Instigator / Pro

THBT After COVID, US Should Adopt an Open Border Policy


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

This is a “on net balance” kind of topic. After COVID is resolved and no longer considered a major problem, US Should Implement Open Border policy (probably a federal law). Based on my framework of my refugee debate, I believe we should make up for our mistakes by allowing immigrants to flow in and out of the country as they please. This is the main focus but I will also bring up trading benefits to help my case. Burden of proof is shared.

Round 1
Though my description says "immigrations flow as they please", of course, this is not the true policy, but a watered down version of the idea. Essentially, high skill immigrants and low skill immigrants should have the same restrictions and freedom (but less than currently) to be able to enter the US. According to Wikipedia, "Open border policy" means: "An open border is a border that enables free movement of people (and often of goods) between jurisdictions with few or no restrictions on movement, that is lacking substantive border control. A border may be an open border due to intentional legislation allowing free movement of people across the border (de jure), or a border may be an open border due to a lack of legal controls, a lack of adequate enforcement or adequate supervision of the border (de facto)". I am arguing for the de jure nature, as de facto may have many problems as Con see fits. 

As promised, I will copy my case for greater number of refugees (countering Trump's current anti-immigration policy). I will cross apply arguments II and III to also relate to immigrants in general. But of course, Con must negate everything because through open borders we are accepting more refugees as a result. Therefore argument I, a very strong crux, must be killed by Con before he is able to establish any case based on non-refugees.

I. Humanitarianism

Refugees are in such trouble in dangerous territories. These terrorists, these wars, they are not allowing refugees to speak or move freely. Indeed, we hear of America, the land of the free, home of the brave. They have been the number one in helping victims live their lives, giving them another chance.

But what's the contradictory pattern in this chart? It seems that President Trump has stood by his discrimination, and failed to uphold the very idea of the United States leading the world in helping people. They have already established an act in congress [1], taken the responsibility to take in people, who are in danger and life-threatening situations. The Senate's unanimous consent on said act goes far to highlight the importance of human life, and the power of the US to accept refugees.

As the very virtues of the words on the Statue of Liberty, how can we go back on our promise as "land of the refuge"?

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" [7]

To stop the process and principles in the middle out of nowhere seems strange and illogical. This would require such a massive revolution that it would be near impossible to support. words the case extremely well, noting from the definition of refugee, that refugees differ from immigrants in the cause (though not effect):

  • ...refugees come here seeking safety and refuge from violence, torture, or persecution. They do not voluntarily choose to migrate but are forced to leave their home countries because of circumstances outside their control.
  • After being forced from their home countries, refugees usually experience a long period of displacement in refugee camps or other vulnerable conditions while they go through an exhaustive vetting process in applying and waiting for permanent resettlement. [5]
Due to the value of human life, and the ideals that construct the basis of America, the premise can be won merely on this point alone. Even if Con could miraculously flip point II and III, he would have to prove that the destruction is so severe that it is equivalent to negating our act from congress, and the ideals of freedom and acceptance from America. 

II. Economics
a) Jobs

A lot of Americans complain, we come to steal their jobs, but refugees encourage you to work harder, with greater competition at hand. Refugees provide a strong backbone of the economy, as well. The involvement of refugees gives extra motivation, resulting in a better work force in America. As one study notes, "refugee-country immigrants spurred significant occupational mobility and increased specialization into complex jobs, using more intensively analytical and communication skills and less intensively manual skills." [2]  With over 95% confidence and a positive correlation over 13 years, the study makes it apparent that we definitively boost the US economy, causing a win-win situation. The significance of the immigrant work force is nothing to scoff at.

Even at a glance, "In 2018, the labor force participation rate of foreign-born adults was 65.7 percent, higher than the 62.3 percent rate for the native born, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics."  [9] The statistics prove that immigrants are a significant source for the job market. Truly, a scholar from Brookings Institute admits that due to the natives, "a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that the efficiency gain is probably below $10 billion a year" [10] Con may try to say that compared to the entire economy, this is not a big part, but the work labor efficiency is more important. Brookings' Paper further finds "the estimates of theefficiency gain roughly double the measured benefits from immigration". If Con continues to object that this is not enough, despite the potential being there, then he would stab himself in the foot and admit we should decrease migration costs to let more immigrants come, so that they may contribute to a greater part of the economy.

b) Business
Indeed, not only do refugee workers thrive, the entrepreneurship works excellently. The start-ups differ from taking jobs as there may be limited demand for workers, while the demand for companies may never end, with more and more customers and fields to satisfy. One article from HBR carefully analyzes this relation, noting the pattern: ", in total, 35%-40% of new firms have at least one immigrant entrepreneur connected to the firm’s creation." Through data crunching through the Census Bureau, they conclude that the businesses of immigrants are no worse than those of natives. Not only so, "firms created by immigrants who have grown up in the U.S. are generally associated with better outcomes, in terms of lower closure rates and higher representation among larger firms." [3] The contribution to the economy and exchange of money will allow the resulting finance to boom as a result. 

c) Trade
The mere export of immigrants can provide many benefits to overall trade between countries. It has been agreed that there is a definite positive correlation between the refugee/immigrant to the effects of trade. One study clarifies that it has been able to find a reasonable cause as well. Firstly, statistics note " a 10% increase in the Vietnamese network raises the ratio of exports to Vietnam over GDP by 2% and the share of total exports going to Vietnam by 1.5%". [4] Next, the study finds that people's motivations are inherently related to them establishing businesses. The ties to their formal nation allow us to foster the trade, with the undeniable link between countries. If these two studies alone are not convincing enough, another expert establishes a framework that displays the intertwined nature of trade and immigration policies. [8] I won't waste too much time discussing how rigorous this study is. They use "(1) Conceptualization, (2) Measurement,and (3) Aggregation" in order to analyze the policies' relations to each other. Needless to say that unless Con is able to refute the empirical measure, the motivation, and the different way of analyzing the policies' relations, this stands on its own.

Before I lose track of a potentially strong rebuttal, I know many Contenders of this topic like to say Government has to provide welfare for greater amount of people. But according to, immigrants are actually less likely to receive welfare than natives, and even when they do, the per capita cost is less than the natives. So this is not a problem, and overall these points combine for a powerful economy boost for the US. I couldn't make it any more clearer.

III. Legality Impact

If con advocates for the same or a lesser amount of refugees, he agrees with Donald Trump's executive order, as it is the status quo. But this is impossible to enforce on a legal level. Already, states have rebelled in recent events. "The vast majority of U.S. governors, Republican and Democrat alike, have affirmed their support for continued refugee resettlement". [6] The mayors and those in power on the local level are already observing their beliefs. They see how immigrants and refugees contribute to the job force. What would you say to them to dissuade them?

Because we already established the resettlement groups and the people to enforce these ideals, the loss on our side is immense if we continue to support Trump's executive order. The same site highlights the context: "But because of decreasing arrivals since 2017, these agencies have been forced to shutter more and more offices each year. As of June 2019, refugee resettlement agencies had closed 51 programs and suspended resettlement services in 41 offices across 23 states." The effect then follows as such: "These reductions have meant serious cuts to personnel, losing valuable expertise on issues important for successful resettlement, including trauma care, housing assistance, and job placement." With the lose-lose impact of cutting back further on refugees, I'm simply not seeing the Con side, and the burden is completely upheld.

Thank you, Undefeated, for proposing this debate.
I Rebuttal: “On net balance”
I.a As a writer by profession, I understand the necessity to establish a proper narrative tense for a story,[1] or even a debate argument, and there are necessary restrictions imposed by such a decision. Normally, one has the choice of past, present, or future tense narratives. To couch the entire debate into an “on net balance” condition proscribes the narrative tense to be a present narrative tense, only. Past is irrelevant, and future tense introduces potential, but not proven causes or effects on whatever the “balance” happens to describe. Therefore, a past or future condition cannot be entertained because it cannot be substantiated as the only future possible. 

I.b Therefore, a discussion of “after Covid” effectively disrupts the balance Pro wishes to maintain. Oh, but if wishes were fishes… Therefore, the resolution fails on that point. However, it has additional problems to be covered in rebuttals and arguments below.

II Rebuttal: Open Border Policy & Humanitarianism
II.a The definition of Pro’s U.S. Open Border Policy, specifically, a de jure policy in Pro’s R1 allows for a non-distinction between a de jure and de facto policy due to the definition’s free movement of people (and often of goods) between jurisdictions with few or no restrictions on movement.”  To wit,it does not matter whether a limiting policy has a legal jurisdiction, or not, therefore, the “distinction” is immaterial.

II.b In addition, the policy offers no limit to the numbers of people who would cross such an open border, therefore, Pro’s argument in R1, I Humanitarianism numbers and percentages are meaningless.

II.b.1 For example, Pro’s claim in R1, I of a contradictory pattern in his referenced chart [no source given, therefore, I reject it out of hand], referencing a change in pattern since the Trump presidency, ignores the lower refugee numbers prior to the Obama administration, so the pattern is somewhat consistent relative to politics of the administration, at least for the time period referenced by the chart of unknown origin.  Argument debunked.

II.c Pro’s referenced Refugee Act of 1980 disagrees with Pro’s “free movement of people” because it set a ceiling of 50,000 annual refugees, which is not “free movement.” Argument debunked.

II.d Pro references the Statue of Liberty plaque of the poem,The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus. However, the poem, as humanitarian as it sounds [poetic license], does not agree in principle with stated U.S. statute [such as Pro’s Refugee Act of 1980]. Further, the erection of the pedestal on which the plaque is mounted, and which supports the Statue of Liberty, was a privately funded erection, for which the poem served as a fund-raising effort, not as a statement of official U.S. policy.[2]

II.e Pro’s last argument of R1, I is that the distinction between refugees and immigrants means  “that refugees differ from immigrants in the cause (though not effect),”  but the effect is a significant difference because it adds to the number, which, being unlimited by Pro’s open border policy, would not be numbered at all, thus defying the Refugee Act of 1980.

III Rebuttal: Pro’s R1, IIa Jobs

III.a Pro argues that the refugee participation labor rate exceeds native participation labor rate, 65.7% to 62.3%. However, Con ignores that the factors feeding the participation labor rate do not include either retired persons who are still working, nor self-employed persons.[3] Just those of the latter, self-employed, number a ratio of 1:9 of the total participation labor rate, or 11%,[4] which would more than compensate for the 3.4% apparent larger participation rate of refugees, if the self-employed were counted. Granted, the self employed include refugee self employed, but their number of total self-employed is about 13% of all self-employed, so the resulting self-emploed is still greater than the refugee total participation rate, The number of retired still working adds to that 11%. I happen to fit in both categories of the factors not counted.

IV Rebutal: Pro’s R1, IIb Business
IV.a Pro makes an apparent valid argument by the improved status of refugees, let alone immigrants, starting businesses and being business owners. The numbers look impressive, but there is a risk factor I face as a business owner, that, according to one lending institution, depending on government policy regarding SBA loans to immigrants, “Business grants for immigrants are most appealing because, as a recipient, you won’t be liable to repay a debt.”[5]  Uh… wow. I am a native born citizen with direct ancestry son-to-father back to 1625 on American soil in Boston, and four ancestors who signed the Mayflower Compact, and sailed to Cap Cod in 1620, and I have no access to such deals.

V Rebuttal: Pro’s R1, IIc Trade

V.a Pro argues, with statistics, that, for example, the Vietnamese export of immigrants as having a net increase in export to Vietnam as a result. That may be benefitting Vietnam, but, as it happens, for the past 40 years, at least, the U.S. import/export ratio is seriously skewed toward US exports, which is backward in consideration of the overall U.S. GDP, which depends on a positive, not negative import/export ratio. It may be good for Vietnam, but not for the U.S.  In 2019, U.S. exports to Vietnam were $13.4B, while imports were $67.9B, a $54.5B deficit to the U.S.[6] The current, overall U.S. trade deficit is $864B in 2019.[7] Why, then would an open border policy be beneficial to the U.S. per the resolution? The resolution fails on this point. 

VI Rebuttal: Pro’s R1, III Legality

VI.a Pro argues, with sourced reference, that 42 governors of States support continued acceptance of refugees. The source offered indicates that that numbers allotted by the President [Trump] are “by far the lowest allocation in the history of the resettlement program.”  However, the article ignores that its data derives only from 1980, forward, and not representative of the entire scope of refugee resettlement in the U.S. Further, the article ignores that it is not State Governors, nor mayors, who establish the allocation limit of refugees in the U.S.; it is the President.

VII Argument: After Covid vs. During Covid are not philosophically compatible

VII.a The resolution claim that after Covid, the US should adopt open borders is flawed simply because during the Covid-19 pandemic, as affecting strictly the U.S. [although other nations have had similar during-Covid restrictions], the camp that has argued for shutting down commerce in many States and cities [for example, New York and California States and cities][8],[9] also argue for open international borders.[10],[11]  If shutting down commerce in these states, preventing even intrastate commerce, such as restaurants, how is that a compatible philosophy with opening international borders for free access? 
VII.b Therefore, argument during-Covid for shutdown combats after-Covid open borders, and, therefore, the argument for both conditions is counterintuitive, in addition to the plausible narrative issue of “on net balance” in rebuttal I, above.
VIII Argument: The 14thAmendment vs Supreme Court case Wang v. U.S. [1898]
VIII.a The Fourteenth Amendment established a clarified understanding of U.S. citizenship compared to that specified in Article I, section 2, clause 2, which established U.S. citizens as being all persons who were counted as “whole persons.” The understanding of that term has been a bitter battle of dispute over racism, [which consideration is completely wrong because in spite of the three fifths clause of the Article I, those who claim racism today do not understand that not all Blacks were slaves, and the Census of 1790 counted all free Blacks, but that battle is not germane to this debate, and will not be entertained in that light. The point is, citizenship was, with Article I, a matter of Census counting, period. Not until the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, was citizenship more clearly defined as is described in the citizenship clause in Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
VIII.b However, the Wang v. U.S. [1898] Supreme Court case defined citizenship as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”  with the effective striking of the underlined text.
VIII.c To understand the distinction, we must understand the “and subject to…” phrase in detail, so that we know exactly what travesty the Court exercised. Let’s turn to the OED: 
Subject (to):n. 3. A member of a state other than its ruler, especially one owing allegiance to a monarch or other supreme ruler. 
Jurisdiction:n. 1.3. The territory or sphere of activity over which the legal authority of a court or other institution extends. 
Thereof:adv. Of a thing just mentioned; of that. 

VIII.c.1 The only way the Court can interpret this phrase as they did in Wang is to completely ignore the “subject to” phrase as part of the ratified Fourteenth Amendment, as if it was not there: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” Only by this manipulation of ignorance by effectively striking the  subject to  phrase does the Court’s interpretation make sense. But the Court cannot treat the Constitution in such manner. In fact, the Court has no authority, even by some perverted sense of oversight, to change the Constitution’s verbiage, even by striking a word, let alone an entire phrase.

VIII.d To open the borders of the United States would render the proper definition of the citizenship clause completely void. It is unconstitutional to do so. That it has happened previously is not license to continue in that error.

VIII.e Therefore, arguing for open U.S. borders violates the citizenship clause.

IX Argument: Establishing a federal law to open U.S. Borders is unconstitutional

IX.a Pursuant to the above argument, any federal law enacted to cause an open-border status, allowing free access to the U.S to alien residents would therefore be unconstitutional, given the current constitutional law of the 14thAmendment, which overrides any federal statute, makes the resolution, let alone the passage by any State or federal statute unconstitutional.


Round 2

Firstly, the source is, a trusted expert article. Note how Con did not even notice the journal's URL in the image link, so I urge voters to distrust in Con's refutations as a result. 

Secondly, Con misinterprets my stance as to go back to 1980's standards. Yet he fails to counter my ideology which I detail further here:
  • Peoples' freedom to choose where to go and the opportunity to break free of poverty is a crucial human right, especially sponsored by America's democracy
  • The 1980 Act did not account for the exponential growth of population and was a tentative cap potentially due to the US's uncertain state within the Cold War. The war has since ended in 1991.
  • The US was considered a superpower for the past years, and COVID's poor response with a massive amount of infected defame its power. With Biden taking center stage, he may frame open-border policy as a reformation to counter Trump's racist image and begin a wide acceptance of immigrants, regardless of color or origin. With the US leading once again in immigration and refugee policy, this would inspire the world to begin trusting each other more and being more accepting of those in need of a haven.
  • Human life matters and we should not allow those in less privileged countries to suffer needlessly, denying them access to the US
a)  Jobs
Notice how Con only chooses to tackle the idea of being significant in participation (amount of workers), yet not the economic contribution, the crux of the argument. 
Con dropped:
  • significant occupational mobility and increased specialization into complex jobs
  • a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that the efficiency gain is probably below $10 billion a year
  • the estimates of the efficiency gain roughly double the measured benefits from immigration
b) Business

Con says there is a risk factor for the immigrants, but fails to tell us how significant this is. How detrimental is this? What happens in a world where every immigrant is somehow coerced into this dangerous deal? We don't know. Con has dropped my claim: firms created by immigrants who have grown up in the U.S. are generally associated with better outcomes, in terms of lower closure rates and higher representation among larger firms. My impact is very solid. Our businesses overall would stand well and be represented among other businesses. Fundera, Con's source, is merely a suggestion of a possibility, which can be reduced by knowing this in advance. On the other hand, my empirical results are far stronger and more dependable.

c) Trade

Con points out the current flaws with Vietnam trading but fails to negate the fact that the immigrants had helped us reduce the costs of such trading. The US decided to buy more than export into Vietnam. I will make no remarks about the US's trading decisions, only that the source of the trouble is not immigrants. Con's source states, "the U.S. trade deficit is the product of U.S. macroeconomic policy. Currently, the demand for capital in the U.S. economy outstrips the amount of gross savings supplied by households, firms, and the government sector". You could argue that in fact, more immigrants means that they would spend more and save more for the households, at least partially solved by the open border policy. I don't see how our bad trade negates the open border policy. At the very worst, an open border would only have a negligible effect on our buying and selling of resources. And at the best, as we encourage goods to flow further, this results in a big economic boom, resolving Con's worries.


Let's be fair, I could drop this argument, I could keep it, it's not too significant. But the point is that the state governors may disagree with limiting immigration policies or even closed border policies. As they wish to accept more refugees and be more open to the people, the impact is that even with a federal law that closes the borders, it seems more likely that the states will secretly still invite more refugees in, else their organizations lose a significant amount of employees (in the refugee agencies). 

After Covid vs. During Covid 

Here Con makes an interesting point that the COVID policies would counter what we desire after COVID. But as the virus subsides, we eventually want to return to the status quo before. We will have to restore movement between cities, and along with it, we could bring along the international movement. I see no big problem here.

14th Amendment

Here Con makes the classic anti-immigration argument based on 14th amendment. On the surface, the amendment seems solid, but it is more complex than it seems. 

In a nutshell, Heritage states:
  • "Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally.
  • Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
  • Birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution."
We would not make illegal aliens' children into citizens, nor even diplomats necessarily. The "subject to the jurisdiction to the US" meant they did not owe allegiance to other countries. As Con mentions US V Wong, the "birthright" idea was incredibly vague, and only the lawful permanent residents' children could become a child. The immigrants' children are subject to the jurisdiction of the country of their parents. Heritage further notes that the State Department incorrectly interprets to provide a passport regardless of "subject to the jurisdiction". So this is a mistake within the executive fiat rather than provided by congress. There is no big problem here, and people enter and leave the US as they please, earning citizenship only if they can be considered the idea "permanent" and "lawful". 

Conclusion: Con makes an argument based on logic reasoning, which seems reasonable, until you realize that policies are based on impact. A policy can be logically flawed, so long as the results are able to be upheld in practice and the result helps the general public. Notice how Con never points out any detriments to allowing an open border policy, which highlights he agrees with me. The impact of denying immigrants entry prove a heartless Biden who agrees with Trump. On a national scale, it paints us as racist, unopen, and contradictory to equality and freedom. Our international relations would be strained, and for a lack of better phrase -- closed off.

I Defense: Con R1 argument against “On net balance”
I.a Pro dropped this rebuttal argument. My R1, I stands.

II Defense: Con R1 argument against Open Border Policy & Humanitarianism
II.a Pro accuses my ignorance of the URL from which the graph Pro exhibited originates. Wrong. Pro’s argument needed more than the “trusted expert article,”  because it contained evidence refuting the “expert” status.

II.a.1 The article authors: Molly Fee, at publication [June, 2019], was still a PhD candidate, which does not describe an “expert,” even in academia. She was still a student. 

II.a.2 Rawan Awar was a “post doctoral fellow” at Brown University. So, professionally speaking, what is a postdoc fellow? I was one. But, according to, “a postdoc is the de facto next step on the academic career path after earning a PhD (hence the name.) A postdoc is a temporary position that allows a PhD to continue their training as a researcher and gain skills and experience…”[1]  She was still a student, as well. Awar’s bio indicates her focus of study is the Global South. 

II.a.3 I’ll suggest that the USA is not Global South. Nor, in fact, are the countries of her shared article’s concern: Iran, Somalia, Syria. So much for “experts.”

 II.b The article complains that Trump’s January 2017 Executive Order[2] “..referred to as both “the travel ban” and “the Muslim ban,” curtailed refugee resettlement, causing local and global ripple effects disrupting the international refugee assistance regime.”[3]  The article draws this conclusion without bothering to reference the E.O., which says, “The screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with the visa-issuance process and the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) play a crucial role in detecting foreign nationals who may commit, aid, or support acts of terrorism and in preventing those individuals from entering the United States.”[4]

II.b.1 The EO clearly says it was not a ban against only Muslims in the six countries mentioned, three of which are the concern of the so-called experts’ article. The article admitted all six countries are only “mostly” Muslim. The E.O. does not specify any demographic, but a condition of those named countries’ inability/refusal to assist the vetting of their citizens who wish to travel to the U.S.

II.c Pro accuses that I ignore his argument “Peoples' freedom to choose where to go and the opportunity to break free of poverty is a crucial human right…” I challenge Pro to show me where this “crucial human right” is argued in his R1.
II.c.1 No such crucial human right exists. Perhaps some academic has made the claim, such as Pro’s “experts.” The U.S. Constitution acknowledges certain rights [the Declaration of Independence calls them “inalienable”], but the Bill of Rights is issued to U.S. citizens. The only right offered to people who are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” is due process. In particular, there is no human right, except due process, issued from the U.S. to the world’s population outside the borders of the U.S. by which they are “free to choose where to go,” by any “crucial human right.” They come to the U.S. by privilege, specifically by the Refugee Act of 1980; the privilege being that they are invited, but not that they have carte blanche to an open border whenever and wherever they wish. Privileges are not rights.  Pro’s argument is not humanitarian; it is invasion.

III Defense: Pro’s R2 Economics, Jobs rebuttal to my R1
III.a Pro R1 argued that low-skilled migrants encourage natives to work harder. I have no argument with Pro’s referenced article. However, the article does not speak to Pro’s resolution. In no part of the article text does it advocate an open U.S. border. 
IV Defense: Pro’s R2 Economics, Business comment on my R1
IV.a Pro argues in rebuttal to my R1 that,Con says there is a risk factor for the immigrants, but fails to tell us how significant this is.”  No, I did not say that; here’s my argument: “The numbers  [of refugee entrepreneurship]  look impressive, but there is a risk factor I face as a business owner…”  I demonstrate my risk, not that of refugees. Indeed, from my source [R1 – 7], there is less risk to refugees seeking small business loans. Pro misses that I, and every other native-born, or naturalized citizen of the U.S. attempting to obtain a small business loan face a penalty of default on a loan that immigrants do not face. “My impact is very solid,”  Pro says. It is, indeed: solidly favorable to the immigrant; solidly unfavorable to the U.S. citizen. 
V Defense: Pro’s R2 Economics, Trade comment on my R1
V.a Pro’s R2 rebuttal is thatan increased population of refugees would add to “gross savings supplied by households” to rescue the current forty-year-plus trade imbalance the U.S. suffers. Does Pro realize he is, in effect, asking 870,000 immigrant refugees to each contribute $1M to their household savings just to bring the trade deficit to break-even? That is over-claiming ability to the point of absurdity. Pro could try to argue it, but it is reductio ad absurdum.

VI. Defense: Pro’s R2 Legality
VI.a Pro argues, “Let's be fair, I could drop this argument, I could keep it, it's not too significant.”  Okay, let’s be fair by recognizing certain realities, such as:
1.    State Governors and Mayors may favor higher populations of immigrants, but Gs and Ms do not establish immigration policy; the Executive branch does.

2.    Gs and Ms could “secretly” import more immigrants than allowed by Executive fiat, but Gs and Ms do not administrate Border Patrol; the Executive branch does.

3.    As to points 1 & 2 that Gs and Ms favor higher populations of immigrants – Pro’s primary argument, the fact is, Pro’s own source of the US map presented in his R1, III Legality argument identified 42 States that favor “Consent granted” for refugee resettlement, but neither the map, nor the article, convert “consent” into increased populations of refugee resettlement, as Pro’s “free movement open border” resolution advocates.
VII Rebuttal: After Covid vs During Covid
VII.a Pro argues, “But as the virus subsides, we eventually want to return to the status quo before.We will have to restore movement between cities, and along with it, we could bring along the international movement.I see no big problem here.”  Does anyone else see the contradiction in this single argument? Does Pro want to “bring along” increased numbers of immigrants per the resolution? Of course, Pro sees no problem with that. I see a big problem. I wish Pro could see it, as well. Pro might rebut that what he means by status quois status quo before Trump. After all, his actual comment is “status quo before.”But, before Obama, there was also lower immigrant numbers, refuting his ani-Trump argument. Then, Pro argues, “We will have to restore movement between cities.”  When have we not had movement between cities?  Since March, I have been in L.A., San Diego, Philly, and Phoenix. 
VII.b Well, I did rebut in my R1 that During vs After Covid were philosophically incompatible. Pro argues for both sides of the debate, and, therefore, embraces the incompatibility. 

VIII Defense: My R1The 14thAmendment vs Supreme Court case Wang v. U.S. [1898]
VIII.a Pro claims the 14thAmendment is a “classic anti-immigrant argument.” Far from it; it defines exactly what is and is not a citizen and an immigrant, quoted from the amendment’s Section 1. Pro then offers a misunderstood rendering of the 14A, “Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally,”[5]  as if Heritage is arguing for birthright citizenship of children born to foreigners who are not naturalized. No, that is not Heritage’s argument. 
VIII.a.1 The proof of that misunderstanding comes from the primary author of the 14A, and in particular, it’s Section 1: Senator Jacob Howard [R-MI], testified the following in defense of his amendment proposition before the Senate in 1866 [and it is a matter of the Congressional Record]: “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction,is by natural law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” There is nothing anti-immigrant about this, or the verbiage of Section 1. These are both statements of definition. Period.

VIII.a.2 Pro makes the error of quoting the amendment’s conditional phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” as  “subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.”  and adds that this “meant they did not owe allegiance to other countries.”  But Pro’s “subject to…” is not the correct quote from the 14A, and as a result, Pro concludes, incorrectly, that such persons are not subject to the countries from which they came. That is exactly contrary to Jacob Howard’s statement. Finally, Pro claims that his argument is supported by the Heritage article by saying, “…the State Department incorrectly interprets to provide a passport regardless of ‘subject to the jurisdiction.’ So this is a mistake within the executive fiat rather than provided by congress.” No, this is, unfortunately, correct interpretation of the precedent established by the Supreme Court. The State Department is following the incorrectprecedent [i.e. law] of the Supreme Court by their Wang v. U.S. [1898]decision. The fault belongs to the Supreme Court, and only that Court can reverse the decision by a similar case presented to it, and not by their own initiative, or else Congress must act by appropriate corrective immigration legislation to agree with the original, complete verbiage of the 14A.

VIII.a.3 Pro concludes his 14A rebuttal claiming,  “There is no big problem here, and people enter and leave the US as they please…” I can well imagine from Pro’s perspective, there is no problem, because he argues immigrants are able to cross the border with “free movement” and as a result, everyone in the world is one happy family residing in the U.S., and the U.S. is, thereby, benefitted. Yeah, in my youth, I wore rose-colored glasses, too. I really did have a pair, as a child of the 60s coming of age. As a campaign volunteer, I was in the Ambassador Hotel ballroom on 5 June 1968 in Los Angeles, my home town, when an illegal immigrant, Sirhan Sirhan, assassinated Bobby Kennedy. I was in flight from SFO to JFK, with an intended connection to Madrid, somewhere over CO, a very common occurrence for me then, when I usually spent over 200+ days in a year away from home, plying my international troubleshooting trade. News was suddenly blacked out on board, and the pilot said, ten minutes later, with no introduction whatsoever, that “The airspace over the United States has been shutdown. We are ordered to return to SFO.” That was on 11 September 2001. We knew nothing of what happened until our return to SFO. Yeah, y’all tell me about “free movement.” This is a failed Pro rebuttal with personal experience as an emphatic source. No big problem, indeed.
 IX Dropped rebuttals/arguments from my R1
IX.a Pro dropped my R1, I rebuttal against “On Net Balance.” In fact, Pro doubles-down on this rebuttal in his R2, Legality. Pro’s argument remains debunked.

IX.b Pro’s first chart [the one claimed that I did not see the URL – but I defy Pro to show me in the body of the chart that shows its origin] indicates a pre-Obama-administration reduction of immigrant influx, a higher incident during Obama, and a subsequent drop post-Obama. Pro dropped the argument, ignoring the pattern change was during Obama, not post-Obama.

IX.c Pro dropped my R1, II.c rebuttal that, “Pro’s referenced Refugee Act of 1980 disagrees with Pro’s ‘free movement of people’ because it set a ceiling of 50,000 annual refugees, which is not ‘free movement.’ Argument debunked.”  It remains debunked.

IX.d Pro dropped my R1, II.d rebuttal regarding his incorrect understanding of the intent of the poem, The New Colossus,on the Statue of Liberty pedestal, as not being immigration policy, but a fund-raising effort. Pro’s argument remains debunked.

IX.e Pro dropped my R1, II.d rebuttal regarding “…the distinction between refugees and immigrants means  ‘that refugees differ from immigrants in the cause (though not effect),’  but the effect is a significant difference because it adds to the number, which, being unlimited by Pro’s open border policy, would not be numbered at all, thus defying the Refugee Act of 1980.” Pro’s argument remains debunked.

I will address other points in pro’s R2 in my R3, and pass R3 to Pro

Round 3
 Net Balance: I feel like Con's objection is insignificant. I'm not sure why the change of timeframe shifts the burden of proof. I need more clarification on why he thinks this.


Firstly, regarding the executive order and Trump's anti-immigration policy. Note how Con carefully avoids contesting my accusation of Trump's racist ideas and basis for the policy and instead tries comparing it to Obama, despite the counter-pattern of rising within the graph. There is yet further evidence for Trump denying equality for people and judging based on skin tone. An article from details my argument further. A professor of ethics notes that Trump accuses Mexicans of being innately intertwined with drugs, rape, and crimes. The eugenic action taken by Trump is simply inexcusable. He deports Mexicans merely based on the problem caused by others of the same race. Trump has created a dichotomy where the immigrants are treated as enemies rather than mere competitors or even potential helping hand. Even if the two students in my published article are only working towards Ph.D., Con has failed to refute the results and only bothered to try attacking the methods of analysis. 

As for the right to migrate, I will admit that the phrasing seems off. It is more accurately within their rights to migrate if they are not doing anything else unlawful (infringing on others' liberties). Nevertheless, we must uphold the liberty of the immigrants to come into the country unrestricted. As a well-reasoned article from Cambridge notes, immigrants do not innately hold harm:
"...the state has no right to do anything other than enforce the rights which individuals already enjoy in the state of nature. Citizenship gives rise to no distinctive claim. The state is obliged to protect the rights of citizens and noncitizens equally because it enjoys a de facto monopoly over the enforcement of rights within its territory. Individuals have the right to enter into voluntary exchanges with other individuals. They possess this right as individuals, not as citizens. The state may not interfere with such exchanges so long as they do not violate someone else’s rights.

Note what this implies for immigration. Suppose a farmer from the United States wanted to hire workers from Mexico. The government would have no right to prohibit him from doing this. To prevent the Mexicans from coming would violate the rights of both the American farmer and the Mexican workers to engage in voluntary transactions. ... Even if the Mexicans did not have job offers from an American, a Nozickean government would have no grounds for preventing them from entering the country. So long as they were peaceful and did not steal, trespass on private property, or otherwise violate the rights of other individuals, their entry and their actions would be none of the state’s business."

Despite Con's claims with the detriment of competition and risk, they do not infiltrate on the person's rights, only potential to succeed. But just because the state supports you beginning a business, this does not mean it has to guarantee your business has to boom. So Cambridge University's article holds strong on its reasoning. The conclusion is that people still innately have the ability to move freely among borders and that Trump's vague eugenic or generalization reasoning is immensely flawed. Notice how Con pushes the burden back onto me rather than outright refusing the right of immigration. He clearly cannot think of a good reason to deny it, and the core of my argument is strongly upheld.

a) Jobs: Con opts to drop the entire argument, saying that it is not relevant to open borders. Well, if you closed off the border or arbitrarily got rid of immigrants, it would reduce the net benefit revenue obtained from the jobs. So open border policy is still relevant to our jobs. Another article from supports the exact connection by noting the overall effect could double the GDP if every country adopted the open border policy. The development economist agrees with the idea that I gave previously. Stacking more and more evidence only seems to seal the nail in the coffin. So Con's objection does not work.

b) Business: Con repeats his point. I ask again: How significant is this? The answer is, he can't answer. Why? Because he chooses to ignore the positive side of immigrants. It's well known that the immigrants will still be a long term benefit (in addition to previous arguments presented). I will admit that it seems unfortunate for the natives to suffer in terms of business. But the fact of the matter is, they are unproductive compared to the immigrants. So they will either have to work harder to meet the higher standards or try something different. In truth, additional competition still links back to a)'s benefits of improving the quality and quantity of production, which con has chosen not to address.

c) Trade: Con misinterprets the position to solve the entirety problem of trade. Any single policy can only alleviate this problem. Unless con can show that the closed border can neglect the entire debt or buying of the trade, as well as the necessity for trade, it seems more plausible that the US will always buy from other countries, and that the open border must be allowed to lessen the detriments of trade. Besides, Con seems to be cherry-picking Vietnam merely because I mentioned it, while in reality all the countries' immigrants should be considered for the trade. He has not refuted the *reasoning* behind the trade and rather tried to shoot down our error by accepting Vietnam's seeming abuse of our country's trust. You could argue that Vietnam is one of the few exceptions with losing within the trade. Compared to the total trade of $1.3 trillion, the Vietnam failure is just too insignificant to matter. Again, please tell me the unique benefits that a closed border would offer, while avoiding losing the trillion-dollar gains.

Legality: con misses the point again here -- I am saying that if the states would contradict the closed border policy, then it would be difficult and contradictory to state opinions to enforce the Con framework on a federal level.

 After Covid vs During Covid

I ask that Con make this point clearer. If any voter can ascertain what this means, they are free to give this point to Con. But in my mind, the clarification of "after COVID" makes a lot of sense, because enforcing an open border during COVID is counterproductive and I would also have to argue against the sickness potentially spreading. With the context set in place, I can now make realistic ideas about Biden's potential policies and craft my arguments.

14th Amendment

Con remarks more about the logical specific nature of the constitutional amendment. The core idea once more comes down to the actual impact of letting in the foreigners freely. He talks about an emotional topic, the big problems caused by immigrants. 

As a campaign volunteer, I was in the Ambassador Hotel ballroom on 5 June 1968 in Los Angeles, my home town, when an illegal immigrant, Sirhan Sirhan, assassinated Bobby Kennedy. I was in flight from SFO to JFK, with an intended connection to Madrid, somewhere over CO, a very common occurrence for me then, when I usually spent over 200+ days in a year away from home, plying my international troubleshooting trade. The news was suddenly blacked out on board, and the pilot said, ten minutes later, with no introduction whatsoever, that “The airspace over the United States has been shutdown. We are ordered to return to SFO.” That was on 11 September 2001. We knew nothing of what happened until our return to SFO. Yeah, y’all tell me about “free movement.”

Here we must consider if our problem was the free movement within the borders. Yet, overall, the effects of immigration on crime shown by The Marshall Project's data are negligible to say for sure. Regardless of it was the president or an innocent citizen killed, it is problematic, so the problem of crime is non-unique to natives vs criminals specifically. Secondly, terrorism is an interesting unique impact from immigrants, but he misses out on the point again. The fact is that "illegal immigrants" infers that they bypassed whatever restrictions we set, whatever force we had preventing border crossing in the first place. Making the border more open would certainly make it easier, but the problem is not necessarily right at the border. Even though terrorism seems to be a very severe problem, 9/11 inflated the numbers by a large number. Even from a source that would agree partially with Con, notes, "Before 9/11, the chance of being murdered by a foreign‐born terrorist was about 1 in 276.7 million per year compared to the approximate annual chance of being murdered by a native‐born terrorist of 1 in 24.1 million per year (see Table 3). Before 9/11, native‐born terrorists had an annual murder rate about 11.5 times as great as foreign‐born terrorists. " Also, Con's display of emotional story is heavily cherry-picking. Taking a big step back, we realize that even illegal immigrants may not have ill intentions. The article continues: "Only nine illegal immi­grants became terrorists, a minuscule 0.000029 percent of the estimated 31.3 million who entered from 1975 through 2017, as summarized in Table 10. In other words, about 3.5 million illegal immigrants entered the United States for each one who ended up being a terrorist. They murdered or injured zero people in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil." 

Ignoring the tragedy that was 9/11, the number of refugees that had been accepted by the US and saved from war, from poverty, far outweigh potential killers and terrorists otherwise. Con chooses to focus on singular failure while ignoring the successes we have had so far. We must continue accepting those that need help and expanding our borders. The security issues in 9/11 have since been curbed greatly, with enhanced security and background checks on the passengers. I would say that any future terrorists and killers could be a problem with the US rather than the immigrants themselves. If you are evil, you will commit evil anywhere. Why bother traveling so far just to damage the US's reputation? The additional expenses and difficulty make it unlikely that immigrants are a unique threat to the US. Con's argument doesn't work.
I Rebuttal: Humanitarianism
I.a Pro argues my R1 & R2 rebuttals ignore the Trump pattern of decline in immigrations numbers. Wrong. Both round rebuttals point out that Pro’s cited graph shows a pattern of Pre-Obama reduced immigration numbers, and post-Obama reduced immigration numbers. The anomaly of pattern within the chart is Obama, not Trump.

I.a.1 Pro beats this dead horse. My rebuttal of Pro’s alleged pattern holds.

I.b Pro offers an article by reference,[1] which contains several instances of charges against Trump’s alleged racism, which is off-topic relative to the resolution. The article has absolutely no argument in support of Pro’s resolution that the U.S. should adopt an “open border policy.”  The subject does not exist in the article; therefore, the reference fails to support the resolution, while certainly supporting Pro’s own rhetoric relative to Trump. But “Trump” is not a feature of the resolution. “After Covid” is such a feature, but that subject is not mentioned in the article, either. 

I.c Pro offers another “well reasoned” article.[2]  However, it is evident the article males a case for “Borders have guards and guards have guns.”It later says, “On what moral grounds can [immigrants] be kept out. What givens them the right to point guns at [the immigrants]?”

I.c.1 On the first point, “borders have guards…have guns,” the article later alleges that these guns are “pointed at immigrants.”   The article drops off the proverbial cliff on this emotionally charged accusation. Fact: a holstered gun is pointed at nothing but a law enforcement officer’s foot. I rebut Pro by the following: “One senior researcher, Albert J. Reiss, Jr., has argued that the absence of systematic samples of police behavior means that the entire approach to the study of deadly force was flawed ‘because analysts of police use of deadly force focus on situations in which the decision was made to use it, such as firing a weapon . . . they ignore all decisions where force gave way to alternative ways of coping with situations.’”[3]  In other words, the typical analysis of law enforcement “use of guns” includes counts of incidents in which the gun remains holstered. They assume that because a gun is worn at all, it is used, i.e., withdrawn from the holster with intent to fire. As said, this is a flawed argument, and Pro’s cited article assumes that flaw. Therefore, the argument fails.

I.c.2 The second point, morality, fails because law and morality may have intersection, but they are not synonymous. So, as to the 1st “moral question,” the answer is: Pro’s cited Refugee Act [1980] and its schedule of annual allowance of refugees [even though it has been augmented], which argues against Pro’s stated resolution of an “open door policy.” To the 2nd “moral question,” the answer is for Pro [since this is his BoP] to demonstrate all the instances of actual pointed guns at immigrants [including what those immigrants may be doing at the time of the “pointing,” and a comparison to all the instances when guns remain holstered, and demonstrate which occurrence has greater frequency. Only this demonstration will support Pro’s BoP in these “moral questions.”

I.c.3 Pro quotes from the article referenced in I.c, “...the state has no right to do anything other than enforce the rights which individuals already enjoy in the state of nature. Citizenship gives rise to no distinctive claim. The state is obliged to protect the rights of citizens and noncitizens equally because it enjoys a de facto monopoly over the enforcement of rights within its territory. Individuals have the right to enter into voluntary exchanges with other individuals. They possess this right as individuals, not as citizens. The state may not interfere with such exchanges so long as they do not violate someone else’s rights.”  I must  assume “the state of nature” is similar to the Declaration of Independence’s “…separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them…”   They appear, in principle, to be saying te same thing. However, I must note that Pro’s source says that “The state is obliged to protect the rights of citizens and noncitizens equally because it enjoys a de facto monopoly over the enforcement of rights within its territory.”  

I.c.3.A Within its  territory, as opposed to outside of it. So, what should protect these rights outside a given territory, such as the United States? Well if the logic follows what Pro claims by argument, then the outside protection of those same rights belongs to another territory, such as Canada [the source of Pro’s cited article]. Or any other sovereign nation, including those nations from which Pro’s refugees flee. So, why doesn't Pro argue for the correct application of these natural laws by these apparently rogue nations rather than put the burden on the United States to wide-open its borders? I will so argue in defense of my BoP. Let them correct their laws, and the practice of them.

I.d Pro’s last R3 argument on this point is a supposition that the U.S. adopt the resolution, and further, that no law would then allow prohibition of immigrants, the realization of which is argued to be legitimate “so long as they were peaceful and did not steal, trespass on private property, or otherwise violate the rights of other individuals.”   My rebuttal can be as easily supposed, and effectively uses the same rebuttal as offered above in I.c.3: let those other nations correct their laws such that the “American dream” is an available dream to any citizen of any nation such that the need of refugees is solved in their own countries, and a limited, controlled, and reasonable immigration remains possible to and from any nation, without being a burden to any nation. Contrary to Pro’s allegation that my argument pushes back on him, the need for any argument simply vanishes. The grand American experiment is not copyrighted; any nation can adopt it with the will to do it. That they choose not to is not America’s fault, nor Trump’s fault. Pro protests too much on that subject, when that subject is not party to Pro’s resolution, and he begins to sound like a broken record he did not propose to record in the first place. Pro: stay on point: your resolution is not Trump.

II Defense: My rebuttal of Pro’s R1, R2, R3 argument Economics, Jobs
II.a Pro claims I have dropped this argument. As noted immediately above, I have rebutted this specific argument in R1: III.a, R2: III.a, and now in R3. Dropped? Doesn’t Pro wish? Pro offers an article[4] claiming the positive economic impact of immigrants to the migrating-to country. I offer in rebuttal a statement by the very same author, Michael Clemens, from his own website,, saying, “How does immigration affect incomes in the countries migrants go to, and how do rising incomes shape emigration from the countries they leave? The answers depend on whether people who migrate have higher or lower productivity than people who do not migrate. Theory on this subject has long exceeded evidence.”   I will take Mr. Clemens at his word, and declare, once again, Pro’s argument fails to support the resolution based on the variable, and apparently mostly missing evidence demonstrated from Pro’s own source.

III Defense:My rebuttal of Pro’s R1, R2, R3 argument Economics, Business
III.a Pro declares in R3, “Con repeats his point. I ask again: How significant is this? The answer is, he can't answer. Why? Because he chooses to ignore the positive side of immigrants.”  Contrary to Pro’s claim, my R1, IV.a turned his argument on ear by demonstration of SBA offering better deals by forgiveness of defaulted loans to immigrants, while denying such to American citizens.[5] My R2, IV.a repeated this fact because Pro failed to overcome it in his R2 by misreading that my rebuttal targeted US citizens, not immigrants. I’ll say it again, and add the same rebuttal as noted above, II.a, that Pro’s own source, Michael Clemens, rebuts Pro’s argument of the positive business side of immigration effect on migrant-to countries: “Theory on this subject has long exceeded evidence.”[6] Again, I will take Mr. Clemens at his word.

IV  Defense:My rebuttal of Pro’s R1, R2, R3 argument Economics, Trade
IV.a Pro claims that there is a current closed border condition in the U.S. Not true. U.S. Border crossing is currently restricted, but not closed, due to Covid-19. Pro’s resolution argues for after-Covid. Clarification: this is why I raised the point in my R1 that Pro needs to do better to identify his narrative tense, because past/present/future are separate considerations. To wit, Pro’s argument of temporary US Border closure to non-essential travel, currently exists due to current Covid-19 conditions.[7] “Non-essential travel” does not include trade,[8] so that entire Pro argument is debunked even now, let alone in an after-Covid condition.

IV. b Pro argues that I targeted trade with Vietnam because Pro brought up Vietnam. But Pro ignores that an example argument by an opponent is target for rebuttal, so I did. Pro ignores that I also mentioned in my R1, V.a rebuttal that I referenced the current, overall U.S. trade deficit is $864B in 2019.[9] Pro has dropped both R3, IV.a and IV.b rebuttals by Con in earlier rounds, by merely claiming I repeat myself. I do, with added information provided in each round.

V Defense: Legality
V.a I quote Pro’s R3 “rebuttal,” and leave it to judges to determine just who misses points. “Con misses the point again here -- I am saying that if the states would contradict the closed border policy, then it would be difficult and contradictory to state opinions to enforce the Con framework on a federal level.”  My R1 and R2 have rebutted that States and cities do not have the authority to direct border policy; it is the exclusive authority of the Executive in the person of the President. Period. I leave it to judges to determine just who misses points.

VI Defense: After Covid v. During Covid. 
VI.a If Pro is still confused on the proper tense of his resolution, I refer him, and, if need be, voters, to Pro’s resolution. I raised the point because Pro continues to argue present-tense conditions, such as Pro’s entire diatribe on Trump, who is, I think we can agree, a present issue. That he may be an After-Covid issue is unknown, and arguable, but not to any point this debate is limited to cover by Pro’s resolution. Can we focus on the resolution, exclusively, please?

VII Defense: 14A
VII.a Pro argues that I made an emotional argument in my R2 by reference to personal experience. Pro’s glib statement “There is no big problem here” just simply rubbed me a little raw, given my personal experiences. I apologize for the outburst. However, Pro has completely dropped the more pertinent thrust of my rebuttal that Pro entirely misreads the “subject to the jurisdiction of” phrase in the 14A, alleging that immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. because they are here, or want to come here. That's not the meaning of the phrase, and I proved the point in R2, VIII.a.2, quoting Senator Jacob Howard, author of the 14A, in his testimony before Congress in 1866. That the Supreme Court totally ignored the phrase in their deliberation of Wang v. U.S. [1898], notwithstanding, Howard’s description is the proper interpretation, and there should be no other.

VIII Rebuttal: Con’s additional arguments of R2 not rebutted by Con in R2
VIII.a “The 1980 Act did not account for exponential growth…”

VIII.a.1 I acknowledged in R1, II.c and R2, IX.c and IX.e that the Refugee Act of 1980’s suggested immigrant limits have since been increased, but Pro is not satisfied with those changes, and is not satisfied until the U.S. border no longer exists in principle. My response is couched in the argument above, I.c.3.A and I.d. I reference it, again.
VIII.b “The US was considered a superpower for the past years, and COVID's poor response with a massive amount of infected defame its power.”

VIII.b.1 This argument holds no water relative to the resolution, because it focuses on present issues, and does not provide a BoP to Pro that the resolution is valid as a singular response to After-Covid conditions. Again, I refer to I.c.3.A and I.d, above.

VIII.c “Human life matters…”

VIII.c.1 Yet again, Pro’s focus in on present conditions, and assumes the resolution is the proper response without providing a BoP that it is the only [“should”] response that will satisfy an after-Covid world. In rebuttal, once again, I offer my arguments of I.c.3.A and I.d, above as obvious alternatives to an exclusively U.S. open-border policy.
IX Rebuttal: “Con’s argument doesn’t work”
IX.a Pro closes his R3 with the quoted statement above. Which argument? The argument that every nation should adopt the territorial attitude that I presented in I.c.3.A and I.d, above, that all nations argue for the correct application of natural laws rather than put the burden on the United States, alone, to wide-open its borders? That is my argument, in a nutshell, and I thank Pro for providing the impetus, while ignoring it himself, to thrust his resolution through the heart. 

I pass to Pro for the concluding R4.

Round 4
Let’s wrap this up with a big overarching view of what happens when we take my arguments together, shall we?

Firstly, on a theoretical basis. Con tried to refute the idea of our pointing guns at immigrants, but ignores our racist grounding for keeping away these immigrants. He claims we have no obligation to protect other citizens rights to migrate, but gives no evidence that we should restrict this right either. Then we are left with human dignity, ideals of freedom, and what America stands for. It doesn’t matter if the Statue of Liberty was made for money. Presidents run for various reasons, yet they still have to uphold the democratic ideas that US was created for. If we allow con’s ignorance, then we allow US to forget those in poverty, in need. We allow US to slack on charity and lose its foothold as a humanitarian leader. And that will not do in international relations, nor upholding the value of human life and dignity. Do not forget that closed or restricted borders means that refugees potentially go unsaved. And that’s no different than murder.

Regarding economics. Con tried to negate my evidence with my own article, but now ignores the huge impact of improving GDP and the net benefit. Notice how through this entire debate his impact on Americans were incredibly negligible and intangible. We aren’t losing money overall from immigrants; my studies show this. He has only managed to show we lost money in trade in one single year, and failed to note how we are improving the situation, or how immigrants may improve our economy and resolve this problem. He has told us our problems but given no solution. It seems to me that he is merely complaining rather than offering a real problem with open border policy.

Is it truly a problem that the constitution interpretation may seem confusing to open border policy? If we do not bother to do anything regarding citizenship, there is no clear impact left despite going against the law. Notice how con never told us what happens in a world where we disrespect the 14th amendment. How bad is this violation of “jurisdiction concept”? We don’t know. Notice how con dropped the stereotypical presentation of immigrants as terrorists or criminals. The statistics speak for themselves.

Let me paint a different picture than Con. Julio Rodriguez dusts off his ripped hat, as his hundreds of friends are traveling to America. They respect it for allowing them to migrate freely across the border. They can already see the jobs and the improvement for economy. They can already see the Statue of Liberty, representing the haven for their neighboring country’s refugees. They can see the freedom in their fellow traveler’s eyes. Tears fall as they feel the opportunity open for them. They are glad to be able to go into a country as this one.

For all of these reasons, vote for pro.
Resolution: “THBT After COVID, US Should Adopt an Open Border Policy”

I Rebuttal: Pro R4, Theoreticals: Guns, racism, obligations, poverty, dignity
I.a There are other factors Pro packed into his first section of R4, but I submit, for the record, the quote of the resolution above, demonstrating that I know and understand what it says. It’s Pro’s resolution. Are any of these factors listed in the resolution? No, they are not; not one. Did these factors Pro lists exist only during Covid, and that they will disappear after Covid, but only if the U.S. opens her borders to “free movement?” No, they existed previously, and so the cause of these factors is neither Covid, nor is it by any official policy of the United States Government, or Pro would have, I presume, shown the evidence of any present official government policy or legislation that specifically documents an official U.S. position that, against immigrants, specifically, the U.S. policies dictate:

1. the U.S. freely mandates the willful brandishing of any guns [holstered guns are not “brandished”],  and/or 

2. an official statement of policy or legislation that racism against immigrants [or anyone else] is the official position of the U.S., and/or

3. is obligated, by policy or legislation, to allow the free movement of immigrants across an open U.S. border, and/or

4. must resolve the poverty of all immigrants freely crossing a U.S. border, and/or

5. upholds the dignity of all immigrants by allowing their free movement across all U.S. borders.

I.a.1 Pro has failed to provide any evidence by official U.S. policy or legislation that mandates these, or any other factors Pro listed in R4, first section. If he could, I’m sure he would have cited them. As Pro did not, voters are to judge accordingly.

I.b I will note for the record, by the numbers:

1. Citation: U.S. Constitution,[1]  2A. By the citation, read the 2A. “The right to bear arms”is offered to all U.S. citizens, including naturalized citizens who were once immigrants, and desire to join with natural-born citizens by renouncing their prior jurisdictional allegiance to another country. 

2. Citation: U.S. Constitution [cited above]: The term, “racism,” or any variation of the word, does not exist in the Constitution until the 13A, but 13A’s mention is in a positive light in which it is stated that discrimination by “race” shall not be allowed. AS such, no federal, state, or local statute exists, nor any policy manual of any agency, stipulates that racism is acceptable in word or practice.

3. Citation: U.S. Constitution [cited above], 14A. By the citation, read the 14A, section 1, which stipulates the defining of a citizen and a non-citizen, and that non-citizens can become citizens by virtue of naturalization. The obligation of immigrants is that to become citizens, they must be naturalized, but otherwise, the U.S. is not obligated to treat aliens as citizens. Refer also to my R2, arg. VIII.a, introducing Sen Jacob Howard, author of the 14A and his testimony before Congress regarding the amendment’s proper interpretation. Further, I’ll cite the Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 4 regarding legislation of a “uniform rule of naturalization.”That refutes Pro’s argument that State Governors or Mayors can pass immigration legislation of their own.

4. Citation: U.S. Constitution [cited above], Article I, section 8, clause 1: “to provide for… the common defense and welfareof the United States,” but, but a proper understanding, as defined by Jacob Howard’s 14A, “the United States: is a body consisting of its citizens, natural-born, or naturalized immigrants, because any others, as Howard defined, are “subject to…” another jurisdiction, not that of the United States. Many interpret “welfare” to be exactly as has been defined ever since FDR’s “New Deal,” i.e. descriptive of the poor. 

5. Citation: U.S. Constitution [cited above], “Preamble” [yes, it is officially in the Constitution; note the citation], “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  That, in so many words, is human dignity. However, for whom is that dignity guaranteed? “We the People of the United States.” Refer to item 3 for that definition.

I.c The foregoing I.b argument is specific in its regard for U.S. citizens, natural-born, or naturalized as unique holders of these factors, but that immigrants still subject to the jurisdiction of other countries, do not share in these privileges [they are privileges, not rights, as argued in my R2, II.c.1], because they are exclusive to citizens, and are, therefore, not ubiquitous in application, but for the exception of due process.

I.d The Statue of liberty was not “made for money,” as Pro alleges in R4. The statue was a gift from the French people, but the gift was just the statue. Ours was the obligation to erect a foundational base for the statue, and I clearly noted in my R1, II.d that the erection of a base was the obligation of the U.S., and it was funded by private contribution, with the poem, The New Colossus,written by request as a fund-raising medium, but that it did not, does not, and will not express U.S. immigration policy or legislation.

I.e “Con’s ignorance” not withstanding [I’ll leave that to voters for deliberation], my rebuttal I.b – 4, above, clearly acknowledges that, for U.S. citizens, “we  [do not] allow US to forget those in poverty.”  However, the obligation of the poor, by policy, is that they seek work to further draw themselves out of poverty.  “The American public has made clear that work by welfare recipients is a defining goal of state and federal welfare laws, the pursuit of which deserves the highest priority in social welfare policy.”[2]  The cited article goes on to describe the effort as a relative success that still needs improvement, but is working. I re-claim my knowledge. 

II Rebuttal: Pro R4, Economics
II.a Pro alleges I “tried to negate” Pro’s argument by use of Pro’s own source, Michael Clemens. I’ll reclaim the negation by observing that my R3, II.a and III.a arguments specifically regarded Pro’s claims as negated by  Clemens’ own words from Clemens’ own website: “Theory on this subject has long exceeded evidence.”  I stated, “I take Clemens at his word.”  Clemens’ word negates Pro’s argument. Note that Pro did not distance himself from Clemens, but would not acknowledge that Clemens appears to contract his own message. I call that a failed source.

II.b Pro, R4, section 2: “Notice how through this entire debate his  [Con]  impact on Americans were incredibly negligible and intangible. We aren’t losing money overall from immigrants; my studies show this. He has only managed to show we lost money in trade in one single year.”  Negligible? My R1, V.a rebuttal: “The current, overall U.S. trade deficit is $864B in 2019.[3]  If 0.8 trillion dollars is “negligible,” I applaud Pro’s largesse. So, Pro alleges that I claimed the U.S. lost money in trade deficit in a single year. Pro did not read any of my citation. The very first two sentences of the citation state: “The trade deficit is the numerical difference between a country’s exports and imports of goods and services. The United States has experienced annual trade deficits during most of the post-WWII period.”[4]  That’s almost 75 years, not one year. I also made the point of long-term U.S. trade deficit in my R1, V.a rebuttal. Pro fails in the argument.

II.c Pro claims “[Con] has told us our problems, but given no solution.” More failure to read either my argument/rebuttal/defense, or citations. My R1, V.a rebuttal states: “…overall U.S. GDP, which depends on a positive, not negative import/export ratio...”  Is not reversal of the trade deficit to a net positive a solution, but not the only solution? I have offered another solution in my R3, I.c.3.A: “So, why doesn't Pro argue for the correct application of these natural laws by these apparently rogue nations rather than put the burden on the United States to wide-open its borders? I will so argue in defense of my BoP. Let them correct their laws, and the practice of them.”  I have offered two solutions to Pro’s one. Pro fails in the argument by count.

III Rebuttal: Pro R4, Back to the 14A 
III.a My BoP, regardless of Pro’s claim, is not to imagine a world in which “we disrespect the 14thamendment.”  I am arguing for the amendment. It would be, therefore, Pro’s obligatory BoP to argue against it. If he has [I don’t see it, I do see his incorrect interpretation], but Pro apparently does not understand Jacob Howard, either. Pro has failed in the attempt. By proper interpretation, by which I have given the 14A’s author, Jacob Howard, to offer his interpretation. I have already cited him above, I.b – 3, -4, and need not repeat. I suggest the author of a statement is its best interpreter, bar none. My argument stands as given. Pro fails in the argument.

IV rebuttal: Pro R4, Painting pictures
IV.a Touching picture of Julio Rodriguez, whoever he is. Dusty, torn hat, hundreds of friends, freely crossing a border… Nice. Is it a border if it is crossed freely? No. And it is only crossed freely in Pro’s world “after Covid.” But, to prove that BoP, Pro argues in his R3 that the U.S. is not the only nation involved in this “after-Covid” correction of immigration policy by open borders. I refer Pro to his own resolution. Again. As I argued to Pro in R3: stay on point. The resolution is the Pro subject of the debate. As other countries are involved… well, they are not mentioned by resolution, are they? Neither, as it happens, is Trump.  Thank God Pro finally acknowledged that errant point… except he could not avoid it, after all, in R4: “[Con] has only managed to show we lost money in trade in one single year.”  That year; 2019, just so we’re specific, and that year was in whose administration? You got it. Pro cannot let it go. Trump is his boogyman, but Trump is not the resolution, is he? Pro fails in the argument.

V Defense: Pro’s drop of my challenges.
V.a In my R3, I offered a list of my arguments Pro has dropped. See my R3, VIII.a, VIII.b.   These two, specifically, remain dropped.

VI Closing Rebuttal
I will close by rebuttal against Pro’s argument in Description “I believe  [the U.S.] should make up for  [its] mistakes”  by adopting an open-door policy. Pro suggests this be by legislation of federal law. This is a simple rebuttal: I offer the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9 [it is also repeated in Section 10]:  No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.  These are two separate types of legislation; I’ll concentrate on the latter, i.e., ex post facto.  This is Latin, meaning that retroactive legislation for acts committed before the acts were criminal shall be unconstitutional. This same argument, by the way, stands in the way of reparations. Pro considers immigration legislation before the 1980 Refugee Act, and particularly during the current Trump administration immigration policy as criminal, but clearly are not. Otherwise, indictments and/or impeachment on that basis should have been applied, but were not. We must, therefore, consider that a post-Covid legislation would declare, after the fact, that these were criminal actions. Such declaration, by Article I, Section 9 is unconstitutional.  Pro’s argumented belief is, therefore unsupportable.

VII Conclusion
X.a This debate’s resolution does not offer, in itself, a statement of benefit. Pro has attempted by argument to show that the U.S. would benefit from an open-border, free movement policy. I submit that “free movement,” even by Pro’s argument, implies that it would be, not an open border, but no border at all. What, then, of sovereignty? What, then, of a distinction of “country?” What, then, of “culture?” What, then, of “language?” We tried, once, to engage a unified collective at a place called Babel, with an effort to build a tower to reach heaven; with the intent to replace God. That did not work out so well. Not for us. We’ve learned, since, some of us, that culture diversity, and, therefore, language, and civilization itself, and separate sovereignties, means we are better off in that diversity. Borders are a good thing, and we should reach a point that we can embrace them for what they are, and still enjoy a generous and purposeful consequence. What a delight for the heart, mind, and soul.  Then, all of us can sit at a grand table where all foods are enjoyed, all law respected, all hands joined, all cultures enjoyed as diverse, but embraced, all languages interpreted, all skin colors celebrated, and all deities honored. What else could we ever want or need? But, after that grand banquet, and certainly it ought to be repeated, there should always be a place to go home where your four walls, and my four walls are yours, and mine respectively, separately, individually. There is my after-Covid argument.
I ask for your vote for a diversity to be celebrated.