, we could apply another tax because he's better able to obtain higher paying jobs.  I'm sure you can see where this is going. 

    And cost of living should be considered when creating a Tax code, but making more or less money doesn't change the cost of living.  Using your example, if Bob pays 24k/yr in COL (Cost of living) and makes 30k/yr, then John who makes 100k/yr can also pay 24k/yr in COL.  Your income doesn't determine COL although they are usually aligned very closely...that's by choice though.  So taxes should take into consideration the COL, I think we could agree on that, but making someone pay a larger portion of their individual wealth than another simply because they have more...a spade is a spade and this is honestly Socialism.  Government controlled distribution of wealth through a mechanism such as Taxes is the fundamental principle of Socialism.  Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck.

  • VaulkVaulk 199 Pts
    And @Coveny , we need to get back on point with the illegal immigration topic here.  I'd like your take on the infowars video.
  • inc4tinc4t 128 Pts
    edited May 7
    @Coveny and @Vaulk , that was a nice deep dive into the progressive vs flat tax code discussion, but that is way off topic on illegal deportation debate.  

    See this one instead, create last week by @melanielust ;

    both of your arguments were great, btw, but I agree with vaulk on the tax code issue.
  • CovenyCoveny 268 Pts
    @Vaulk On the matter of info wars this is an emotional plea with a false dichotomy. Again, I’ll state that if you want to get someone off welfare get the rich people and corporations that pay zero in taxes via loopholes. Contrary to the propaganda your video wants to portray the rich people and corporations make up for a MUCH large “cost” to this country than any plans we must keep children from starving and freezing to death. Yes, I know they aren’t “American” children, but for some reason most Americans don’t want to see starving and frozen to death children even if they are “damn foreigners” I know you don’t seem to have this moral dilemma and have no problem watching children die, fortunately you are not in the majority though. Look all these arguments come back to an emotional plea where it takes veterans, foster kids, or education and pits it against immigrants. This is a false dichotomy because we can take care of all of them easily with money left over by taxing those rich people and companies who do NOT pay their “fair” share. If you wanted to put everyone in the lap of luxury, we could decrease the military spending by half and free up THREE HUNDRED BILLION dollars. Let me repeat that I’m just talking about cutting it in HALF, and cutting it in half still puts us WELL ahead of any other country in the worlds military spending. Yet rather than focusing on the rich who pay nothing, or the insane military costs we are given a narrative where the ONLY place the money can come from is education, foster care, or veterans? You want to know my “take” on your video? My take is I call bulls…
  • VaulkVaulk 199 Pts
    edited May 7
    @Coveny , I'd contest that the Rich do pay taxes as opposed to your suggestion that they pay Zero.  I included a chart (In my post above) from the Congressional Budget Office that explains very well how much each bracket pays in taxes.  Granted I'd concede that there's most likely more cuts and loopholes for the rich than any other bracket...but when one bracket pays more in taxes than any other bracket and makes up less than 10% of the population...why wouldn't you offer them more cuts and waivers than anyone else?  It's unfair enough to insist that you have to pay more simply because you were able to establish more individual wealth than someone else (Morally wrong) if we're going to maintain this Tax Code of requiring those with more to pay a larger portion of their wealth than those who make less...then I'd suggest we offer them incentives and waivers as incentives for keeping their wealth here in the U.S.
  • CovenyCoveny 268 Pts
    @Vaulk if you concede to the loopholes then you concede to my point because I'm referring to the loopholes. 

    Now again with the fair and unfair of how much someone should pay in taxes. As previously stated this isn't really the correct thread for this discussion so if you want to start another debate on the topic, I'll delve into on that thread with you. But to simplify the argument my position is that if you barely making ends meet then you should be taxes less than the guy who were "able to establish more individual wealth than someone else". I consider this morally right, and completely fair. I mean when we had tax brackets as high as 90% the economy was booming, and everyone was doing better. I wouldn't put the percentages that high again though because of issues with brain drain. (which is a completely different topic hehe)
  • VaulkVaulk 199 Pts
    edited May 7
    @Coveny ,
    The Rich people in this country don't use Welfare.  I also included a nicely done chart from the U.S. Congressional Budget Department in my previous post (Please see if you didn't) and it outlines just what's being spent in Taxes by "The Rich".  This is not an estimate of what they're supposed to pay, but what was actually paid.

    We've argued before over the meaning of words and in this case we might have to agree to disagree.

    There has been no false comparison of Illegal Immigrant Foster Kids to U.S. Foster Kids, the comparison is limited exclusively to what the U.S. is doing for each.  It could be just my personal opinion but the subject of the matter was not the person or persons in question but the "Funds", "Dollars", "Programs", "Incentives" and "Policies" that are being offered to different people and whether or not there is justification in what is being done with said items.

    Comparing homeless Illegal Immigrants to Homeless U.S. Veterans, I can actually see a problem with this comparison.  I mean, Illegal Immigrants didn't serve our Country, didn't fight or sacrifice for anyone's freedom minus theirs and their family's.  So how could you possibly compare them?  Well no one here is actually comparing Illegal Immigrants to Veterans, the comparison is being made to what services the U.S. is offering each.

    This is not a question of morality, my personal morality is not in question nor is it the topic of this debate thank you (Ad Hominem).  It almost sounds internalized to say this is about Illegal Immigrants versus U.S. Citizens...because that's not what this is about.  I'll concede that there is an undertone of division and possibly even motivation in the speaker to attempt to created or drive a wedge...but this isn't conveyed through the information that's being given or the way she's giving it, it's merely derivative of the consistent piece after piece of information about the same thing "What the U.S. is doing for them compared to what the U.S. is doing for us". 

    If I made a case that the U.S. government is giving bigger school incentives to Homosexual people than Heterosexual people (Totally hypothetical) and I proceeded to point to all the areas that served as evidence to support my some point I have no doubt that the idea of "I don't like gay people" would be perceived by just about anyone, regardless if I actually gave that impression or not.  This is a fairly classic case of Hasty Generalization and False Cause, lesser known logical fallacies but fallacies none-the-less.  I wasn't making any claim against gay people, my claim was against the U.S. Government and their incentives program being unfair and possibly biased. 

    So we need to focus on the "Subject" of what the video was about.  The person, place, thing or idea that was doing or being something in this video is "The United States Government".  What they were reported as doing was "Treating U.S. Citizens unfairly and with severe bias in regards to how much money is dedicated to support them".  How is this established?  By showing evidence that "The U.S. Government is spending more money to help Illegal Immigrants than its own Citizens in areas where both Citizens and Illegal Immigrants could benefit from the "Same" U.S. program".  Examples given were:

    1. Education
    2. Government Housing
    3. TANF
    4. Homeless Shelters
    5. School lunch programs
    6. School transportation programs

    So let's stay on topic here and not presume that the subject was "Us" or "Them".  The subject is the Govt. and what they're doing.

    I'd also specifically shift this conversation to the other side of the problem which is what the U.S. Government is doing with tens of thousands of Illegal Immigrant Criminals each years.  36,000 Illegal Immigrants were released in 2013 according to the Department of Customs and Immigration.  These were Illegal Immigrants guilty (In the U.S.) of Homicide, Sexual Assault, Kidnapping, Grand Theft Auto, Assault and dangerous drug possession.  Keep in mind these weren't people who served time and left prison, these are Illegal Immigrants who were in ICE custody and were then released back into our Society with the knowledge that they didn't belong here.
  • CovenyCoveny 268 Pts
    @Vaulk You say taxing the rich is morally wrong, but when I say it's morally right you respond that it's an ad Hominem attack? Really? You are such a dishonest debater...

    Welfare is giving them something for free. Rich people dodging taxes is giving them something for free. There my be some nuances but what's happening is a comparison of apples to apples. 

    Doesn't have to be vets or immigrants, doesn't have to us foster kids or immigrant foster kids, doesn't have to be any of those false dichotomies because we can easily afford to take care of ALL of them if you are will to tax the rich you love so well. (even though you are like poor given it takes a net worth of over a million to be rich)

    As for criminals... ya sure. Of the 320 million people in this country there are some "criminals". Is this the part where you tell me our justice system doesn't have a LONG history of letting criminals go with little to no punishment? pfft, really? That's not an immigrant problem that a justice system problem, it's not even close to fair and impartial.
  • VaulkVaulk 199 Pts
    edited May 8
    @Coveny ,

    Your Ad Hominem was stating that

    Coveny said:
    @Vaulk I know you don’t seem to have this moral dilemma and have no problem watching children die, fortunately you are not in the majority though.
    This is an overt attack on my Character, no denying it.  It's unwarranted, unnecessary and uncalled for regardless of the debate.  My response of "Ad Hominem" was specified in my statement
    Vaulk said:
    @Coveny ,
    This is not a question of morality, my personal morality is not in question nor is it the topic of this debate thank you (Ad Hominem).
    This is me specifying what exactly was an Ad Hominem fallacy.  It had nothing to do with:

    Coveny said:
    @Vaulk You say taxing the rich is morally wrong, but when I say it's morally right you respond that it's an ad Hominem attack? Really? You are such a dishonest debater...
    This is the second Ad Hominem.  For everyone else who doesn't know, AD Hominem is when you attack someone's character instead of arguing the point.

    And no, Welfare is not giving anyone something for free.
    Coveny said:
    Welfare is giving them something for free.
    Welfare is: (North American) Financial support given to those who are unemployed or otherwise in need.
    My source data for proof of course:
    Tax Cuts do not fall into the realm of "Financial Support", never have and likely never will.  Otherwise you could easily justify telling the poor that we'll financially support them with Tax Cuts...makes no sense.

    Insisting that words can mean what you want them to mean is something of a pattern with you isn't it?  You're leading me to believe and have given me every reason to suspect that you either honestly think this is what Welfare truly is, or you're comfortable with misleading someone into believing that the word means what you've insisted it means.  There's not even a Logical Fallacy that describes this but there is one for the explanation you provided:

    Coveny said:
    Welfare is giving them something for free. Rich people dodging taxes is giving them something for free.
    This is called the "Definitional Retreat" Logical Fallacy.  This occurs when someone changes the meaning of a word to deal with an objection raised against the original wording. 

    As for your argument concerning what Criminals have done in the past that aren't Illegal Immigrants, well if we're going to go off topic and discuss them then why not bring up Dinosaurs as well?  I mean...what about Dinosaurs?  We're talking about Illegal Immigrants and whether or not they should be deported, arguing that Criminals other than Illegal Immigrants have been let off in the past as some sort of method of miniaturizing the issue at hand is an attempt at the "Red Herring", a Logical Fallacy that is synonymous with "Misdirection", "False emphasis", "Irrelevant conclusion" and my personal favorite "The Chewbacca Defense".  Let's stay on topic here.

    So I've provided clear and concise explanations for why your argument is invalid, shall we get back on topic now?

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017, All rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch