Illegal immigration has been a serious problem in many places of the World throughout history however even when every region of the World has the problem, it has very different causes (like push cases being very different from pull cases) and in very different amounts that require different ways of combating it.
In the case of racial profiling as means of combating illegal immigration, it is the case of what has been proposed lately in the state of Arizona (with around 460,000 illegal immigrants) in United States of America in the form of the Arizona Senate Bill 1070, which allow police officers to use race as a method that added to other factors (up to the criteria of the police officers) such as their activities would allow them to question a person’s migratory status under reasonable suspicion. In case they don’t carry documents proving their legal status then they could be detained and if their status is proved by the federal government to be one of illegal, then they could be fined and even sent some days to jail and if relapse occurs, the fines and time in prison could be extended to up to 6 months.
For these reasons we would frame the debate to the United States of America and to the mode of the law set out above.
All the Yes points:
- The problem of illegal immigration has to be tackled thoroughly
- Racial profiling is an effective tool to tackle the problem
- Even more benefits of decreasing illegal immigration
- The measure poses no threat
- A measure that gives greater rights to who deserve them
- The best solution for illega immigration is racial profiling as a tool for reasonable suspicion
- México Summary
All the No points:
- It Forces Illegal Immigrants Underground
- Goes Against Wider US Policy
- Undermines American Judical System
- It is racist
- It Harms Ethnic Minorities
- Negative effects on Policing.
- Opposition Summary
The problem of illegal immigration has to be tackled thoroughly
A very important axis of the immigration problem is the responsibility that the state has towards the rights of its citizens. Illegal immigration directly violates some of these rights because of the fact that illegal aliens are being granted of unjustified privileges such as jobs, and moreover they are being given security, schooling, health care and other services financed by the taxes of Americans, which we think is unfair. In this sense, we believe that the state’s obligation is to provide these rights to its legal citizens before any other group of individuals.
Illegal aliens in the U.S have taken away a considerable quantity of jobs and services to Americans, only in 2008 an estimate of 7.7 million illegal immigrants were employed in the U.S[[numbersusa.com/content/files/pdf/Putting%20Americans%20Back%20to%20Work(2).pdf]]; these jobs could actually be jobs granted to residents of the country and also to legal immigrants in the U.S; which pay taxes and demand their legitimate right to have these jobs. This fact not only affects unemployment for the poor sector of the population that needs it, but also to the wages of formal workers, the cheap labor of illegal immigrants and poor immigrants caused a 44% decrease in wages among the poorest Americans from 1980 to 1994, as specified on a study by the American Academy of Sciences in 1997[[cis.org/node/759]]. In addition, there are situations where illegal aliens receive medical treatment or have a home and use all the public services which the citizens finance with their taxes; such as public transportation and schooling.
As shown, the rights of the citizens are being violated and their situation deteriorates with the expansion of the problem. The question is: Why are we giving the illegals these privileges while they take away employment, wages and services to the people who have the legitimate right to them? That is why we believe it is fair to end the problem with this measure and grant corresponding rights.
Assuming that citizens of a country somehow have a greater right than other to that countries’ services simply because they were born there, this point still does not stand. The real situation in Arizona and the Southern US is not that illegal immigrants arrive and suddenly get to experience all the welfare benefits that exist there. They have to accept very low wages in jobs that no-one else wants, can’t use banks, any social security service like the police, and can’t get any form of health insurance, as all of these require some form of identification.
By pointing to the figure of 7.7 million workers, the prop assumes that there would be 7.7 million US workers to replace them. In reality, every one of these workers is valued as cheap labour by the people in the US who employ them. Suddenly getting rid of all of these workers would suddenly mean no workers for these jobs, harming all of the businesses who hire them. If 7.7 million is the real figure, then that’s a lot of harm to businesses. Agreed, stopping illegal immigration into the US is important, but suddenly removing all of the immigrants already settled there could result in a lot of harm.
Even if these workers did get some benefits payed by the US taxpayer, they are often earning such low wages that they would be barely paying taxes at all, in fact they may be eligible for greater welfare than they already get because they are in such a low income bracket. Regardless, they are working, benefiting their employers and the wider economy and therefore they are making some contribution.
It seems that the prop’s problem in this point is that the immigrants don’t pay taxes. A better solution would be to grant them citizenship so that they are in a position where they can pay taxes. That is the plan which Barack Obama is trying to implement [[http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5638358/obama_administration_mulling_amnesty.html?cat=9]], and it is directly contradicted by the policy.
Racial profiling is an effective tool to tackle the problem
Back in 1954 the US INS put in practice the Operation
Wetback, which was intended to remove one million illegal immigrants from southwestern USA through the use of racial profiling, ending up removing near the million illegal immigrants[[pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/history/timeline/20.html]] targeted.
What’s the logic behind it? It gives the police the liberty to use common sense in obvious situations where normally policemen would have to limit their instinct. With the racial profiling approved, the police will have the liberty to act against illegal immigrants when they see one. There’s more to the way it works than just racial apparel, since it would be impossible for the state to identify every single person which looks as an immigrant descendent ergo possible illegal (simply for the percentage of immigrants in the country). They have to be caught on a suspicious situation and that has to be left to the policeman criteria, if we can’t trust the people which we are paying to take care of us, then who can we trust in?
Giving this criteria power to the cops would definitely raise the percentage of illegals caught in the country, just for giving them the right to act when they feel they have to. It gives the state a practical solution free of further investigation and just by putting this solution to work, the problem starts to resolve by its own through attrition: By September 1954, after catching 80,000 illegals (approx.), there were already from 500,000 to 700,000 which went back to their countries just for the “fear” of getting caught. Out of the million illegals which abandoned the country three quarters left on their own, which ends up being way practical. It’s also important to note that this operation was abandoned due to poll interests and lasted less than a year: Now it would have a greater impact![[tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html]]
The case study and the logic prove the method is a practical and effective form to tackle this issue.
Racial profiling is when law enforcement uses race as a factor to cause suspicion [[http://www.amnestyusa.org/us-human-rights/racial-profiling/page.do?id=1106650]]
It is not as the prop has assumed used only when suspicion is already there. In Operation Wetback, the suspicious situation was being Mexican in the US. How can you stop yourself being in a suspicious situation if that situation is caused by who you are, what you skin colour is? That is racial profiling, using a person’s ethnicity as a substitution for evidence.
The prop made a blatant assertion that the success of Operation Wetback in 1954 (that’s over half a century ago) means that such an operation will have better success today. Well how will it? The solution proposed where suspicious situations will lead to police involvement (the status quo) is completely different from attracting police activity because of your ethnicity. The prop has failed to provide a clear link between their model and their example
The prop has also failed to substantiate their claim that racial profiling will work when it doesn’t address the social and political problems in Mexico. Why will it have a greater impact?
Is it because Mexico is a safer place that the USA?
Well no, Mexico (where many of the illegal immigrants come from) is in crisis, it’s country is effectivly fighting a war against drug cartels, this makes Mexico a dangerous place which has left thousands dead to date.[[http://www.cfr.org/publication/13689/mexicos_drug_war.html]] To many Mexican families and people risking crossing the border for a better life in America would seem like a better option than staying in a place of conflict.
Illegal immigrants have poor lives, virtually no income and often need to support a family. People will still have the same reasons to risk their lives crossing the border, and those reasons will not be outweighed by a greater chance of capture, as that chance (and the chance of being shot at the border) already exists.
Even more benefits of decreasing illegal immigration
Illegal immigration brings several security problems with it. National security comes first, so why should the government even tempt their heart not to deport these aliens who have violated the American laws since the very first moment they set a foot on that country?
According to the center for Immigration Studies, “Those who violate the immigration norms are also known to have significant share in criminal activities in the country. 40 percent of the illegal aliens in the US had a history of violent crime.” Other issues such as kidnapping have also increased in a direct proportion with the increase of illegal immigration. A clear example of this is Arizona, whose illegal population now is five times what it was on 1990, and in the same period of time it has become one of the most insecure cities of the US, averaging a kidnap per day. Also, drug cartels and dangerous gangs such as the MS-13 and the Cholos, have been responsible of brutal violent acts. The MS-13, is one of the most violently dangerous gangs in the US. Their penchant for violence is renowned. MS-13 often leaves behind dismembered corpses, complete with the decapitated head, at the scene of their murders. MS-13 has carved fear among society, refusing to back down even from high profile authorities. Similarly, the Cholos have been responsible of many crimes, specifically in California. They have gotten to the extreme of performing a black ethnic cleansing in Watts, Highland Park, East LA, Harbor Gateway.
These are just some of the facts that occur in our everyday life, we have just been blinded because we just see what we want to see. Illegal immigration is a great threat to security of American citizens, and it is a matter that can be solved now if we give the police the tools to reduce the number of illegal aliens in the US.
1. Rivera, Geraldo. Hispanic
Violence, kidnapping and more violence, this is what illegal immigrants in the US do, or so the prop is telling us.
Before addressing this I have a problem, how can the porp claim that 40% of illegal immigrants have violent backgrounds? Does this mean they know who they are? I can only assume that if the Amercian police know who has commited a violent crime in the past they must know who they are looking for, or else how would such a statistic be made. If the police know about these violent criminals how will racial profiling aid the police? To use racial profiling to assume a Latino is an illegal immigrant has little going for it but using it to try and find a known criminal seems a waste of time and if the police need racial porfiling to help them they need far more than “good tools” .
The prop used the example of the MS-13. I do not see how this links to illegal immigration and racial profiling, unless the prop is suggesting that all Mexicans currently in the US, that is to say all 7.7 million[[ numbersusa.com/content/files/pdf/Putting%20Americans%20Back%20to%20Work(2).pdf]], need to be assumed to be a member of this international violent cartel[[http://www.altereddimensions.net/crime/ms13gang.aspx]]
If this is the case, the police maybe need much better armament instead of tools because as the prop have said, this gang refuses to back down to even high profile authorities.
So far the prop’s point seems lacking. They have told us that 40% of illegal immigrants have a criminal past[[http://endillegalimmigration.com/Illegal_Immigration_Facts_&_Statistics/index.shtm]] however they have not provided any cases where an illegal immigrant had committed a violent crime in the USA. They asserted that kidnapping was rising in correlation to immigration in Arizona, they are making a causal claim without analysing other causes of kidnapping, sadly a lack of analysis
This point does not appear to have any substantial link to the props case.
The measure poses no threat
Some groups have falsely called SB 1070 a threat. We support the legal immigration, acknowledging immigrants have helped develop USA in various fields including sport, art or science. However, we support their legal immigration since as we have shown they do pay taxes and fulfill other obligations that make them perfectly owners of all the rights, unlike illegal immigrants who even shouldn’t be on the country, hence the word illegal.
With this measure it would only be the illegal immigrants that would be arrested, while the legal immigrants or minority US citizens will have nothing to fear since firstly they are less likely to pose the reasonable suspicion but furthermore when questioned about their migratory status they would have nothing to fear about as just showing any legal document that proves they are there legally as a passport or driver’s license nothing would be done to them and having to carry an ID is not only very easy but is also an obligation since the 1940 Alien Registration Act for all immigrants to carry their identity documents[[newsblaze.com/story/20100428170852mcut.nb/topstory.html ]]. The fact that they are not used to it doesn’t mean that they are exempt.
Yet again immigrants would not be detained for their race only, but it would be considered as a tool in reasonable suspicion that includes behavior and it is not only one race that would be subject to this law.
Imagine a van is given a speeding ticket in a highway known for immigrant smuggling; the van has 10 individuals that don’t speak English: There is the reasonable suspicion. If they are legal they will be allowed to go on; they must carry their documents anyway. If they are illegal they will be detained and the policy will be successful. In any case there is no racial damage. The fact that they barely spoke English and were Latin is not wrong and isn’t intended to be seen as wrong but a research fact. Being called Latin is not discrimination: It’s a fact we are proud of!
The prop seems slightly confused between ‘racial profiling’ and ‘reasonable suspicion’. Police using racial profiling essentially means that they can point purely to race as a reason for suspicion. If they think that it should only be taken as one factor when the people are already on a highway known for smuggling, firstly that isn’t really racial profiling at all, and secondly they can’t possible hope for it to make any practical difference in finding illegal immigrants if it really only comes into play when there are already other reasons to believe people have immigrated illegally.
The question of threat is about whether or not this will detrimentally affect legal immigrants whose race makes them suspect of being illegal. This measure puts these people in a possible two positions: Either, they have to carry around papers showing them to be legal all the time, which is an encumbrance on them and could make them feel like second-class citizens, or they will be liable to be detained purely because of the colour of their skin.
The prop have also used the example of the MS-13, these people are already criminals, racial profiling will not only have no effect on finding and arresting these people but actually highlights a deeper problem with the police service, if they need to identify a murderer on the profile of ‘being Mexican’ this leaves the door open for dire miscarraiges of justice, due to the very large number of legal latino people living in the USA.
These negative consequences for legal immigrants may counteract the positive aspects of the US that attracted them there in the first place, and may put off people from immigrating legally if the US becomes known for having a racist immigration policy (this will not put off illegal immigrants, who are desperate and already know they are violating immigration law).
A measure that gives greater rights to who deserve them
We proved how rights of citizens are being violated by illegals, being a burden on welfare and unemployment. Opp tries to mislead the debate, saying under the status quo illegals work under bad conditions and lowly paid but there is no relevance since they are willing to take the risk and it is better to have low payment and welfare in USA than no payment and no welfare in México so they have the cake (Opp acknowledges that in the rebuttal of our 2nd point). Then Opp said illegals don’t receive welfare but in a year USA spent 4-6 billions without including normal government costs as roads or security![[ judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/mar/county-spends-600-mil-welfare-illegals]] With a deficit of 26 billion that’s a heavy burden!
We pointed 7.7 million illegals taking jobs of US citizens (suspicion of 15 million) so Opp said that it would only be a problem with 7.7 million citizens to take the job and the fact is that there are more than 30 millions unemployed in US so yes, there are and by far[[tradingeconomics.com]] and the most affected are the poorest, who would be doing those jobs and whose wages decrease. We’re in favor of legal workers, who are paid at least minimum wage and compete fairly with citizens, unlike illegals who are paid less, creating an unfair competition. Those benefits that Opp supports to employers are unethical and illegal.
We showed this system would add benefits such as eliminating part of the violence of that right now cannot be detained since the cops don’t have the tools even when obvious suspicion but they can’t detain Salvadorans of MS-13 on basis of race/suspicion under status quo. Clarifying the statistic: 40% of the detained illegal immigrants had violent background (known after detained) and as said, this wouldn’t be a new measure to get criminals but an added benefit of having less illegals: 25% of prison inmates in USA re illegal aliens, why cite one case?[[usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_crime_summar
The prop point to why life is better for illegal immigrants in the US, without showing negatives. Yes, people in the US pay for welfare, but none of this goes to illegal immigrants because they can’t possibly apply for it without identification. We weren’t arguing that life isn’t better for the immigrants in the US, simply that they do contribute and aren’t just a leach on society. The prop has misquoted their own article, the cost is much less than $4-6 billion [[judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/mar/county-spends-600-mil-welfare-illegals]], and the welfare pays for children of illegal immigrants who become citizens because they are born in the USA. Therefore they have the same entitlement to rights as the people the prop say ‘deserve’ to have them, because they were born in the US (why this makes people deserve the benefits of welfare more they still haven’t explained). Because working illegal immigrants do make a contribution, they do deserve some benefits. In addition, the fact that these illegal immigrants have children in the US makes it even more difficult to ship them out of the country, leaving their children behind, and makes our model of a path to citizenship better.
There may be 30 million unemployed in the US, but they won’t all be able to take immigrants’ jobs.Arizona has a comparatively low immigration rate [[http://roguecolumnist.typepad.com/rogue_columnist/2009/03/arizonas-mysterious-jobless-rate.html]] and it is hard to see how half a million people in Michigan [[http://www.michiganpolicy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=813:extended-unemployment-benefits-in-michigan&catid=16:employment-policy-briefs&Itemid=75]] will suddenly get the Arizona jobs. The point that employers, and hence the local economy, will suffer from lost employment still stands.
Racial profiling will not remove violence. As we’ve discussed, it will create greater reasons to turn to gangs and greater discontent. It also won’t stop illegal immigrants entering America.
The best solution for illega immigration is racial profiling as a tool for reasonable suspicion
Racial profiling doesn’t mean they would detain someone if they look Libyan or Kazakh (not only Mexican, as Opp misleads) but refers that it can be a basis (not only) of the reasonable suspicion to ask for documents (not just detain). Opp thought would win this debate with us saying racial profiling means detaining the probable 190 millions that “might look immigrant” one by one to see if they are legals or not, but that’s simply absurd, sorry. They see a problem with immigrants carrying documents, their obligation since 1940 and it’s very easy. Nothing to fear, nothing to hide.
Opp’s alternative (below) is counterproductive and our tool is not mutually exclusive with tighter border control or improving México’s situation (if you find the magic formula I’ll thank you for life) as if it was the only country with immigrants, which is false.
A clear example of racial profiling/suspicion: Before the attacks of 9/11, agent Kenneth Williams urged his superiors to investigate militant Muslim men whom he suspected of training in U.S. as part of al-Qaeda missions [[usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-16-racial-profiling_x.htm]]. The recommendation was not taken in consideration because of the concerns of how would the actions damage the image of the FBI if they were perceived as racial discrimination. We all know what happened next. If those men had have the resource of Racial Profiling things would have happened different, the terrorists would have been investigated without restrictions and their plans would have been revealed thus saving thousands of lives. Same principle here.
We will have a greater impact than in 1954 (more immigrants now) through the same logic: Immigrants will self-repatriate before they could be detained as is happening in Arizona[[mexiconews.com.mx/internacional/68426.html]]. Unlike what Opp says right now there is few chance of being caught, since cops are not able to detain you for reasons like race even when obvious.
The point about what racial profiling is needs to be clarified. The prop seem to be saying that they want police officers to take race into account once they have a suspicion that someone is an illegal immigrant. Surely if police suspect someone to be an illegal immigrant, they should just ask them for documents anyway? The question is what police should take into account when forming suspicion. Racial profiling is when race is allowed to be taken into account. The prop are trying to reduce their onus by saying this avoids using race to ask for immigration papers. But in reality, that is what will happen. People speaking a different language or driving on a highway from Mexico is using race as a reason to form suspicion. They’re also confused: if you look at another of their arguments they agree that racial profiling involves using skin colour to form suspicion.
The wording of Bill 1070 is ‘A law enforcement official or agency… may not consider race, color or national origin…’ [[http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/anti-illegal-immigration-law-part-1/]]. The prop isn’t proposing the motion, because the bill doesn’t include racial profiling. They’ve also effectively conceded the debate by saying that police detaining people on the basis of race is absurd. Their right, it is, but that’s racial profiling. Because police are allowed to take race into account, they will (and will be perceived to), and they will end up detaining people on that basis. Illegal or not, people should not be detained because of race.
Saying that racial profiling would have prevented 9/11 is absurd and irrelevant, and typical of the attitude of racial profiling. The idea is that by treating all people who don’t ‘look American’ like illegal immigrants we will solve the problem of illegal immigration.
Most immigrants won’t repatriate. They know the problems at home, many of them have jobs, and if they are willing to risk death crossing the border being detained won’t be a big deterrent.
1 Needed? We say aliens take citizen’s jobs (maybe 20 at least 7.7 mil) with 30 mil unemployed in USA because aliens are hired by being paid less than minimum wage whilst poor people are affected: Wages fell in 44% and jobs lost; as citizens should be entitled to state protection. Opp’s replied there were no people to take the jobs: Yes, 30mil and Opp raised an impact to business’ that abuse the system by paying aliens low wages instead of normal to a citizen, which we pointed is an unethical and illegal benefit to support. We showed another benefit would be that crime of aliens would be decreased.
Aliens leech tax and we quoted $22 bn is spent on welfare benefits to them excluding social services, medical costs and incarceration. OPP said the welfare is to the children (false, those numbers aren’t added) and aliens aren’t given them for not having ID but the fact is they aren’t denied them, plus add normal government costs: Status Quo needs change.
2 Best? We said currently officers can’t detain aliens on obvious situations (later Opp asserts not) because obviously a reasonable suspicion includes race and that’s why we must allow race to be considered. We showed racial profiling works in Israeli airlines and how it was implemented USA (1954) detaining 80,000 and 500-700,000 leaving in their own for the risk of being caught whilst after lifting it immigration raised since in USA they can’t be detained and now would be, stopping them risking their lives immigrating and would return, as we showed is happening in Arizona now. Opp tried to fool by omitting words saying the SB 1070 doesn’t include race as means of suspicion, which does but not as sole reason, which we support because in any other case almost 200 mil. citizens would be checked; absurd. Only way Opp said this could fail is it “moving immigrants underground” which we proved could happen if they did it literally and Opp raised lack of cooperation with police, not providing logic for it but that wouldn’t happen since in those cases the law isn’t applied. Opp also said it creates “guilty until proven innocent”: False since officers act under the presumption that the person is a citizen but would be asked to show ID for the well of the society, nothing else.
Opp’s alternative was making all citizens: We proved it’s economically ($999bn) and demographically (56% pop. increase) disastrous, plus unemployment and loss of identity.
3 Bring problems? Opp says it’s racist by creating a stereotype upon Latins without developing it well, we pointed how that isn’t true since they aren’t the only race and it is just a criteria that is needed as a base of suspicion to the illegal act of being an alien so legals will receive the greater benefit of preserving their rights. 70% citizens support it, including minorities. We reminded alien’s obligation to carry ID; Opp didn’t raise a problem on the need of carrying it so finally no problem and great benefits.
It Forces Illegal Immigrants Underground
Illegal Immigrants don’t want to be caught by immigration officers and detained or deported. This policy gives greater powers to officers to simply stop people on the street and detain them if they don’t have the requisite papers. To lower the chance of being caught by police officers, illegal immigrants will be less willing to interact on a regular basis with the rest of society. They will simply go into hiding and avoid being out in public or places that would expose them to police officers. This will firstly make the policy virtually ineffective as police officers still don’t (and will never get) the ability to march into peoples’ homes and demand immigration papers, but also forces greater ghettoisation as the immigrants will have greater incentive to form their own societies away from police.
This will also have an effect on the people who employ illegal immigrants, as they do not want to lose the cheap labour. They will further want to hide their employees to stop them being caught and to stop themselves from facing prosecution. This will create a poorer relationships between these businesses and the police.
Finally, the immigrants will not want to use services such as the police to help them with criminal issues. They will have to turn to other enforcers, such as gangs and associations that take the law into their own hands. This will therefore cause illegal immigrants to further dissociate from society and potentially increase crime in areas with illegal immigrants.
What OPP suggests is completely unrealistic; the whole point about underground immigrants sounds nonsense in a city as Los Angeles, the second city with the most quantity of Hispanics worldwide[[http://www.infoplease.com/spot/hhmcensus1.html#axzz0x7ZhdWYZ]]. How could they actually avoid being in “public places” as the OPP claims? Secondly, this measure in these communities would actually be effective because in the status quo policemen do not have the possibility of detaining illegal aliens where it is evident that they perform their regular activities.
The purpose is not to stop any “non-american looking”, that would imply one of five persons on L.A walking on the street, but to reasonably suspect on an individual’s race situation; not meaning a Malawi going to the movies, but rather boarding a plane with suspicious passport, as on Israel airlines, of the most secure worldwide [[http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/04/el.al.security/]] or a Hispanic involved on a criminal activity. This is actually the basis on which the Arizona Law works [[http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/05/17/20100517arizona-immigration-law-scenarios.html]].
So the question here is how exactly are people who employ immigrants going to hide 10000 workers in just a blink? Are they going to hide them on the back of their trucks? The only way that argument would make sense would be if illegal aliens would be moved underground…Literally! Moreover if ghettos were created then it would be easier to know where they are but now they usually live in communities of their race.
Finally, their point about police helping immigrants for criminal issues doesn’t fit, why would an immigrant look into a criminal gang to held accounts for him? Simply absurd, gangs are not 2nd-class polciemen but rather criminals that dedicate to kill, not protect people. A denounce to policemen is a specia case that doesn’t fit to this debate because not the same measures would be
Goes Against Wider US Policy
So far the prop has framed this debate as being one with a massive problem of immigration, and catching and deporting all of the illegal immigrants as a solution, with racial profiling as the method of doing that. Not only is this not going to be effective, but it is not even necessarily desirable to get rid of all the current illegal immigrants in the US. We agree that stopping future illegal immigration is crucial, but this can be achieved through tighter border control and creating a better situation back in Mexico.
A better way of dealing with current illegal immigrants is the ‘path to citizenship’ proposed by Barack Obama [[http://www.economist.com/node/12321563?story_id=12321563]]. The essential idea is that the immigrants would turn themselves in in return for an amnesty and the opportunity to become citizens by paying a fine, learning English and gaining or continuing employment. As so many of the immigrants are already employed, this third issue isn’t a problem. It would also create better circumstances for them, allow them to go to the police for protection (reducing their reliance on crime and gangs as an alternative) and also allow them to integrate more with American society. The route to citizenship is also cheaper than having more police and expensive prisons to detain the immigrants. It doesn’t matter whether will provide a greater incentive to people wanting to try to immigrate illegally, when the threat of deportation and being shot at the border currently makes no difference.
The prop’s motion and the route to citizenship are directly conflicting. Racial profiling paints a picture of these people as evil, illegal aliens when really many of them are working hard to sustain themselves, it puts people off turning themselves in, and it is aimed towards detaining these people and eventually removing them from the country. This aim contradicts the aim of allowing them to stay within the country and try to become good American citizens.
Their policy is impossible and counterproductive:
Economy: The Opp is telling us that it would be cheaper to give away the citizenship than to deploy more cops, but in fact it is completely the other way around: The cost of full amnesty would be $999 billion now (inc, while the cost of attrition by enforcement is as little as $14 billion[[numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/amnesty-costs-10-times-more-than-enforcement.html]]. This is 70 times bigger; and they will receive even more benefits as they become eligible for government benefits only permitted to residents of the United States. Also, since they perform riskier jobs than the US born, they are more likely to become injured; meaning more costs the US government has to absorb because of the medical insurance they must give to legal workers.
Loss of American identity: Giving away the citizenship, not only Latinos will increase, but immigrants from all over the world will come and benefit from the situation. The number of immigrants will quickly outnumber the Americans, resulting in a multicultural country without a common identity, fading away with it the patriotism that Americans are so proud of, as is happening now.
Overpopulation: If immigration continues at current levels, the nation’s population will increase from 301 to 468 million in 2060, a 56% increase (CIS). That is considering the normal immigration pattern, but if we add a factor that would increase the desire of immigrating to the US, this could be tripled.[[endillegalimmigration.com/Illegal_Immigration_Facts_&_Statistics
Unemployment: With at least 7.7 million employed immigrants, and the an unemployment rate of 9.50%; giving away the citizenship will only increase the unemployment of Americans, because usually immigrants take the lowest paid jobs and get hired easier than a regular American. This will be going against the basis of a democratic government, to represent the interests of their people, not the ones of the immigrants.
Undermines American Judical System
America is a proud nation, it prides itself on its judical system, where it upholds basic rights of all people and where people are seen as innocent until proven guilty [[http://peacesecurity.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_meaning_of_innocent_until_proven_guilty]] what the prop has suggested is that we should forgoe this pillar of American law and assume a guilty until prooven inncoent ideal.
Why will racial profiling undermine this right? Because by utilizing racial profiling a nation allows its police forces to satisfy the need for reasnoable suspision because of the colour of another persons skin. There is also the problem of who to assume is an illegal immigrant? The prop has told us that there are 7.7 million illegal latin workers [[numbersusa.com/content/files/pdf/Putting%20Americans%20Back%20to%20Work(2).pdf]] in the USA, they believe racial profiling will target these immigrants. However what about the 9,8 million legal immigrants? [[http://www.migrationinformation.org/usfocus/display.cfm?ID=208]] What about the 7.3 million South American legal immigrants? [[http://www.migrationinformation.org/usfocus/display.cfm?ID=208]] That is roughly 53% [[http://www.migrationinformation.org/usfocus/display.cfm?ID=208]] of total immigration to the US, all 17.1 million legal immigrants could reasnoably be assumed to fit the basic description of a Mexican illegal immigrant. Is it fair that they could be up for an unwarranted search of their person, an invasion of their privacy and possible public humiliation of beign asked to present your papers on suspision of being illegal? No, not only is it not fair but it assumes guilt in the basis of ethnicity, it assumes guilt, underming the principle of innocence until prooven guilty by a court of law, not an everday policeman who is wary of every latin american looking person.
This is the situaton racial profiling will cause and this situation is unacceptable in a country claiming to lead the western world.
The opposition misses the whole point of what the Racial Profiling Policy is about: Police has a suspicion>he asks for immigration documents>then, the individual ,who’s obligation is to carry those documents, shows them to the police>if the information is in order the individual may continue its doings without any consequence[[http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/anti-illegal-immigration-law-part-1/]] .So exactly where in the process is the declaration of the individual as guilty and the sentencing of people before they can show their documents? First of all, police can only question the people if there is a suspicious or criminal conduct[[http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/05/17/20100517arizona-immigration-law-scenarios.html]] (calls complaining about fighting, odor of marijuana,etc.)But even with this, the person contacted is presumed to be a citizen, meaning that: a)the innocence unless proving otherwise ideal is preserved; b)Not every single immigrant will be detained on those basis. There was also a comment of “Racial Profiling allows the police forces to raise a suspicion because of the color of another person’s skin” it is a cold way of saying it, but that is what Racial Profiling is about: increasing vigilance over Muslim communities, for example, makes perfect sense when the US are at war with Islamic extremists.
Another thing, we see no reason for a police to exhaustively examine the individual, invade its privacy, or humiliate him, but if that happened it would be an exception and an abuse, the responsible would be punished. So there is only one risk left, being caught without being able to prove that you’re legal, and this is something that does not threaten the legal immigrants; actually it is the reason of existence of the policy and it’s a good thing, because if you are acting suspiciously and you can’t prove your legal status then you’re a factor of risk from whom society must be protected.
It is racist
We believe that racism is never justified. This is because we recognise that every human has the fundamental right to be free from discrimination and not be judged on the colour of their skin. We believe that any policy that is racist is inherently unethical and therefore should not be passed into law. Almost all countries recognise that racism is wrong, and have laws which protect people from discrimination.
The reason this policy is racist is due to the fact that race can now be a factor in deciding whether to question someone. For example, if a Mexican person was questioned in the street and asked for identification whereas a white person was not (and both were doing the exact same thing), it is an example of racism. This is wrong, and we have not had sufficient justification from the proposition for why this is okay. Even if statistics say that people of Mexican ethnicity are overrepresented in illegal immigrant numbers, it is still not justified. On an individual level, Mexican people who are legal immigrants (or even US-born citizens) are not “more likely” to be an illegal immigrant because other people of the same race are. They are exactly the same as a legal European immigrant or a white US-born citizen. Just because a higher proportion of people that share their race are illegal immigrants, does not mean that they should be subject to a stereotype which has no effect on their potential to be a criminal
The fundamental individual right to freedom from discrimination is far more important than any small gain in the arrest of illegal immigrants. This is because it is fair. All people are equal, and we think that they should all have equal rights and equal status under the law.
The prop agrees with the opp, racism is never justified. But Racial profiling is a criteria, not discrimination. As the prop has stated before, it would be impossible to interrogate every single immigrant in the US to make sure they are not illegal. They have to be wrapped in a suspicious situation. Let’s take the example the opp gave us, we have a Mexican and an American looking person (not white because immigrants are not just “Mexicans” as the opp continuously states) which are doing the same thing. Lets say they are both caught painting graffiti, if the Mexican is an American citizen he would be fined just as the american man would, but if he ends up being an illegal, the american man would be fined and the Mexican would be deported. Since the legal status is not a race the Prop doesn’t understand how this or any similar situation could be racist, or even discriminatory.
If Racial Profiling was approved, the status under the law of every legal US citizen wouldn’t change a bit as the opp states, they would all still share the same rights. In the american law it already states that every single immigrant should carry at all time an identification, the fact they are not used to it, is no discrimination.
Theres no denigration in getting asked for documents, it would just denote their race, which is no racism, being from different races is a fact and this would only be used as a criteria to ask for documents, which they should have not to get mocked or discriminated in any way.
We believe the opp has failed to understand the definition the prop has used on racial profiling, which we limited to Bill 1070. Stating this is a tool which would make the police ask for documents to every foreign looking person, but it will be a criteria which they can use if catching them in a suspicious situation[[http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf]].
It Harms Ethnic Minorities
There are plenty of ethnic minorities in the US who are citizens or legal immigrants. Racial profiling will harm these people.
Racial profiling makes minorities feel disenfranchised and discriminated against. This is because they are being stopped, pulled over and/or searched far more than people of other ethnicities. This causes people to feel like second-class citizens, which is unfair. It leads people (even the innocent) to resent the police, and respond aggressively.
An example of this is the Brixton Riots in 1981. Brixton was a poor black neighbourhood, with very high crime. In response, the London Police carried out over 950 stop and searches in just five days during April. On April 11, riots broke out. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Brixton_riot]] Interviews with people that lived there tell how they felt huge anger at police, as if they were enemies. Minorities felt antagonised and that the police were “against them”. [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCjZEZt3QKc]] The same will happen when an ethnic minority can be asked for immigration papers, because even if a reasonable suspicion has to be formed first they are still being treated differently on the basis of the colour of their skin.
If minorities resent and distrust police they will not be as helpful in reporting crime, and will not feel comfortable living in the United States. This discourages legal immigrants from moving to the United States, as they do not want to live in a country where they will be racially profiled.
Even if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that a person may be an illegal immigrant, the fact that racial profiling is allowed means they will still hold a perception that they have been stopped on the basis of their skin colour. This further causes distrust of police by minorities.
When the prop says gangs are only criminals who kill people they are being completely ignorant. If people can’t go to the police, gangs will want to profit from this so they will make offer
What Opp tries to do above is trying to mislead the debate falsely and unfairly. Let us quote the real, original text of SB 1070: “The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based SOLELY on race, color or national origin”[[azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf]] which we have defended the whole debate. What is absurd it to use it as sole basis, since then they would need to ask documents of almost 200 million that may “not look American”. Again, right now officers cannot detain on suspicion, because that suspicion always needs to consider race, obviously. That’s the point of the debate.
The only harm they raised is “feeling second-class citizens” but we don’t see the reason for that. Again, being part of a minority is not something to be ashamed but actually to be proud and you won’t stop being a member of it. Minority citizens will feel secure by knowing officers are doing their job and protecting them, plus a poll showed 70 % of US Americans support the law[[upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/04/29/Poll-Most-support-Arizona-immigration-law/UPI-55921272544207/]] which obviously includes of every minority supporting, so they know they can be asked for an ID with it not posing discrimination, just a simple procedure that could take seconds.
In the example, the riots were caused by people thinking a youth was killed by the police that were helping, not because police were asking for an ID, which is on a very different degree. Legal immigrants can be comfortable knowing they won’t be stolen off jobs unfairly by illegals or won’t be targets of illegal crimes, such as “cholos” that usually target legal migrants so it’s for their well being, plus it would only be racist if it targeted one specific race, which is not the case.
Note: The article we cite in Arg. 5 says USA spends 22 billions on welfare directly to illegals (not kids as Opp asserts) without costs such as medical treatment and social services
Negative effects on Policing.
Racial profiling, contrary to what the Prop may argue is bad for the police. Racial profiling is when a person’s ethnicity is used to cause suspicion of criminal activity. The prop have uses flawed examples of profiling; militant Islamic sects and street gangs, these examples cause obvious breaches of the law and incur the appropriate police activity UNDER THE STATUS QUO. All that racial profiling would allow is justification in thinking that any Arabic like person could be a terrorist, it would ingrain in public opinion that Latin Americans are just stereotypically gang members and illegal.
Racial profiling sends the dehumanizing message to our citizens that they are judged by the colour of their skin and harms the criminal justice system by eviscerating the trust that is necessary if law enforcement is to effectively protect America[[http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2003/June/racial_profiling_fact_sheet.pdf]]. As touched upon by the prop profiling harms the image of the police, the image is essential because while racial profiling has a dodgy success record, community policing has been proven to work, the more comfortable a community is with the police the more likely it is that they will cooperate with investigations[[http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/tp/Against-Racial-Profiling.htm]], but this is based upon trust! Racial profiling alienates minorities, if police are viewed as biased towards a ethnicity, say because they were justified in assuming all Latino’s were possibly illegal, then this sabotages community policing efforts because there is not trust between the ethnic community and the police so less support for policing efforts in fact as John Ashcroft said “racial profiling creates a “lose-lose” situation because it destroys the potential for underlying trust that “sh”should support the administration of justice as a societal objective, not just as a law enforcement objective” [[http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2003/June/]]
Again, the opp is trying to mislead the debate to a point that we have already clarified. First of all, police can only question the people if there is a suspicioun or criminal conduct, and added to that there must be the race factor; however police cannot detain them just for the color of the skin without the suspicioun or criminal conduct.
We have also already exemplified how this system of racial profiling makes Israeli airlines the safest in the world and worked in USA in 1954, proving that THIS METHOD WORKS.
Moving to the point of the cooperation with the police, first the opp tried to say that cooperation with the police will decrease and they also pointed in a previous point that aliens would rather recur to gangs instead of the police, which we have already proven absurd because gangs will not do the work of a policemen and people would not even be able to approach a gang without getting shot or dimembered first. MS-13 the saviors of the people, sure! Cholos and MS-13 usually target minorities!
Also this point is based on an unfounded assumption, because why would people stop cooperating with the police when they are the ones working to keep them safe? Some might say that would be because of fear of being asked for documents and detained; but again, they cannot detain you just because of your race, they need a reasonable suspicion. People will be more confident knowing officers are doing a good job!
Furthermore, there is a system in the US that offers the amnesty of some crimes in exchange for information that might help in other criminal investigations; so the same principle could apply by being not detained when helping the police, I can only observe a win-win situation in this very isolated case.
In this debate, the proposition have been confused about racial profiling. They told you that there needs to be ‘reasonable suspicion’ as a justification for it not being racist, while at the same time admitting that racial profiling is using race to form a suspicion in the first place. The latter is what racial profiling is, and it gives the police race as a reason to ask for immigration papers, and also anyone who doesn’t look ‘American’ the perception that race is the reason they are being asked. Even if there did have to be a different ‘reasonable suspicion’ before race could come into it, race would still be being used at all, which is still a racist policy with consequent harms.
There were three key areas in this debate. They were:
1) What is the best way to deal with illegal immigrants.
2) Will it prevent illegal immigration in future.
3) What harms will it cause.
The proposition asserted that illegal immigrants were a leach on society, who somehow received all the benefits of living there without contributing anything. We showed you that actually they live in America as second-class citizens who contribute to the economy by working in bad jobs with low wages, while receiving minimal benefits. If the problem is that illegal immigrants don’t pay enough welfare etc, the best solution (and most practical, considering the children born in the US, the taking away of workers for employers, and the fact that most of them will try to return anyway) was instead to provide the path to citizenship. All the prop did was provide a monetary figure without attacking the analysis at all.
As for preventing illegal immigration in future, the prop asserted that suddenly all the immigrants in Arizona would pack up and leave because there would suddenly be a greater chance of being caught. We showed you that actually the risks involved (such as death) in immigrating in the first place were much higher, so if the reasons they moved in the first place still exist people will stay (and crucially, continue to come over the border and return if they are deported). We also showed you that illegals will turn try and hide or turn to gangs instead of allowing themselves to be caught. All the prop did here was say it was ridiculous, without attacking the analysis that if people have an incentive to hide, they will (the police can’t be everywhere) and the fact that gangs operate for profit, not just to kill, meaning they will be an alternative to the police if there is value in it.
Thirdly, the harms. What are the consequences of racist policy? We showed how racial profiling would lead to discontent as it did in Brixton, London in 1981. We showed how it undermines the American judicial system assumption of innocence. We showed how it would actually harm police efforts in the wider community as it put them offside with ethnic groups.We showed that racism is wrong, and the prop responded with ‘it’s not racist, it’s a criteria’. Yes, it’s a racist criteria. Opp win.