Instigator / Pro
7
1740
rating
23
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#5045
THBT: On balance, the US Government ought to increase the number of legal immigrants allowed into America [@Public-Choice]
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Savant
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 13,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- 1,600
Contender / Con
4
1589
rating
18
debates
69.44%
won
Description
RESOLUTION:
THBT: The US Government ought to increase the number of immigrants allowed into America.
BURDEN OF PROOF:
BoP is shared equally. Pro argues that a system in which the government grants entry to more immigrants is preferable to the status quo. Con defends the status quo as preferable to Pro’s proposal.
DEFINITIONS:
America means “the United States.”
Emigrate means “leave one's own country in order to settle permanently in another.”
Immigrate means “come to live permanently in a foreign country.”
Status quo means “US yearly quota of legal immigrants as of the end of September 2023.”
RULES:
1. All specifications presented in the description are binding to both participants.
2. Only Public-Choice may accept.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Framework:
Definitions
Natural rights: Rights that are inherent to all individuals and do are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government (i.e. life and liberty)
Prima facie: True under default circumstances
Rightful ownership: Moral right to control something at will
Burdens
An unjust law can be identified by its infliction of structural violence. As such, in order to be justified, or preferable to inaction, a government restriction must meet the following criteria:
(a) Such a law must not unjustly harm a person or group of people.
(b) The net effect of this restriction must be positive.
Voters should use these criteria for two reasons. First, human rights are fundamental to any moral system and should be protected. Second, a government policy that fails to provide for the common good no longer has a justification to infringe on liberty. I will argue that a restriction on the majority of would-be immigrants fails to meet either criterion, though if it fails to meet even one of them, it is unjust.
1. Prima Facie Right to Immigrate:
I will discuss natural rights and give a few examples of natural rights that are violated by immigration restrictions. If a prima facie rights violation has no sufficient justification (i.e. the good does not outweigh the bad), or said rights violation is severe enough as to violate human rights or severely harm someone’s quality of life, then the policy violating this right is unjust.
Citizens vs. Noncitizens
- P1: If there exists no morally significant difference between two groups of people, both groups have the same natural rights.
- P2: There exists no morally significant difference between citizens and noncitizens.
- C1: Hence, citizens and noncitizens have the same natural rights.
P1 follows from moral equality, which is an integral part of human rights. P2 is a bit more controversial, but it’s not too difficult to establish. Clearly, a person’s moral worth is not determined by their place of birth. And the distinction between citizens and noncitizens is a legal distinction, not a moral one. Saying that different rights ought to be afforded to citizens and noncitizens is essentially saying, “The government classifies Group A as having more rights than Group B, hence the government ought to classify Group A as having more rights than Group B.” It’s begging the question.
Black men in America were not granted citizenship until 1868, yet they were still morally equal to white men and had as much of a natural right to use public spaces as white men did. Despite not being classified as citizens, they had the same natural rights as citizens.
The caste system in India, which discriminates based on lineage, is unjust. When the Indian government prevented people of certain castes from applying for particular jobs, this was unjust. Citizenship based on lineage is not a sufficient justification for restricting employment or the right to access public spaces.
Collective Ownership vs Unowned Spaces
I will refer here to rightful ownership (i.e. the moral right to act as if one owns a particular plot of land). I will distinguish here between collectively owned spaces and unowned spaces. I will argue that most public spaces in America, such as sidewalks, fall into the latter category.
Collectively owned spaces are those that belong to a group of people, usually an organization. These would include things like condos, where duties and ownership are designated by contract.
Unowned spaces or are those that do not belong to a particular group of people, such as the high seas. While it might be morally justified for an institution to regulate actions on the high seas, such as by preventing human rights abuses, no particular individual or group owns the high seas, and everyone has a prima facie right to use them.
Criteria for Ownership
For something that is unowned to become collectively owned, certain criteria must be met. Suppose 100 different authors simultaneously come up with the same plot for a story and write books that are very similar. This idea does not belong to any particular individual, and unless all of the authors collectively copyright the concept, the idea exists in the public domain. Even if 99 of the authors wish to form a coalition and copyright the idea, one dissenting author has the right to share the idea with others and allow them to use it.
For something that is unowned to become collectively owned, everyone using it must agree to some kind of contract. If some group (even the majority of people on Earth) used force to prevent people in England from shipping supplies across the Atlantic Ocean, for example, this would be unjust.
Public Spaces in America
Note that public spaces in America do not fit the criteria of collectively owned spaces. No contract or agreement to restrict immigration has been signed with 100% agreement of all people using public spaces. There will always be some holdouts.
Furthermore, collectively owned spaces imply certain rights, while unowned spaces imply others. If a space is collectively owned, the majority of people living there have the moral right to create all sorts of restrictions. If joint owners of a private space vote to ban certain speech or certain clothing, they are justified in doing so, since that space belongs to them.
But in public spaces in America, people do have individual prima facie rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. For restrictions on freedom of speech to be justified, this must be because the speech itself violates the rights of others (such as by inciting violence). Even if 90% of people in America wanted to restrict freedom of speech for the remaining 10%, this would be a prima facie rights violation. This indicates that most public spaces in America are unowned (no one group or individual is justified in controlling them prima facie), rather than collectively owned (wherein the majority are justified in passing whatever restrictions they want).
If I live in an unowned space, I have the prima facie right to invite others there, and others are not justified in infringing on this right. Furthermore, anyone has the right to access an unowned space. Hence, restricting the rights of immigrants to use most public spaces, such as sidewalks, is a prima facie rights violation.
Fence Analogy
Note also that when an action is an infringement on liberty, it is still an infringement on liberty when the government takes said action. Taxes are an infringement on liberty, for example, and must be justified via net benefit. If a tax was excessive and made people worse off overall, it would not be justified. Similarly, if a tax created widespread structural violence and forced people into poverty, it would not be justified.
Suppose Person X owns a house and wishes to invite family members over. However, some person or group of people builds a fence around their house and prevents Person X’s family members from entering. They say to Person X, “Of course you are the rightful owner of your house, but we are the rightful owners of the fence surrounding your house. So others have no right to pass through our property to enter yours.” Clearly, blocking off access to Person X’s property is a prima facie rights violation.
Similarly, even if the US government were the rightful owners of public spaces, preventing immigrants from passing through public spaces to rent apartments or work at businesses would still be an infringement on liberty and therefore a prima facie rights violation.
Freedom of Association
Individuals have the prima facie right to associate to protest, worship, or for any other reason that does not involve violating the rights of others. However, if governments designate the places where each person lives as separate countries and prevent individuals from traveling between them, this violates the prima facie right to freedom of association. People in modern-day Mexico and people in the modern-day US have always had the natural right to freedom of association, and immigration restrictions are a prima facie violation of this right.
Right to Protest
Freedom of speech and protesting are natural rights that do not depend on immutable characteristics such as race or place of birth; individuals are morally justified in protesting in public spaces so long as they do not violate the rights of others, regardless of government edicts. Even if the US had passed a law 100 years ago preventing peaceful protesters in America from standing on sidewalks in big cities, this would be an unjust law and peaceful protesters would still be justified in standing there. Similarly, the US claiming this land hundreds of years ago and restricting immigration does not override the natural right of foreigners to access these public spaces to protest.
Right to International Adoption
Clearly, it would be unjust for the US government to ban Americans from adopting children in other countries. So it follows that individuals in the US have a natural right to help those in foreign countries achieve a higher quality of life, even if this requires those individuals to come to America. Therefore, employers in the US have a natural right to hire people from other countries who need a higher income in order to improve their quality of life.
2. Benefits to Immigrants from Moving to US:
Immigration confers many benefits onto those who enter the US. In denying entry to would-be immigrants, the US government is directly harming them, to the point of severely affecting their quality of life. If people in other countries are in danger of death or poor health due to poverty, then preventing their entry to the US constitutes a human rights violation. I will discuss economic effects as well, but it’s clear that the effect on immigrants makes my proposal a net positive.
Economic Opportunities
Net gains per worker from highly loosened immigration policies would be tens of thousands of dollars per year, just in terms of increased income. Use of public services, which we will discuss later, are a net benefit—they cost the government money, but they are beneficial to the immigrant using them. And due to economies of scale, the more people that use a public service, the cheaper that public service becomes per person since some costs are fixed. As there is no morally significant difference between citizens and noncitizens, this is a net positive.
Increase in Life Expectancy
Most would-be legal immigrants come from Mexico, El Salvador, and Guatemala. Due to poor economic conditions, each of these countries has an average life expectancy about 7 years lower than that of the United States. Hence, allowing an immigrant into the US will on average raise their life expectancy, and the life expectancy of their children, by about 7 years. Immigration actually boosts average US life expectancy, so the benefit is likely even greater than the figure I just gave.
3. Effect on Economy:
For the sake of argument, I will discuss the effect of immigration on the economy strictly from the perspective of US citizens. Immigrants are often poor when they enter the US, largely because they come from places with less opportunities. But immigrants don’t stay poor, because they seek employment and rapidly begin contributing to the economy.
Marginal Benefit
An analysis found that the efficiency of migrant workers generally does not depend on which migrants are selected. The net fiscal cost of admitting one unskilled immigrant, when accounting for all long-term effects, is only -$13,000, the calculated difference in the cost of services they use and what they pay in taxes. This may seem like a net negative, but we must also account for the value of goods and services produced by each immigrant over their lifetime. The contribution to GDP by an average US citizen is $70,249 per year. Even if each unskilled immigrant only produces a tenth of that amount (and average immigrant salaries are much higher than 1/10 of the average citizen’s salary), then an average unskilled immigrant adds $7,025 to GDP each year, or $140,500 over the course of 20 years. Essentially, the average unskilled immigrant contributes far more value in goods and services than they receive from the government. Furthermore, immigration increases the value produced by native workers.
Wages
The direct effect on wages from significantly increased immigration would be small and would not be a net gain or net loss regardless. If wages go down, workers make less, but goods and services become cheaper to produce. And this initial direct effect would be outweighed in the long term. According to the National Research Council, immigrants increase the efficiency and wages of native workers overall due to complements in production. And immigrants are 80% more likely to start a business than those born in the US—in the long term, this will drive wages back up (although again, a wage increase or decrease is not really “good” or “bad” in terms of net effect.)
Con
#2
"BURDENS":
STATUS: REJECTED
REASON: UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Pro falsely claims:
"An unjust law can be identified by its infliction of structural violence. As such, in order to be justified, or preferable to inaction, a government restriction must meet the following criteria:(a) Such a law must not unjustly harm a person or group of people.(b) The net effect of this restriction must be positive."
This is false. As per the U.S. Constitution in Article III, Section 2 and the Supremacy Clause, [1] the Supreme Court resides in defining proper governmental restrictions.
As such, the Supreme Court has set 3 criteria, none of which agree with PRO:
- Constitutionality - In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court ruled that all regulations must be Constitutional [2]
- Statutory Authority - In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that the Executive Branch cannot make a regulation without direct authorization from Congress first [3]
- Supracy of Federal Law - In Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court stated that the Federal Law "shall be the supreme Law of the Land," and any other regulations, including state laws cannot override them.
But based on his patently false framework, PRO then proceeds to suggest further unconstitutional arguments when he states:
"Second, a government policy that fails to provide for the common good no longer has a justification to infringe on liberty. I will argue that a restriction on the majority of would-be immigrants fails to meet either criterion, though if it fails to meet even one of them, it is unjust."
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution says that the Federal Government must "provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare" of the United States." [1] So the Government is under no obligation whatsoever to "provide for the common good" of American citizens.
PRO then bases his entire ensuing argument on his factually inaccurate assertions. Therefore, PRO's entire argument must be rejected on the grounds of being moot. He argues for powers the Government does not have and a regulatory framework that the Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional.
"Prima Facie Right to Immigrate":
STATUS: REJECTED
REASON: UNCONSTITUTIONAL
PRO says:
"I will discuss natural rights and give a few examples of natural rights that are violated by immigration restriction"
The U.S. Constitution has already established that non-citizens do not have a right to either immigrate or emigrate to the United States.
The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution says the U.S. Government applies to United States citizens and their Posterity, [1] meaning it does not extend to immigrants. In fact, PRO knows this is true, because he is arguing that the government should ALLOW immigrants to enter America. He says:
"I will argue that a restriction on the majority of would-be immigrants fails to meet either criterion."
If PRO believed immigration was a right, then PRO would not concede that there should be a restriction on the minority of immigrants, which PRO is arguing for.
All of his remaining arguments in this section must therefore be dismissed on the grounds they are moot and based on the false premise that immigrants have rights in America.
Benefits to Immigrants from Moving to US:
STATUS: REJECTED
REASON: UNCONSTITUTIONAL
PRO says:
"In denying entry to would-be immigrants, the US government is directly harming them, to the point of severely affecting their quality of life."
This is patently false. The U.S. Government, as delineated in the Constitution, has a duty to "promote the general welfare" and "provide for the common defense" of U.S. citizens. Immigrants are not cirizens. Therefore they do not have a right to be in American jurisdiction unless the government allows them to be. To suggest otherwise is to demand the Government break the law, which is unconstitutional due to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and aforementioned Supreme Court precedent.
Denying a person access to a place they have no right to in the first place is not harming anyone. The denied person is not allowed there. There is no right nor obligation afforded to them.
Following tautologically from this, we can also dismiss the benefits afforded to immigrants, since it is moot. If immigrants have no right to enter the United States, then whatever benefits they receive is simply a red herring.
"Effect on Economy":
STATUS: REJECTED
REASON: DISINFORMATION
PRO states:
"Essentially, the average unskilled immigrant contributes far more value in goods and services than they receive from the government."And:"The direct effect on wages from significantly increased immigration would be small and would not be a net gain or net loss regardless."
These statements are patently false. The Center for Immigration Studies, a leading think tank on immigration policy, states that "immigration reduces the wages of natives in competition with immigrants by an estimated $402 billion a year." [4]
The Center for Immigration Studies further states:
"The findings from empirical research that tries to examine what actually happens in response to immigration aligns well with economy theory. By increasing the supply of workers, immigration does reduce the wages for those natives in competition with immigrants." [4]Moreover:"At the individual level, excluding any costs for their children, the NRC [National Research Council] estimated a net lifetime fiscal drain of -$89,000 (1996 dollars) for an immigrant without a high school diploma, and a net fiscal drain of -$31,000 for an immigrant with only a high school education." [4] [5] (brackets mine)And:"A just-released study from the Heritage Foundation found that the average household headed by an illegal immigrant used nearly $14,400 more in services than it paid in taxes, for a total fiscal drain of $55 billion." [4]
So it is outright disinformation to argue immigrants afford a net economic benefit. The research definitively says otherwise.
Now, recall that the Constitution says the Government must promote the general welfare of American citizens. By allowing increased immigration, the Federal Government would be violating the Constitution. Additionally, they would be impoverishing American workers and burdening the welfare system, which is a direct violation of the Preamble. Therefore, the U.S. government must not allow more immigrants in order to comply with the Constitution.
SOURCES:
Round 2
Pro
#3
Framework:
Burdens
Con does not dispute that human rights are intrinsic to morality or the existence of natural rights. As such, a law that unjustly harms people or lacks a positive net effect is immoral, or unjustified. Con does not dispute the immorality of immigration restrictions or the ways in which they violate natural rights, they only state that noncitizens are not afforded certain rights in the constitution. But legality and court rulings are not a good measure of morality. As I said in R1, black men in America were not granted citizenship until 1868, yet they were still morally equal to white men and had as much of a natural right to use public spaces as white men did. Despite not being classified as citizens, they had the same natural rights as citizens. So just because a law is constitutional, does not mean that it is just or ought to be passed.
Con hinges their case on constitutionality, arguing that parts of my framework are not found in the constitution. Recall that this is a debate regarding what the US government “ought to do,” not strictly over what is promoted in the constitution.
Con lists criteria for what makes a law “proper” or constitutional, which is a very different thing from a law being good. Human rights violations might help America become more powerful or arguably “safer” in some sense, but the government still ought not to violate human rights.
The problem with Con’s framework is that there are plenty of things that the US government ought to do that are not listed in the US constitution. Invading a neighboring country and stealing resources from the people living there might not be directly prohibited in the constitution, but that does not mean that the government ought to do it. Human rights violations against Native Americans might have been ruled as constitutional at some point in history, but that does not justify them, nor imply that the government ought to violate human rights simply because it helps US citizens. Nor does the constitution even say that the US government should harm non citizens to help US citizens.
In general, legality and constitutionality aren’t great barometers of morality anyway. The constitution of an authoritarian country, for example, might make some leader a supreme dictator who can tax peasants into poverty at will, but it does not follow that he ought to do so. If a constitution crosses the line of violating human rights, then this part of the constitution ought to be amended.
My argument in R1 is that immigration restrictions currently violate the rights of and therefore harm noncitizens. The government ought not to harm noncitizens, even if it is constitutional to do so. And certainly the constitution does not mandate that the government must harm noncitizens if it somehow helps US citizens. Both the constitution and the Declaration of Independence refer to a higher objective morality with terms such as “justice” and “inalienable rights.” It would seem that the framers of these documents would agree with me that people have certain natural rights regardless of government edicts.
Furthermore, even if we did accept my opponent’s framework, I will argue that they miss several significant data points that make immigration a net gain for US citizens. Also, the constitution does mention that the purpose of the government is to “establish justice.” Since I have argued that immigration restrictions are unjust, which Con has dropped, we can see that my argument succeeds even under Con’s framework.
1. Prima Facie Right to Immigrate:
Extend.
2. Benefits to Immigrants from Moving to US:
Extend.
3. Effect on Economy:
“Fiscal drain”
I accounted for the net fiscal cost per immigrant and weighed this against GDP in order to calculate net effect. (I measured it individually, and Con’s statistics refer to households, but the end result should be the same if the sources they used are accurate.)
“immigration reduces the wages of natives in competition with immigrants by an estimated $402 billion a year”
Even if this were true, a change in wages might mean that workers make less, but it also means that goods and services are cheaper to produce, as I pointed out in R1. Increased supply, while reducing equilibrium price, leads to an increase in total surplus (see increased area from △DES → △DE1S1, △EE1center is benefit to natives). As I said in R1, the direct effect on wages of native workers is small anyway (per worker). In a country with a population of 331.9 million, it is not surprising that this small change in wages adds up to Con’s $402 billion figure. Remember that this is not $402 being lost by Americans, it is money being saved by American businesses, making the cost of producing goods cheaper. As I said in R1, immigrants increase the value produced by native workers, leading to a net benefit.
Long-term effects
Con refers to natives that work in competition with immigrants, but this is not a comprehensive calculation of the total effect of immigration. Immigrants tend to take different jobs than native workers. Due to complements in production, immigration actually increases the wages of native workers overall, due to increased efficiency which is a win for everyone. (If more immigrants produce car parts, to give a hypothetical example, the car company can get them for cheaper and afford to hire more salesmen to sell these cars, etc.) As I said in R1, immigrants are 80% more likely to start a business than those born in the US, which will drive wages up in the long term. Increased supply and demand increases total surplus for everyone, while a larger workforce with more opportunities will also help drive innovation.
4. “promote the general welfare”:
“the Government is under no obligation whatsoever to "provide for the common good" of American citizens”
I think Con means “noncitizens” in this sentence, but I will try to address their overall point. My argument is not that the US government has an obligation to help noncitizens; it is that they have an obligation not to harm them. This part of the constitution is simply listing things that the US government is allowed to do—”lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” Ironically, immigration restrictions are not mentioned here or at any point in the constitution. If Con is saying that the government should only do the things listed in the constitution, then that point works against them.
Con
#4
"BURDENS":
STATUS: REJECTED
REASON: MOOT
PRO has not disputed that their argument is moot. In fact PRO accepted it when they said:
"But legality and court rulings are not a good measure of morality."
PRO therefore AGREES with CON that their argument is illegal and therefore moot. The government cannot break the law. It is not allowed. So PRO'a argument literally CANNOT be applied.
PRO also makes a non sequitur. PRO conflates a good with a right. I did not dispute Natural Rights because the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution delineates 10 natural rights all citizens of America have. [1] PRO, however listed only one right: immigration. And I have already proven (and PRO also has just stated they agree) that such right does not exist.
PRO also did not defend the existence of any rights at all in his "burden" section and wishes readers would likewise forget about the Divine Right, or the natural right of governing officials to govern. [2] It is the right of governing officials in America to govern. This is delineated in Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution, which establishes the 3 branches of government. [1]
PRO also makes claims of causing harm equalling a deprivation of rights, but PRO forgets that America is also founded upon Natural Law theory, which stipulates that regulations pushed by a central government which infringes upon Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are in society's best interest by promoting safety and peace. Otherwise, society will devolve into debauchery and chaos. [3]
Thomas Paine, who is considered to be America's philosopher, since he wrote the piece that helped spark the Revolutionary War, writes:
"Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say, it is right."[3]
Notice how the founding philosophical ideals of America directly disagree with PRO in their entirety. Paine argues that government must regulate people because MORALITY cannot. PRO's entire argument, therefore, is not only illegal but also the very antithesis of America's philosophical founding.
In other words, not only does the government have rights, but regulation is, in and of itself, a GOOD. According to Paine, limiting people's rights is GOOD. And this is the establishing ideal of America. The government exists to "provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare" [1] of its citizens. PRO is arguing for a red herring. Therefore PRO's entire argument is still moot. But not only is it moot, it is also illogical and not based on any actual philosophical understanding of natural rights or natural law. PRO simply made it up as he went along.
"Prima Facie Right to Immigrate":
STATUS: REJECTED
REASON: MOOT
PRO dropped my entire response, meaning they agree. But, it goes without saying, the above response under "Burdens" also dismantles his original and current argument and renders it moot.
"Benefits to Immigrants from Moving to US":
STATUS: REJECTED
REASON: MOOT
PRO dropped my entire response, meaning they agree. But, it goes without saying, the above response under "Burdens" also dismantles his original and current argument and also renders it moot.
"Effect on Economy":
STATUS: REJECTED
REASON: DISINFORMATION
PRO did not dispute my sources. Instead, PRO fabricated his own false interpretation of the data.
PRO said:
"Remember that this is not $402 being lost by Americans, it is money being saved by American businesses, making the cost of producing goods cheaper."
This is a clear fabrication. My source, which PRO restated, said:
"immigration reduces the wages of natives in competition with immigrants by an estimated $402 billion a year." [5]
It's right there. This is money LOST IN WAGES. Americans lose $402,000,000,000/year in wages. To put it simply, the Average American LOSES 1,180.76/year because of immigration. Increasing the amount of immigrants would only INCREASE the amount of harm Americans experience.
Therefore, by PRO's own flawed argument, he must concede that America should not raise the quota because his very argument rests in avoiding doing harm to people. If we use PRO'S own argument, it further cements my case. Immigration does HARM to Americans. It literally increases their financial hardships. So more immigrants would only cause MORE HARM. Therefore, PRO must concede. His own argument demands it.
CONCLUSION:
PRO must concede. He is arguing that government employees should have no rights. He also is demanding the Government break the law. And he goes against the very philosophical foundings of Natural Law, Natural Rights, and government regulation being a net benefit for society and a lack thereof being HARMFUL. PRO talks of harm. His policies cause harm. Therefore they must be discarded. I rest my case.
SOURCES:
[4] ibid
Round 3
Pro
#5
Framework:
Burdens
Con does not dispute the many examples I have given throughout the debate of things the government “ought” to do on the basis of morality and not on the basis of what the constitution says. Noncitizens might not be afforded natural rights by the constitution, but that does not mean that the US government was justified in slaughtering innocent Native Americans. At one point, the constitution declared that slaves were ⅗ of a person. This does not mean that slaves actually were ⅗ of a person or that the government was justified in treating them as less than persons.
“PRO also did not defend the existence of any rights at all in his "burden" section and wishes readers would likewise forget about the Divine Right, or the natural right of governing officials to govern.”
I did give several examples of things that imply natural rights. For example, if some group (even the majority of people on Earth) used force to prevent people in England from shipping supplies across the Atlantic Ocean, this would be unjust. Con seems to be willing to bite the bullet and say that these things aren’t unjust and that the government determines what natural rights are, even if that government would do immoral things, but there are two problems with this.
First, this is not an argument against increasing immigration, and recall that BoP in this debate is shared. Con must show that the status quo is “preferable to Pro’s proposal.” But if we accept Con’s framework, if governing authorities did increase immigration, this would be the right thing to do. Governing authorities in the US do tend to increase immigration over time. Under Con’s framework that governing authorities have a natural right to govern, then increasing the number of legal immigrants allowed into America is the right thing to do.
Second, the divine right of kings that Con proposes runs contrary to the constitution which separates powers, so it seems that Con is picking two frameworks that contradict each other. If we accept the supremacy of rulers as a basis for morality, or decide what the government “ought” to do based on what it is currently doing, we run into all sorts of contradictory or repugnant conclusions. For example, Hitler committed genocide and insisted it was justified. Then Stalin went to war with Hitler and helped depose him. Under Con’s framework, Hitler had the right to remain in power, but Stalin also had the right to depose him. Furthermore, it would follow from Con’s framework that Stalin had the divine right to do whatever it is he wanted, including killing millions of his own people. If we accept that these actions were unjust and that Stalin was violating the rights of his own people, then it follows that individuals do have natural rights that ought to be respected, independently of government edicts such as constitutions.
Divine rights of kings and infallibility of rulers are outdated systems of morality. The better system, which does not lead to the justifying genocide, is moral equality, which states that natural rights include life and liberty, but not the right to violate the rights of others.
Constitutionality vs Morality
The Confederate States also had a constitution that ran directly contradictory to the US constitution. So how can we determine which constitution ought to be followed? Clearly there must be some moral barometer that exists externally to government edicts, by which we can measure which laws and policies are good. The natural rights I presented, such as life, liberty, free trade, etc. are the only examples of that presented in this debate. The United States itself was founded on the assumption that Britain’s authority was behaving unjustly—if government edicts are used as the sole basis of what a government ought to do, then Britain’s Intolerable Acts were justified and the American Revolution was unjustified. This puts my opponent in a double bind, since in order to argue that constitutions are infallible, they would have to argue that the American constitution was illegitimate in the first place. I do not think that constitutions are infallible, and I also don’t think the American government is an illegitimate or bad authority as long as it does not violate natural rights unjustly.
“PRO therefore AGREES with CON that their argument is illegal and therefore moot.”
I did not concede this. Increasing immigration is not prohibited in the constitution. However, restricting immigration is not a power afforded to the federal government in the constitution, and the tenth amendment holds that the federal government does not have powers not explicitly given to it in the constitution.
“The government cannot break the law. It is not allowed.”
Governments can refuse to pass laws that are recommended in the constitution (Con claims that the constitution somehow recommends restricting immigration), and government officials should refuse to follow laws that are unjustified (slavery, internment camps, genocide, just to give a few extreme examples), or amend the constitution if it advocates for unjust things, but allowing immigration would not be breaking a law anyway. It would simply be the government doing less to restrict people’s freedom. I am saying that the government should change the law, not break it. Increasing immigration is constitutional, so Con’s argument is moot.
What Defines What the Government “Ought” to Do?
Con does not dispute that the constitution allows the government a great deal of leeway. The government can set 20 different speed limits that are all constitutional, but some of those policies might be better than others.
I did not drop Con’s response regarding prima facie rights; I argued that noncitizens still have prima facie rights even if they are not listed in the constitution. Even before the constitution was drafted into existence, it was wrong for people to punch each other, even though they were not classified as “citizens” by any government entity.
Furthermore, the founding fathers who drafted the constitution clearly believed that natural rights predated it. The Declaration of Independence reads, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Note that they do not distinguish here between citizens or noncitizens, or justify their actions by referring to some governing authority. If America (and its constitution) have any right to exist in the first place, then natural rights like life and liberty must override government edicts and even constitutions.
But my proposal is not unconstitutional anyway. Border restrictions did not exist for a long stretch of US history until 1882. They are not required by or even mentioned in the constitution.
Which Position Violates Natural Rights?
“America is also founded upon Natural Law theory, which stipulates that regulations pushed by a central government which infringes upon Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are in society's best interest by promoting safety and peace”
Con’s source for this is “Common Sense” by Thomas Paine, and it says the exact opposite of what they are suggesting. Paine rejects the ultimate authority of King George. Paine argues that individuals have natural rights and that the government should only act if it leads to a net benefit (as I have said) and should not violate human rights. Also, given that immigration restrictions did not exist until 1882, the founders clearly did not think they were necessary.
“Otherwise, society will devolve into debauchery and chaos”
Con does not show how increasing immigration will somehow cause society to devolve into debauchery and chaos, so this point is moot.
“He is arguing that government employees should have no rights”
I did not argue this. I argued that everyone has natural rights which should not be violated unjustly.
“government regulation being a net benefit for society and a lack thereof being HARMFUL”
Even if immigration restrictions were a net benefit or benefited someone, a lack thereof would not be harmful, it would just be not helping that person. Not giving $5 to someone is not the same as stealing $5 from them (which harms them).
“His policies cause harm.”
A lack of action is not “causing harm.” I argued that the US government should loosen immigration restrictions which cause harm (i.e. stop harming people).
“immigration reduces the wages of natives in competition with immigrants” / “lost in wages”
Con drops the rest of my evidence showing that immigration is a net benefit. As I pointed out, the money that is not paid to workers is saved by employers (who are also American) and often passed onto consumers. This helps small businesses, investors, and customers. So wages going down (which is only in a minority of industries, as I showed) is not a net loss for US citizens, since the money is saved by US citizens.
Extend complements in production, which increases the wages of native workers overall. Extend that immigrants are 80% more likely to start a business than those born in the US. Again, increased supply and demand increases total surplus for everyone, while a larger workforce with more opportunities will also help drive innovation.
Conclusion:
Current immigration restrictions cause unjust harm to those wishing to enter the US and result in a negative net effect, even for US citizens. Therefore, the US Government ought to increase the number of legal immigrants allowed into America.
Con
#6
PRO says:
"Con does not dispute the many examples I have given throughout the debate of things the government “ought” to do on the basis of morality and not on the basis of what the constitution says."
I have not disputed this because PRO has already AGREED with CON that the actions would be illegal. PRO has still clung to a silly argument that the government should effectively become a rogue state that ignores the law, violates the Constitution, and basically acts illegally.
PRO also says such a government is somehow "good" without (and this has continued into this round) actually explaining amy sort of philosophical basis for a LIST of any rights at all. He has not explained what liberty entails, what constitutes as a right amd what doesn't, EXCEPT for immigration. Yet he tries to argue for immigration being a right without laying any sort of philosophical groundwork for what a right actually is.
PRO says:
"Con must show that the status quo is “preferable to Pro’s proposal.” But if we accept Con’s framework, if governing authorities did increase immigration."
This is outright disinformation. I succinctly and clearly stated that immigration causes harm to citizens, therefore, increasing immigration causes more harm. PRO has outright lied multiple times in this debate. He has spread disinformation about the economic benefit of immigration, even after he agreed with the validity of my sources, and he is also, now, in this final round, completely abandoning his own harm argument completely, admitting defeat.
PRO also fails to cite any quotations from his bastardization of Thomas Paine. He knows he is wrong because the blockquote I supplied plainly shows he is wrong. Government regulation is a benfit to sociery Paine said it himself. You all read it for yourselves. PRO seems to really love lying to win debates.
PRO says "I did not argue" that governing official have no right to govern, but he clearly did when he stated:
My argument in R1 is that immigration restrictions currently violate the rights of and therefore harm noncitizens.
He argues the government has no right to be a government and regulate immigration. It is right there for all to read.
PRO also erroneously says:
"A lack of action is not “causing harm.” I argued that the US government should loosen immigration restrictions which cause harm."
His plan, as clearly laid out, with sources he, himself, agreed, to, would not only be a new regulation, but would cause harm to American citizens. Do not let PRO make you forget he already agreed in round 2 that immigration harms Americans. His ENTIRE ARGUMENT in Round 1 was based on harm. Now he is backtracking and trying to revise history, saying he never argued that increasing harm was bad. Let us remind readers what was in PRO's Round 1 argument:
(a) Such a law must not unjustly harm a person or group of people.(b) The net effect of this restriction must be positive.
Increasing immigration literally argues against his own argument. It harms a group of people: Americans. It also is NOT positive. It costs taxpayers billions of dollars, takes away economic opportunities, and therefore causes negatives.
Don't let PRO's revision of history fool you. It is abundantly obvious that PRO has abandoned his own argument because he knows it was debunked.
CONCLUSION:
PRO has lied multiple times about his own argument and the plain readings of the blockquotes. PRO also has basically agreed with everything I have said. He agreed immigration caused harm to Americans. He also agreed it would be unconstitutional and illegal to implement higher quotas. He agreed that anything that causes harm should not be implented. PRO has shown by his responses and conduct that he has already voted CON, and if PRO has already voted for CON, then readers should as well.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
RFD given here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jVxP1adCyjBcL1B1GpKCW4XeCzZv93yVZQHWyI2wwWA/edit?usp=sharing
Let me know if you have any questions or issues with it you'd like to discuss.
What a buncha yapping about morality and law.. take a quick snicker break..
Oh right.. the break happened a year ago.. my bad.
Well, the morality does deal with what should be done. Personally, I dont believe in morality. I believe in selfishness. I believe that a man must do everything to gain pleasure, even if everyone else dies. Of course, when it comes to debates, you might wanna learn about all those different standards of morality.
This looked to be a very promising debate at first. Interesting, controversial, and relevant subject, no forfeits… but then I read it. Yet another debate which hinged upon a technicality. In this case, the use and meaning of one word: ought. So, a sovereign nation, the US in this case, “ought” to relieve the suffering of anyone in the world who wishes to enter its borders because of the moral obligation implied by “ought.” How very disappointing…
I understand. I disagree, but understand 🤣
I'll note that I actually did mention the Thomas Paine argument. The point of the argument, as far as I could tell, is that it's morally right for a government to regulate people. That's fine, but it doesn't actually tell me why this specific type of regulation at this level is morally right. It tells me that a government must regulate, which as far as I can tell, a government would do on either side of this debate. That's the point I said was non-unique. The same holds true for that divine right of kings (again, the point being that a government should govern). I don't actually see a specific mention of the Federalist Papers, but I did touch on the Constitution (in that is/ought issue). Maybe I missed a couple of points of legal theory, though I think I covered the majority of your argument in some way, shape or form.
As a general rule, telling me that the government cannot do something isn't going to convince me on an "ought" resolution. It's an effort to engage in an inherency argument that aims to establish that there are barriers to action. Valid as those points may be, on an "ought" resolution, my focus is on whether the changes should happen, not whether they can. Otherwise, you could never debate big shifts in policy. If there are barriers to action, then part of debating an "ought" resolution is assuming that, in some way, shape or form, those barriers can be dealt with. It's fine if you want to argue that the process of removing those barriers is net harmful, and that's an argument I would have considered pretty strongly.
Thanks for explaining. I understand where you are coming from now.
I don't agree, but at least I understand. I think I established good standing, based on Thomas Paine, divine right of kings, the Federalist Papers, the U.S. Constitution, and other longstanding legal theory, on how rights were violated, which weren't mentioned at all in your RFD, but hey, that's the fun of these. People take away what they think was the better argument.
At the end of the day we were discussing a legal, not moral issue. Should the GOVERNMENT do something. But I guess I wasn't super clear. The answer was they could not so they should not.
At any rate, I'll admit this isn't my best debate. I didn't notice the time constraints and was super busy (I just started a substack right after I accepted doing the debate). That is my fault.
Savant, I would love another debate sometime with longer time constraints on another topic if you're up for it. It was fun!
To be clear (since I didn't really mention it in my RFD), I don't think the "Burdens" section actually covers much in the way of actual burdens. What Pro's doing there is presenting a framework for his argument, i.e. legal rights ought to be afforded in cases where refusing to extend them to certain groups results in structural violence. That's a clear statement with regards to what Pro believes suffices as an "ought." You argued that that "ought" wasn't sufficient reason to extend a right, effectively arguing that Pro's framework was insufficient to meet the burden he took on for this debate. The trouble is two-fold, and I did mention this in my RFD: one, I'm unclear by the end of the debate how high the bar is for someone to demonstrate that a moral harm is sufficient to engender a right, and two, I don't see a competing moral framework aimed at establishing what should be the standard for a right. Instead, I see a legal basis for establishing a right, which I think Pro effectively countered and showed why the moral basis supercedes it, and I see a moral basis for why regulations should exist, which is non-unique.
So when you talk about it not being fair "for you to have to justify PRO'S is as an ought when he doesn't justify it himself," I'm not sure I understand the problem. Pro had to present a framework to establish why the number of legal immigrants coming into the US should increase. There was an equal burden for you to establish a similar framework or some other distinct reason why increasing their number would be a negative. I think you did a bit of the latter, but Pro did enough to confound that and pushed me to focus on the absence of the former, and I found that convincing. You had to give me a reason to uphold the status quo as better with some kind of framework supporting it. I didn't see you actually supporting the existing system as better policy from some moral or philosophical perspective. Maybe I'm wrong and you can point to places where you did just that. If that's the case, then I encourage you to do so. I'm not demanding responses to Pro's case, but I am trying to find offense for your side of the debate, and I think I detailed all the problems I saw with the offense you provided.
The description says:
"BoP is shared equally. Pro argues that a system in which the government grants entry to more immigrants is preferable to the status quo. Con defends the status quo as preferable to Pro’s proposal."
I fail to see why I have to respond to PRO in order to win the debate. I just have to establish why the status quo is better. I was not graded on this criteria at all and only graded on how I responded to someone else.
I don't think it is fair for me to have to justify PRO's is as an ought when he doesn't justify it himself. I feel like I was given unnecessary burdens that PRO did not have in your assessment. Byrden of proof for PRO's position is on him. I do nit have to accept his arguments if he did not establish them himself.
Just like with Oromagi, it feels as if you ultimately just said "one guy's argument matters and the other one does not, even though it adequately responded to the qualms."
But thank you for your vote.
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for the reminder, be spending much of the weekend on this.
Bump
Thanks
Remind me in a week in case I blank on this. Will get to it.
Please vote if you get the chance!
Yeah Australia is a nice place.
Australia?
You cant name your country the same as the continent it is located in! 🤬
Well... how many of them actually have "America" in the title?
"America means “the United States.”"
Nice, roasting all non-US countries in America.
Done!
Welp... I learned something new today. We can make it immigrate AND emigrate so it is fair to both of us.
I didn't know immigrate was a word 🤣
Done. Although I think they mean effectively the same thing in this context.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immigrate
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emigrate
May seem grammar nazi-esque. But the truth is I don't want to write "emigrate"and then lose the debate on a silly technicality 🤣
Immigrate means “come to live permanently in a foreign country.”
I am pretty sure the word is emigrate, not immigrate.
In which sentence? Emigrants allowed into America? Or emigrants allowed to leave America?
Sure. Just one thing. Change immigrate to emigrate and I'll accept.
Everyone agrees with this the argument is typically over whether America should have secure border.
Democrats say no and Republicans say yes, but both sides want increased legal immigration
Yes, just the amount. I'm arguing that we raise the quota (let in more immigrants); you argue for the status quo.
So we are arguing purely over the amount of immigrants?
I would be arguing we should not raise the current quota and you would be arguing we should?
Or I am arguing we should lower the quota and you are arguing we should raise it?
Otherwise, if you want, we can use a different definition.
How about we define the "Status Quo" as the immigration quota in the US as of the end of September 2023 (ignoring changes since then)? You would argue we should keep or decrease that quota, I argue we increase it.
How do you define the Status Quo, because immigration execution changes regularly. They always increase or decrease the amount, change which types of immigrants, they allow and from which countries, etc.
Basically I am arguing that your point is moot because they regularly change the amounts of immigrants anyways.
Lmk if this format works for you