Instigator / Pro
0
1579
rating
34
debates
70.59%
won
Topic
#5461
Trump's border policies would be harmful to the U.S. Economy
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
0
1382
rating
436
debates
45.41%
won
Description
If you accept this debate, you will argue that Donald Trump's rhetoric towards immigration would be beneficial to the Economy if he were president, and he enacted those policies.
Round 1
Pro
#1
What are Trump's Immigration policies?
First things first, I should clarify what I mean by “Trump's border policy”. He is obviously against illegal immigration, (Do I even have to cite a source for that one?), but what would he do with legal immigration?
While he does not want to completely block immigration to this country he has enacted numerous policies making legal immigration harder for people (specifically from South America and Muslim countries) to immigrate into our country. If you would like to know where I got most of this information from, it's my first source down below. He has done this in an attempt to stop immigrants from stealing americans jobs, and to help the economy, but this is not backed up by the research.
Are Trump's border policies helpful to the economy?
Putting all xenophobia and biases aside, studies have shown that immigrants are beneficial to our economy. You can make any argument you want, like "this country was made by Americans for Americans", but let's be honest, I'm not an economist, and I doubt you are either, so lets trust the experts here, and look at scientific studies done by real professionals. The biggest claim for immigrants hurting our economy is that they are stealing jobs, but this is not true.
The U.S. is in a labor shortage right now, and there is plenty of room for more jobs. Not only that, but if there are more workers to fill jobs, manufacturing can happen faster, increasing companies outputs, and lowering prices of goods. In fact, not all immigrants steal jobs, some create them. Entrepreneurs will come to this country looking to start a business, which will even create jobs, seeing as most businesses need employees. This is all backed up in the next three sources I Cited.
Conclusion
You can create as many "what if" scenarios as possible, but the claims that migrants are stealing jobs from natives are just not backed up by evidence. I yield the floor to my opponent.
Sources Cited
- https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/immigration-under-trump-review-policy-shifts
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/5442-immigration-helps-the-us-economy
- https://wol.iza.org/uploads/articles/10/pdfs/do-migrants-take-the-jobs-of-native-workers.pdf
- https://www.hamiltonproject.org/event/the-economic-benefits-of-immigration/
Con
#2
Thank you.
I'll start with the following:
"For his 2024 reelection bid, Trump has campaigned extensively on the message that he will "terminate every open border policy of the Biden administration" -- beginning with what he claims would be the "largest domestic deportation in American history." (The Biden administration has pushed back on such criticism, saying ...Feb 29, 2024"
This was from ABC News article, the report coincides from Wikipedia of the "zero tolerance"policy.
I like to ask the opposing side, was not Donald J. Trump the greatest president of the United States?
I doubt that there was any greater. Every individual on this site can attest to that of those in the forum .
Now, would Mr. Trump's policy harm a particular people (united states)?
That's basically what we're talking about.
Nobody can predict or verify the future. But you can prove what has happened.
That would be what the opposing side can prove or disprove. Who has been , not who will be, but who has been harmed due to the protection of the borders from terrorists supposedly representing the Muslim faith that in-turn would have their visas denied?
I asked a question to a so called educated professor or author whatever, what is unethical about putting up a border around a country for protection just like putting up a fence on around a residence for the same?
The response was on the lines of regarding a residence, that's a personal choice. Nobody should be deciding for the rest of us to have the country protected the same way which didn't make sense. This is the type of rhetoric you get when pushed with so much democratic liberal programming to conflict with the point of ethics particularly aiming to minimize harm or cutting it off completely. You know full well you are a champion of security but you're not looking at security for the country because it's not really your house. You're looking at invaders as helpless victims.
I digress. I doubt that so called professor if located in the states has suffered any harm due to attempts of protecting the country. Likewise with others of the states . I know of people, a vast amount that have not. Now will they be in the future?
That's tougher to prove. Really impossible.
So far from the opposing side, nothing has been stated that the policy has harmed or will harm. Unless the point of not allowing illegal aliens to contribute to the economy can hurt the u.s. folks is all.
If it's just about the economy, without illegals, there's plenty of folks in the states including the homeless that can take up jobs for that matter.
Grant that we can have ancillary contributions from non citizens of the states. Even with the policies in place, the non citizens can come through proper channels to acquire legal citizenship to still contribute economically.
Besides that not mentioning all the outsourcing that can be done for the same .
So at this point I yield.
Round 2
Pro
#3
So most of your argument was about the ethics and national security aspects of it, but I will remind you, I clearly used the word “economics” in the title. I’m sorry If I caused any misconceptions, but for now, I’m going to skip to the part of your argument where you addressed the economic aspect of this issue.
without illegals, there's plenty of folks in the states including the homeless that can take up jobs for that matter.
This is an unsupported claim. I cited studies in my last argument that showed that we have a labor shortage, and that there aren't enough workers in our country to keep up with demand.
Even with the policies in place, the non citizens can come through proper channels to acquire legal citizenship to still contribute economically.
While this is true, the point that I’m making is that trump’s policies make it harder for people to become citizens, and even if this is still possible, that means less people come into to country to work, and we are still stuck with a labor shortage.
You didn’t give me much other than that to rebut, so on to the conclusion.
Conclusion
You failed to cite any sources that support your claim, and you also misunderstood the spirit of the debate, and thus spent most of your time arguing point that were unrelated, even though the title clearly states that this debate was about economics. I yield the floor.
Con
#4
"This is an unsupported claim. I cited studies in my last argument that showed that we have a labor shortage, and that there aren't enough workers in our country to keep up with demand."
This does not prove that there aren't enough people in the country to fill labor roles. On one hand, jobs must stay in demand because we always want to be able provide anyone a means to live on. You don't want this completely voided. Unless there's zero unemployment , we don't worry about the demand.
This in no way hurts people by having a lot of jobs to go around. The people that hurt are the people not taking the jobs properly adequately supporting themselves.
"While this is true, the point that I’m making is that trump’s policies make it harder for people to become citizens, and even if this is still possible, that means less people come into to country to work, and we are still stuck with a labor shortage.
You didn’t give me much other than that to rebut, so on to the conclusion."
You're going to have to explain or prove the link between what is supposed to be harder automatically means less. Don't forget outsourcing like I said.
You really don't have that much of an issue here to counter . Plus we have a small character allowance.
You're going to have to explain how hard it is, what would make it easier to enter in the country by way of the policy and if one could do it as is, why not another?
Maybe passing a test, an interview, graduating from a college, making it through military boot camp, etc., is hard and challenging. No excuse to justify opening up slack for something that requires some type of basis for difficulty, heavy scrutinization, vetting, assessing, training ,tight security and protection . When we're talking about harm, that's highly crucial.
Instead of sacrificing that, encourage illegal aliens to manage their situations meticulously to be in perfect compliance with all U.S. policies so that more and more will find successful citizenship.
Just like we encourage students, study harder, athletes train harder as the standard is not lowered.
So not only is it possible and doable with this policy, it's possible with with more and more non-citizens to become citizens.
I'm told I failed to cite but for what claim?
The fact that the economy can sustain and improve by all the scenarios I broached, you got to prove they're all impossibilities. You already conceded one is and has been proven to be a possibility because non U.S. citizens do become citizens.
To sacrifice or compromise security measures because of perceived harm is counterintuitive.
The spirit of the debate topic is directed towards hypotheticals. There's not much ground for disproving anything from my side. We're just speculating on the "what ifs" with this.
Round 3
Pro
#5
You gave me some good stuff to rebut here, so I'll start with that, and then seeing as it's the last round, I'll restate my points, and then conclude.
Rebuttals
This does not prove that there aren't enough people in the country to fill labor roles. On one hand, jobs must stay in demand because we always want to be able provide anyone a means to live on. You don't want this completely voided. Unless there's zero unemployment , we don't worry about the demand.This in no way hurts people by having a lot of jobs to go around. The people that hurt are the people not taking the jobs properly adequately supporting themselves.
The problem there, is that my sources do prove what I'm saying. Jobs should stay in demand, otherwise companies can get away with paying less to workers, but the manufacturers aren't always the big bad guys trying to cheat the working man. If there is a nice balance, both parties can be happy. The workers get adequate pay and benefits, and the companies aren't understaffed, enabling them to produce more goods, which drives the price down, passing the savings on to the consumer. There are people hurt by too many open jobs, the consumers, and small businesses. Consumers because that drives prices up, and small businesses, because they simply cannot function if it is too hard to find employees. There is a happy medium, and currently, we are going the wrong direction, need more workers, and thus, if policies are being made to slow immigration, that still leaves us with too small a workforce. This brings me to your next big point. (Oh, and if you need sources, look back at the first round, it's all there.)
Instead of sacrificing that, encourage illegal aliens to manage their situations meticulously to be in perfect compliance with all U.S. policies so that more and more will find successful citizenship.
This makes no sense whatsoever. Let's say I wanted to get some apples for whatever reason. I go to the store, and attempt to buy some, but the clerk says I'm not allowed to buy apples. Let's also say that this other random person is going to do something really bad to me if I don't buy him apples. Well then I have no choice but to use illegal means to acquire the apples. I would have loved to pay like a nice and legal person, but I can't so I'm forced to steal. I took that metaphor way too far, but you get the gist. If you need to get out of Latin America for whatever reason, be it cartel violence, or political persecution, you can try to do it all nice and legal, but if you just aren't allowed in, then you must do it illegally. People are already trying to get into our country by legal means, and if they can't they will resort to illegal strategies, and encouraging these people to legally immigrate will do nothing. If you were an immigrant, wouldn't you rather be legally a citizen, instead of having to live in fear of deportation? Illegal immigration is a last resort for these people, and asking them nicely to do something that you made it impossible to do, is just hypocritical.
I'm told I failed to cite but for what claim?The fact that the economy can sustain and improve by all the scenarios I broached, you got to prove they're all impossibilities. You already conceded one is and has been proven to be a possibility because non U.S. citizens do become citizens.
In the most respectful way possible, all of them. You failed to cite for all of your claims. The problem is that the U.S. economy cannot be sustained by these measures alone, which is showed in the sources that I did cite, so where did you get this idea from?
Restated Claim / Conclusion
The research by respected economists shows that we need more labor in our workforce, and the majority of it should be coming from other countries. You said that we shouldn't be using "what if" scenarios, but I'm not. If you look back at history, our economy has been doing much better when we have greater immigration, and you can even look back at trump's last term, and you see that his border policies resulted in the labor shortage we have now. We cannot sustain ourselves with our own population, and outsourcing alone, and that is why it is dangerous for us to shut off our main source of labor. Your argument is not backed up by any evidence, and uses many claims that are not true.
Con
#6
"The problem there, is that my sources do prove what I'm saying. "
It proves what you're saying but not prove what's actually happening. Sources, written sources are just that. What somebody wrote.
"There are people hurt by too many open jobs, the consumers, and small businesses. Consumers because that drives prices up, and small businesses, because they simply cannot function if it is too hard to find employees. There is a happy medium, and currently, we are going the wrong direction, need more workers, and thus, if policies are being made to slow immigration, that still leaves us with too small a workforce."
You have failed to prove that there aren't enough people alone in America to fill jobs. Until the unemployment rate is no more, we can talk.
Does the average person not want income?
If the answer is "no", then the problem can exist of the difficulty of finding folks to be employees . Prices need to be driven up to make more profit to pay the employees with. Then we have competitive wages to attract people to want those jobs.
So these issues can be dealt with as is without a worry over the policy.
"Let's say I wanted to get some apples for whatever reason. I go to the store, and attempt to buy some, but the clerk says I'm not allowed to buy apples. Let's also say that this other random person is going to do something really bad to me if I don't buy him apples. Well then I have no choice but to use illegal means to acquire the apples. I would have loved to pay like a nice and legal person, but I can't so I'm forced to steal. I took that metaphor way too far, but you get the gist."
This I guess was what you call a metaphor because I don't see how it works well as an analogy. You enter a store, what does the store represent? You went into the store legally, is that right?
To purchase something but you're denied. Where does this equate? The issue is not around being denied to purchase anything. You have no choice so you say , but illegal aliens have the choice to go through the proper channels. So your illustration states no proper channels and so you say forced, but all illegal aliens are not forced to get into the states nor have to break the law to get in. We got to take caution before instantly deciding to just break the law. You want to be a legal person, you aim with all you have to be that first . Otherwise you're not being truthful with your actual desires.
So this was just too sloppy to use to make a point. If you're being coerced under harmful threat, there's laws for that too. You don't jump to just break laws like this due to a dire situation.
I know folks just disagree with having border policies as people should just be free. Gotta use stronger arguments than these and what you're trying to push.
"If you need to get out of Latin America for whatever reason, be it cartel violence, or political persecution, you can try to do it all nice and legal, but if you just aren't allowed in, then you must do it illegally."
This is just painting everything black and white. Reading your arguments just gives the arguing for justifying breaking the law when push comes to shove. No , you use laws where you are or protection or assistance where you are. Who says illegal aliens have to come to the states? Who says they won't be followed to the states?
Again just a desperate excuse for dismantling a protective security measure in the states. Back to the point of being followed, this is why the states would have protective measures like this so you just pointed us back to the very reason for this border policy.
I'm not trying to help you out but perhaps a more practical example, running through airport checkpoints. The security ought to just let you run through because you're being chased . Instead of sacrificing one security measure disabling it to perhaps deploy another separately, the proper authorities are there to aid in whatever appropriate capacity. Highly unlikely for one thing, that the pursuer wouldn't be ceased anyway so what do you think is going to happen at a border?
Another thing, do all people always flee out of the states from their crisis?
See running is no real solution but just a postponement of trouble. So we come back to laws, proper authorities and assistance again. You've been arguing from just one single instance at FIRST resort to just break a law.
" People are already trying to get into our country by legal means, and if they can't they will resort to illegal strategies, and encouraging these people to legally immigrate will do nothing. If you were an immigrant, wouldn't you rather be legally a citizen, instead of having to live in fear of deportation? Illegal immigration is a last resort for these people, and asking them nicely to do something that you made it impossible to do, is just hypocritical."
This is all speculative and I think you have an appeal to emotion fallacy in there. I would rather be legal so I don't have to be illegal. If I'm going to be illegal, face the consequences and fears of being such.
The security measures in place of this policy apparently will not be bended for the "good" non citizens. The very individuals fleeing from dangerous non citizens you alluded to have to also be vetted. Do you want those folks coming into the states too?
"In the most respectful way possible, all of them. You failed to cite for all of your claims. The problem is that the U.S. economy cannot be sustained by these measures alone, which is showed in the sources that I did cite, so where did you get this idea from?"
The idea is from reality itself. Sources only prove somebody has wrote something . They don't demonstrate reality of what you can see for yourself which is evidence. You're just trusting what somebody has written calling it "it must me true ". You still have to find corroboration in an observable reality of it.
This is why you haven't disproved all the scenarios I mentioned because the so called sources are not debating me, you are. So you have to use what we can practically witness to negate what I've said. I've yet to see you nullify outsourcing. Everything you have is speculative. With unemployment being present and a demand for jobs at the same time, you haven't proven that the states need non citizens to become citizens.
Also, stats, sources, data, surveys don't necessarily have an absolute headcount of everyone in the states that can fill a job position.The analysts would need absolute knowledge which isn't possible. People off the grid, John and Jane Doe(s) wandering about either in the streets or wilderness.
What about all the people that want to not be a part of an economy?
Just think if those people are non citizens of the states. If the states were relying on non citizens to become citizens, they would of collapsed a long time ago.
To help with an economy, there's industry progression and development. There's free enterprise, commerce, capitalism, etc. that aid in an economy as opposed to socialism, another subject. But this laser tunnel focus on illegal aliens is unnecessary.
"If you look back at history, our economy has been doing much better when we have greater immigration"
But are these folks legal citizens?
The states are not getting behind illegal means to sustain an economy. So this is an incomplete argument.
" and you can even look back at trump's last term, and you see that his border policies resulted in the labor shortage we have now. "
What do you mean"labor shortage "?
A shortness of jobs. Then why argue for outside help?
Another incomplete argument.
"We cannot sustain ourselves with our own population, and outsourcing alone, and that is why it is dangerous for us to shut off our main source of labor."
The states are sustaining so this doesn't make sense. If the states relied heavily on non citizens to become citizens, why would a government allow such an ancillary dependent system possibly diminish because ALL compliant non citizens can be citizens of the states, why would it allow conflict or counterintuitive growth?
By this incomplete logic, they would allow a tax policy to diminish just because of an individual's policy. No, everything still has to be in unison to run the states. Each individual will have his approach but the underlying path to flourish still is there. Otherwise the risk of impeachment.
This is just totally incomplete. You're not making substantial arguments. The character limit should be higher as your arguments are suffering from inadequacy.
"Your argument is not backed up by any evidence, and uses many claims that are not true. "
Why? Is it because a so called source has to say it?
Then what would we have?
Just conflicting sources but what would be the reality?
The reality is what I'm showing in real scenarios. Not hypotheticals as you believe they are not but are because it leaves all these questions unanswered.
You didn't even answer or explain about the link :
"You're going to have to explain or prove the link between what is supposed to be harder automatically means less. Don't forget outsourcing like I said. "
So you say what I am saying is not true just based on not giving you what somebody wrote versus it being realistic or real.
So I would like to have a part 2 just for you to answer the questions and demonstrate the answers you give will not actually refute your position.
To the readers, same goes to you. If you're short sighted just the same as the opposing side, here's the question.
Why wasn't Trump removed from office if the policy was actually harming society meaning the economy?
I don't believe a lot of people were going broke on the street and all businesses went up in smoke.
To the opposing side, that is the evidence in reality I'm talking about. Something we can see for ourselves aside from what somebody has written.
Don't deny that deal with that.
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
Just a word of advice: it's a good idea to include a clear resolution in the description of your debates. Personally, I would write something like this: "Resolution: On balance, Donald Trump's proposed border policies would be more harmful than helpful to the U.S. Economy". In the description, I would also include an outline of Trump's border policies. That way, the focus of the debate becomes crystal clear.