Affirmative: What would America be without immigrants?

With the recent uprising and hype regarding the status of immigrants, many people have done research and reports on what America would be without immigrants. Many people tend not to recognize all immigrants have done for our country, and the strides and hard work they put in to get here.

There is a difference in the impact that legal immigrants have versus those who are illegal, but there is some impact either way.

Technology is a big factor in today’s society, and immigrants have contributed to it’s growth more than one would imagine. Without immigrants, out “unicorns” would not exist. “Unicorns” not referring to the imaginary creature, but the apps that allow people to travel from one place to another with simply the click of a button and the payment being connected to a credit card. Some common unicorns are Uber or PayPal. About 40 billion-dollar companies would not have been founded without immigrants.

If one looked at all the “unicorn” companies worth one billion dollars or more, 51% had a founder not born in the USA. Also, 70% of those “unicorn” companies feature immigrant workers that play large and key roles within the company.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

STEM is a technology based field that immigrants tend to lead, thrive, and do very well in, which may account and contribute to their creativity regarding app creation. They tend to hold a lot of STEM degrees which increases and helps when it comes to job multiplication. It is now statically proven that when there is one immigrant working in a STEM field, they are responsible for creating 2.72 more jobs.

Steam-Jobs.png

Lastly, immigrants are making strides in fields outside of STEM, and in broader areas of patents and inventions. Immigrants are involved in 76% of patents from top patent producing companies in America, reported to help mankind in many ways.

These patents are both technologically and pharmaceutical (medicine based).

Advertisements

Miscellaneous: The Stats Don’t Lie

In attempt to overshadow the true reasoning and motive behind the executive order that Donald Trump has imposed, his administration as well as his supporters claim that this executive order is for the benefit of the country. He claims that he is protecting the country from “terrorists.” But when looking at these statistics that Kim Kardashian posted on Twitter, we see that maybe we need to shift our focus to another threatening killer, instead of discriminating against Muslims. 3c9e126a00000578-4168320-image-a-151_1485675663696

Miscellaneous: Not Just White-Christians Should Have It This Easy

 

In this video, popular talk show host, James Corden, walks through the airport to show how easy it is for him to get through security. The purpose of this is to show that all legal immigrants should be able to have it this easy, not just White Christian ones.

Refutation: Not Fully Protected

usa-trump-immigration

(CBCNews)


Vice President Mike Pence has made many statements of support about Trump’s Immigration ban, stating that stating to Fox News’ Sean Hannity that what Trump did is “impose a pause on countries that have been compromised by terrorism so that we can evaluate the screening process and establish … extreme vetting so that people coming in to this country don’t represent a threat to our families and our communities.” From this logic, there should be many more countries with travel bans, including the Philippines, Turkey, India, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Egypt, and more. However Trump has properties (or is involved in properties) in six (Philippines, Indonesia, and Egypt) of the countries listed above, and is in business with a wealthy family from the other (Malaysia.) According to CNN, there are a total of 40 countries that have active terrorist cells, are the base for terrorist organizations, or are state sponsors of terrorism. However, only seven have official travel bans. Trump’s defense of those specific countries is that they were originally chosen by Obama’s administration as “countries of concern,”

While those countries have a travel ban, there are still 33 that do not have any restrictions. The argument that by banning just those 7 countries will eliminate foreign-terrorists from entering the country is ludicrous. According to Nowrasteh, between 1975 and 2015, only 20 refugees have been convicted of attempting a terrorist act (zero Americans were injured/killed in these attempts.) Additionally, it can be seen in the previous article, that out of 580 terrorist related convictions, 92 people were U.S Citizens, while 40 were foreign-born, and 241 were not actually for terrorist offenses.

This proves that banning entry to Syrian refugees and individuals from the seven banned countries does nothing to prevent more terrorist attacks. Trump’s ban is only doing more harm than good by damaging international relations, blocking families who are only seeking safety, and inciting domestic tension.

Here is a map of countries banned by Trump with countries he’s done business in:

trumpmuslimban

 

Affirmative: Money Money Money…is on everyone’s mind.

donald-trump-immigration-banPresident Trump has hopes of deporting the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in this country.  He has made statements about deporting Mexican immigrants that are racist and bigoted.

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. … They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,” said Trump in a 2015 speech.

Not only is it racist and ridiculous to deport all of the undocumented immigrants living and working in the United States, it is fiscally impossible.  One of Trump’s consistent arguments throughout his campaign was that he plans to cut taxes without increasing the deficit; however, his immigration plan will do the opposite.

The Center for American Progress (CAP) did a study that found that it would cost the U.S. $200 billion to deport all 11 million of the undocumented immigrants, and then another $200 billion to keep them out.  This is just the cost of deporting the immigrants, and does not include the cost of the wall Trump is planning to build on the southern border.

The wall on the southern border, near Mexico, would also cost an exponentially large amount of money that is not feasible for the U.S..  Trump himself estimated that the wall would cost around $10 billion.  However, the Washington Post fact checked Trump and found that wall would actually cost $25 billion.

Where is this money going to come from?  Who is going to pay for the wall because Mexico has made it clear they won’t? And how are taxes going to be cut, while spending on immigration exponentially increases?

A Pew Research study found that 62 percent of people would oppose a wall on the border of Mexico.  The study also found that 70 percent of people think that the U.S. would end up paying for the wall that Trump claims Mexico will pay for.

Overall, it is fiscally impossible to deport all 11 million of the undocumented immigrants living in the U.S..  Even if you take out the factor that President Trump is being racist, he has no plan as to how any of this would be paid for.

 

Abby Harari

Miscellaneous: Watch What You Say

A recent Washington Post article is in response to the revised travel ban that is being disputed in court. Donald Trump has a tendency to say things, often offensive and discriminatory, but then later deny ever expressing anything of that nature. Although he can try to alter the rhetoric used to describe the ban, the sentiment and purpose stay the same. He essentially is blaming Muslims for an abundance of problems that the nation faces.

Because our nation, especially the government, claims to be secular, the issue that federal judges are investigating are the contradicting nature of the Executive Order and Trump’s actual statements leading up to declaring the Executive Order.

img-4-15-600x300

Refutation: You Aren’t Protecting Us

Supporters of Donald Trump’s executive order have various reasons for why they are advocating for this plan of action, but they all seem to share a common sentiment; “We love refugees, but…” And, that’s where we are left to ponder, do they really love refugees, if it’s conditional? The argument is that “they just want to protect the US against terror attacks, and they think that President Trump’s travel ban is a good first step.” Ever since the executive order has been announced, there has been this facade of doing what is necessary and just.

Although we all can discern that there’s no way to truly predict who may commit terror attacks, there still is this belief that as a nation, we are moving towards a safer country if we stereotype certain groups. This stereotype of who is more likely to commit acts of terror is directly related to the executive order that was released earlier in the 2017. As of March 6, 2017, the executive order has been revised, but still upholds stipulations backed by flawed rationale.

Within the executive order titled, “Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States” under Section 1.h., it explains how recent history showcases that people who have obtained entry through the immigration system have ended up becoming threats to our nation. However, just because there are cases that provide evidence of terror attacks from these people doesn’t mean that keeping all immigrants out will solve this issue. There have been numerous incidents of terror attacks in our country at the hands of people who are considered to be the “ideal” American citizen. The only difference is the term we use to classify these attacks and the perception that follows. Acknowledging two cases where people who have come to the United States through the immigration system does not speak for the many others who are trying to do no harm. In Section 1.8., the executive order notes how Iraq is a special case in this situation. But, if the goal was truly about protecting the nation, there would be the same treatment and stipulations for all countries, not just six countries of the nation’s choosing. There is no level of comfort if we are only being protected from six countries citizens. If the true goal is to “protect”, there are a lot of flaws.