Immigration policy. It’s been one of the most hotly debated issues in recent years and especially this year with the passing of Arizona’s SB1070. Should America provide amnesty for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country? Should we create a deportation plan for them over the years to come? Is there a middle road? These were the questions asked at the Conference on Asian Pacific American Leadership’s (CAPAL) 2nd intern evening for their Washington Leadership Program (WLP). The evening was set up as an Oxford-style debate, with a pro and con side. Each team was to support or negate the motion America should provide illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. Pro Points: Most of us interns (about 75%) were in support of the motion before the debate. We heard the usual arguments from the pro — illegal immigrants are an integral part of our economy, they are willing to take jobs that Americans are not interested in, and providing them amnesty would allow us to focus on allocating resources to border protection to reduce the influx of additional illegal immigrants. Additionally, many children of illegal immigrants have been receiving an education in this country through the public school system for years. Deporting them would be a waste of the federal money previously invested in them. The ‘Pro-Immigration’ debaters advocated that instead of creating a plan for deportation, which would be difficult and costly, it would be easier to invest that money in the legalization process so that illegal immigrants can start to contribute to the economy and create healthy American competition. Con Points: Although the Pro side offered a lot of strong support, it was the con points that really got us thinking. According to the ‘Anti-Immigration’ debaters, amnesty was offered to illegal immigrants in 1996 but was ineffective in stopping new illegal immigrants from entering the country, hence the present number of 11 million illegal immigrants in the country. They also pointed out that currently about 2,000 to 4,000 illegal immigrants leave the country every year and if we were to stop any illegal immigrants from coming into the country, essentially by investing in security on the border that actually works, then over the next decade or two, immigrants would filter themselves out of the country and the US would not have to physically deport anyone. Countering the Pro-Immigration argument about immigrants doing jobs Americans don’t want to do, the debaters highlighted that there is an average unemployment rate of 20% for Americans who are seeking blue-collar jobs. They contended that these jobs are offered to illegal immigrants because they are willing to work for lower wages and longer hours than American natives. And finally, it’s unfair for immigrants who go through the legal process of getting a Green Card and then applying for citizenship when people who came to the country illegally are given automatic amnesty. Though the Pro Points had initially sounded convincing, by the end of the debate only 46% were in favor of the motion. The Anti-immigration debaters had changed our views. Why? Perhaps it had to do with the quality of the debaters and they way their points were presented. But it was probably because their points incited ideas that a lot of us had never considered before. Both arguments were very compelling and well thought out. I actually ended up being completely undecided after the debate. Immigration policy is one of those touchy subjects that needs to be addressed. It affects our economy, our foreign policy, and our education system, among many other aspects of American government. What do you think? And on a side-yet-related note, I would like to commend the Department of Justice on suing Arizona for passing SB1070, which has incited a surge of racial profiling in the state. For more information, click here.
Coming to you from 1413 K Street, Jasleen K. Singh