Who won the Government shutdown? - Page 3 - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com

Howdy, Stranger!

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

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Who won the Government shutdown?
in Politics



  • TKDBTKDB 255 Pts
    edited February 8

    Again, the border wall, should have been addressed years ago, shouldn't it have whiteflame? 

    If some, of the political representatives are maybe worried over losing votes because of maybe aggravating some the pro illegal immigration crowd, then maybe some of the other US citizens, could get into politics, and do their jobs better, than they could? 

  • TKDBTKDB 255 Pts
    The ranchers on the border, shouldn't have to deal with the immigrants illegally coming into the country.

    The US citizens who have lost loved ones due to the crimes committed by the illegal immigrant offenders, maybe those crimes, wouldn't have been committed to begin with, if a barrier was in place along the border since the late 1980's.

    If there weren't any sanctuary cities, or business utilizing the illegal immigrants to do their work for them, then the incentives that are apparently drawing the illegal immigrants to come to the United States would be a non issue, wouldn't they?

    But yet an illegal immigration problem has been created, and the rest of the country gets to live with it, whether it agrees to that created problem or not right?

    Is the above what a Socialist agenda maybe looks like?

  • @TKDB

    I should have known it wouldn't last. You've now fully reverted to the exact same arguments you made ad nauseum on our previous discussion, arguments that have not even the slightest relevance to this topic at hand. It doesn't help that the points themselves are dubious at best. But hey, I'll address them one more time, and maybe this time you'll move on from them.

    You have not, here or elsewhere, ever justified the specific usage of a wall on our southern border. You say that the border wall should have been addressed years ago, but so far, I haven't seen you provide any reasoning for why it is necessary. You've provided some reasoning for why border security is necessary, but the two are not equivalent. So, if you'd like to start justifying the wall and not just improved border security, I'll be happy to engage with you on those points. Not holding my breath - we've been at this for a while.

    It's interesting how you keep jumping back and forth on the issue of popularity. You've argued several times that our representatives should represent the majority of Americans, who you believe support a wall. You then presented documented evidence that most of the country does not support a wall, and now you're arguing our representatives shouldn't represent a majority of Americans, but rather should eschew some portion of their constituents on the basis that they are "pro illegal immigration". Even if I assume that's true, are these not still Americans? Do they not still represent a majority of voters, and likely a majority of their constituencies? Aren't they duty-bound to represent the people, regardless of their views? Stick to a line at least, your lack of consistency on this issue is just appallingly obvious. 

    But I don't think we should assume that. You're making incredibly broad assumptions regarding how people think: if they're opposed to the wall, obviously they want more illegal immigrants pouring across the border. That's simply not true. Democrats have consistently and broadly supported border security efforts going way back, and the evidence on this is clear.

    "The vast majority of Senate Democrats, and 14 Republicans, voted down a White House-backed Senate proposal that would enable the Department of Homeland Security to make more arrests and deportations, limit family-based immigration, and eliminate the diversity visa lottery. House Democrats have also suggested opposition to a new measure that will also limit legal immigration.

    But rejecting these proposals does not amount to opposing any enforcement of immigration laws or allowing anyone, including criminals and gang members, to enter the country without restrictions.

    Democrats also consistently supported border security measures before Mr. Trump took office.

    In 2013, every single Democrat in the Senate voted for the so-called Gang of Eight immigration overhaul bill that would have provided about $40 billion for border enforcement, including deploying thousands more agents and building 700 miles of fencing. (The House never voted on the bill.)

    And in 2006, 26 Senate Democrats voted to build 700 miles of walls and fences on the southwestern border. Mr. Schumer was among the Democrats who supported that proposal — a fact that even Mr. Trump has repeatedly acknowledged, as recently as last week."


    What's more, the idea of supporting a compromise wherein we ensure protections for illegal immigrants brought here while they were young and also enhance border security measures (not necessarily the wall) gets incredibly broad support - a whopping 80% in a recent poll.


    So, no, I don't agree that being against the wall that Trump is proposing is in any way the same as being pro-illegal immigrant or anti-border security. 

    The rest of your last post is just a series of questions that I've addressed numerous times before. Ranchers are harmed, yes, but their issues aren't the only ones we should care about when it comes to border security. A wall would cause its own set of harms to people on the border, hence a majority of border residents oppose the wall. Criminal behavior is actually lower among illegal immigrants than legal residents on the whole, but hey, who's counting? Sanctuary cities and businesses utilizing illegal immigrants may be part of the problem, but they aren't solved by a border wall anyway, are they? Just because you don't like the perspective people like me are taking to this doesn't mean you get to call it socialist. It's pragmatism, plain and simple.
  • TKDBTKDB 255 Pts

    I created this debate to engage the public overall, thus I'm sorry, that you perhaps find it displeasing? 

    I wish you a good day.
  • @TKDB

    Don't try to get up on your high horse now. You didn't create this thing to engage with anyone. You created this to blame the Democrats for the shutdown because they don't support the wall, plain and simple. You don't want to engage on the topic because, hey, it's complicated and there's blame to go around. Who wants to deal with something like that when we can just lump all the blame on one party and be done with it? And who wants to actually go through the process of justifying a wall when it's so easy to declare it necessary and move on? Yes, you're clearly doing a great job engaging with the public by failing to respond to the vast majority of what any of us are posting. Truly, inspirational.
  • TKDBTKDB 255 Pts

    You mean catering, and rewarding the efforts of those illegal immigrants, with your compromise dialogue right?

    And work out some more compromising dialogue as well for their kids as well right?

    That's nice, the heck with the law abiding families across the country right?

    And pacify those illegal immigrants, right? 

    Keep presenting your apparent socialist agenda dialogue, right whiteflame? 

  • edited February 8

    Yep, more deflecting. Let’s just ignore the fact that all the problems you’re citing with illegal immigrants come from new border crossings, not residents. Let’s just ignore the fact that 80% of people in this country support border security while a majority oppose the wallIt makes it so much easier for your narrative if you can use kids brought and raised here for all the problems of illegal immigration. Since when is respecting the fact that they’re here, that for many of them this is the only home they’ve ever known, and trying to find a place for them while making efforts to stop further border crossings, pacifying illegal immigrants? How is it socialism to recognize that they are educated here, largely contributing to the US economy, and that massive deportation efforts would also lead to massive costs? Perhaps most importantly, since when does supporting these specific people come at the cost of Americans?
  • TKDBTKDB 255 Pts
    edited February 8

    Whos fault is it, that there is an illegal immigrarion problem in the country?

    Putting it all on the table:

    Is it some of the Republicans fault?

    Is it some of the Democrats fault?

    Is it maybe a problem, brought on by the mechanism, known as the election process itself?

    If say hypothetically speaking, the 11-22 million illegal immigrants, were all given amnesty?

    Think about that, an entirely new voter pool, to campaign to, and hopefully to garner votes from?

    11-22 million new voters, an amnesty gold mine in a sense right?

    Does the illegal immigration problem, reside at the feet of some of rhe Socialists, who live in the United States?

    Is it the fault of some of the illegal immigrants themselves, that the United States, is dealing with how they abuse some of the laws of this country?

    Is it the sanctuary cities fault, being that they give then sanctuary, in a country based on laws?

    Or is it, the fault of those businesses, that utilize the illegal immigrants to do work for them?

    How does a city give illegal immigrants sanctuary, in the face of the federal laws?

    So you pick, and place the blame for the illegal immigration problem, where you think the blame deserves to be whiteflame?

    Did I leave anyone out?
  • @TKDB

    Wow, you just keep drifting, don’t you? Blame for illegal immigration is broadly shared, though I will say that illegal immigration is always somewhat inevitable, given that the US is a pretty nice place to live in general and many of the countries south of us are in pretty terrible shape. It’s unavoidable that some will attempt to come here, and it’s unavoidable, given the size of our border and the many means to cross it (air, water, land, tunnel), that people will cross it. I think blaming any specific group for illegal immigration as a whole is naive because the forces behind it are not so simple that a single actor or set of actors can control them all. If you want to place blame, it would be based on either doing too little to address the problem or, as you are putting it, actively facilitating the problem and making it worse. Who’s to blame for that? Every politician taking money from individuals and companies that thrive on having a cheap supply of labor, so... every politician. I guess we should blame the system for allowing so much of that money to affect our political system so deeply. I guess we should blame the system for being so easily swayed. If you want to pretend this is simple, that’s your prerogative, but it’s not the reality.
  • TKDBTKDB 255 Pts

    So you're saying that its the politicians overall fault, that the illegal immigration problem has grown into the problem that its apparently become?

    "Every politician taking money from individuals and companies that thrive on having a cheap supply of labor, so... every politician. I guess we should blame the system for allowing so much of that money to affect our political system so deeply. I guess we should blame the system for being so easily swayed. If you want to pretend this is simple, that’s your .prerogative, but it’s not the reality."

    So the money, that the politicians took from various people, helped create the illegal immigration issue, through campaign funding?

    30 plus years of campaign funding, per election cycle?

    Is that the point of view, that you're maybe getting at? 
  • @TKDB

    I’m saying that it’s a large part of the problem, yes. If there wasn’t an incentive structure in place for ensuring that we have a large and cheap immigrant pool of labor, an incentive that’s been here for decades, it would probably be less of a problem than it is today. Then again, if the jobs were being regularly taken by Americans (particularly agricultural jobs), there probably would have been less incentive for these companies to put so much money out there to disincentivize efforts at stemming immigrant work visas.
  • TKDBTKDB 255 Pts

    That's nice to know, cheap labor, the IRCA law getting assualted, by the businesses, who need illegal immigrants to do work for them, while apparently breaking a federal law at the same time?

    And the illegal immigrants themselves assualting the IRCA law, by breaking the same federal law?

    And the rest of the country, gets assualted via human trafficking, and the illegal drug trafficking?

    It's nice to know, that apparently the money made off the efforts of the illegal immigrants, means more to some, than the country itself, means to the rest of the law abiding citizens who live in it as well?

    Cheap labor means more than the IRCA law matters? 
  • @TKDB

    I think you’re missing the point. Technically, these people come here legally - they’re given temporary work visas to do it. Illegal border crossings represent a vanishingly small percentage of illegal immigration, but overstayed visas are a very large proportion of illegal immigrants in this country. A wall won’t stop a work visa. Human trafficking and drug smuggling are separate issues that potentially would be affected by the wall, though it’s unclear to what extent either will be diminished, if at all. Work visas and the like are a problem, but neither party has seemed particularly willing to tackle it, and at least one of the reasons for that is the money these businesses funnel into politics. Campaign finance reforms would probably do a lot to prevent this, but few in politics wants to take the money out of politics.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top


| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | 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