THBT After COVID, US Should Adopt an Open Border Policy
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
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.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" 
- ...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. 
- 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
- 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
- "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."
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 scholar.org 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 wbur.org 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.
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, cato.org 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.