Debate Anything on!
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!

Breaking the Anti-Immigrant Fever - Are you against the raids?

NY Times published editorial crticizing Trump's anti immigration raids, providing colorfull examples of unfair treatments of those deported.  It is highly contentious, and takes a one sided position against the raids of illegal immigrants, anti-immigration policies, and Trump in general.
  1. Are you against Trump raids and his anti-immigration approach10 votes
    1. I am against Trump approach on the immigration raids
    2. I support Trump approach


  • agsragsr 75 Points
    There is no easy way to deal with the issue of deporting illegal immigrants with criminal records, and clearly there will be isolated casualties around the edges with examples you cherry picked.  What about bulk of the examples the ecitorial excluded where dangerous criminals were deported because of these raids? If these raids picked up just one criminal that will save just one American life, just one American woman from being raped, just one injury due to a terrorist attack..would you still not do it?
    According to poll on 85% agree with Trump immigration policies and raids, and 62% believe it's just a start.  

    The editorial is not taking into consideration that these people are here illegally, and we need decisive action to deal with this growing problem.  Starting with those that have a criminal record is a logical approach.
    I also don't appreciate how the editorial clouds the argument implying that Trump's policies are against immigrants.  They are not.  This country is built on immigrants, and plenty valuable members of our society migrated legally to now make a big difference in what shaped America today.  Trump and his supporters think that's great, but lets not bundle that with illegal immigration issue, especially as it relates to criminals.
    so complicated issue, and a one sided editorial in NY Times is not helpful.
  • I am for the raids.
  • inc4tinc4t 32 Points
    I think we need to be really carefully with the raids.  If we leave it up to the agents to determine what "criminal connection" is, we will instill terror in millions of people and create a state of constant fear.  Just like Trump suggests extreme vetting for immigration, there should be a form of fair vetting for deportations too.  What if these folks highlighted in the editorial have small kids or families and have rooted here for many years?  Isn't it fair to consider that we are not deal,ing with cattle?
  • I understand your point inc4t, but ultimately it is very difficult to do the right thing without have some fallout for 0.001% of margin of error.  These people are here illegally- so a small margin of error is acceptable. The issue needs to be resolved - Trump is taking decisive action to do that.  The editorial in NYT is biased.  That's why Trump is frustrated with the media.
  • Trump should be deporting illegal immigrants.
  • MattInFlaMattInFla 2 Points
    The article presented in the opening post exhibits an interesting phenomenon I have been noticing in the media lately.  The article conflates unlawful immigration with lawful immigration, in an attempt to portray actions against those who enter the country unlawfully as actions against all immigrants.

    The problem is that the previous administration decided to stop enforcing the law.  This does not grant those whose unlawful presence was being ignored any special legal status now that the new administration is enforcing the law.  In one case frequently presented as a representative of the problem, a woman who was convicted of a felony in 2009 and who was subsequently the subject of a deportation order from a court in 2013 was finally deported back to Mexico.

    People are trying to blame her deportation on the new administration, but in point of fact the blame lies with the prior administration that refused to act on the order of the court.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 53 Points

    @inc4t When a guy steals a car or robs a bank and is sent to jail, no one worries about whether or not he has a family.  He made a bad choice.  He broke the law.  He got caught. 

    What's the difference when an alien illegally crosses the border and gets deported?  He made a bad choice.  He broke the law.  He got caught.  Breaking the law has its consequences. 

  • blvd_lancerblvd_lancer 2 Points
    I personally approve and disapprove of the raids. 
    First, troops should not be rounding up illegal immigrants. Instead,they should be doing stuff which is much more important. I believe that police should be doing this.
    Next, this should be kept out of the media and people's eyes. We should not be seeing this happening, but instead possibly regular updates.
  • inc4tinc4t 32 Points
    I think there is a difference of robbing a bank and crossing over illegally.  Both are technically crimes, but it's like giving someone a life sentence for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his kids.  

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 53 Points
    @inc4t Would it be OK for someone to rob a bank to feed his kids?
  • inc4tinc4t 32 Points
    @CYDdharta , rob a bank - no.  A minor crime, like steal a loaf of bread from a counter - also no,  but I wouldn't send them to an electric chair for that.  I just want to make sure that punishment fits the crime.

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 53 Points
    @inc4t I think we all want that.  Deporting people is the proper punishment for people who broke our immigration laws.  If they have family here, we should allow them all to be deported together.
  • inc4tinc4t 32 Points
    So to be clear, will you argue that a mexican family that has illegally entered this country 20 years ago, has 3 kids who go to school, no criminal records, and no family left in mexico - gets all deported back now?
    if that is millions of hundreds of thousands (or even tens of thousands of people) - what would they even do there and is that humane?
    would you argue that we give them no notice if they are accused of having criminal record (even if they really don't)?
    in my opinion, I am supportive of deportations, but I feel we need to think of some special program or process for cases like this.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 53 Points

    @inc4t I wouldn't have a problem with it.  I don't believe its humane for them to live in the shadows in the US where they are no better off than slaves. 

    If they are here illegally, they are criminals.  They made a bad decision.  They broke the law.  They got caught.  They should face the consequences of their actions.  I don't see it any different than a bank robber or a carjacker.  The only difference is in how we prioritize the crimes.  Solving violent crimes should be our highest priority.  Deporting criminal aliens should be a priority.  Deporting illegals who are guilty of no other crime should be a low priority.  When, and indeed if, we ever stem the flow of illegals coming from our southern border, only then can we consider a different approach.

    The real problem is that Hispanics are not assimilating, they are creating a borderland (like the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Balkans) in our southern states. Borderlands are never good things. Right now, people of Mexican origin make up 40% or more of the population in about ¼ of the territory Mexico lost in the Mexican-American War. If this is allowed to continue, Mexican-backed candidates will make up an increasingly powerful political bloc in the south-western states. These politicians will have divided loyalties between the US, whose interests they are supposed to represent, and Mexico, who helped bring them to power. At the rate things are going, in 50 to 100 years, California, Arazona, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas… will be more Mexican than America.

  • inc4tinc4t 32 Points
    @CYDdharta , you are making 3 points
    1) severity of their crime.  Lets agree to disagree, I still maintain that it is less than robbing a Bank. Also while it is true they live innthe shadows in US, as "slaves" is an exaggeration.  It is much better for them here rather than sending them back.
    2) prioritization - agreed completely 
    3) hispanics not assimilating - agreed.

    good debate.
  • agsragsr 75 Points
    @inc4t and @CYDdharta , great discussion.  The topic of this particular debate is if we agree with Trump's raids.  They are focused on those with criminal record. To me that is an unconditional "agreed".
    the question you are debating now, what if they don't a record, do we agree to eventually prioritize deporting all illegal immigrants, and what should be the vetting process to ensure it is fair. 
    I agree with @CYDdharta that at some point once many other issues are solved around the inflow, we really need to tackle the issue. Given the scale, we need to be very thoughtful how it gets implemented, but it should be a deliberate program.
  • agsragsr 75 Points
    Another media propaganda article at the guardian, how illegal mexicans live in fear of being deported. That is creating a really big social issue, but that doesnt make it okay.  I still support the raids, especially prioritized ones  based on those with criminal records.
  • I support the Trump approach, but I believe that this should be done in a much more private manner.
  • WhyTrumpWhyTrump 22 Points
    We cannot treat people like animals and just kick them out and their familiies without a formal balanced process.  Many of them have small children, who are innocent and did nothing wrong to deserve it. If Trump wants to have extreme vetting on accepting incoming immigrants, wouldnt it be fair to have a more robust deporting process as well? It is way too risky to just reply on judgement of one officer to deport someone from the country.  
  • yemenissueyemenissue 2 Points
    I support his method.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Debate Anything on

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017, All rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about. We are totally free!

Contact us

Get In Touch