THBT: On balance, the United States ought to increase the number of immigrants allowed into America.

Pro is resting a lot of things on the assumption that certain things are done for "arbitrary reasons." And if something is done for an arbitrary reason, the whole field can have arbitrary actions done, because they are the same. But these things simply are not done for arbitrary reasons, they are done for real reasons.

As an example, suppose a serial killer were on the loose, and he was supposed to be in prison for life. That man is therefore not allowed to do the things normal citizens can do, such as own property. This man cannot simply go out and buy a house. Therefore, the person who sells the house to him cannot legally sell the house to him. Is that "violating property choices?" Or, is it enforcing punishment to those who deserve it? It's the serial killer that deserves to never own property again, so this house cannot legally be sold to him. And that's not an arbitrary reason.

Thus, pro will need more to the argument than that, because the exact same logic applies to this scenario as well.

Fear not, pro has more. Freedom of movement! Surely that means you should be able to let more people into the country. But does it? After all, the serial killer doesn't have the freedom of movement to escape prison legally. Why? Because he doesn't deserve it. So just because you're denying someone the ability to move somewhere does not mean it's wrong or you're violating the law.

Thus, pro will need more to the argument than that, because the exact same logic applies to this scenario as well.

Fear not, pro has more. Isn't body autonomy being violated? Well, let me ask you this: is the body autonomy of the serial killer in prison being violated? Or, a better question is: is it right that his body autonomy is being violated? The answer is an emphatic YES! After all, the man is a serial killer. So, just because you are restricting their body autonomy does not mean you are violating the law or doing anything wrong.

Thus, pro will need more to the argument than that, because the exact same logic applies to this scenario as well.

Fear not, pro has even more. Immigrants make people more wealthy on average! Are they not beneficial for the economy and we should therefore keep them? Well, regardless of whether or not that's true, let me ask you this: if the serial killer suddenly decided to become the founder of what would eventually become the greatest most life-saving food program for starving people in world history, should his life sentence be revoked? Should he no longer be punished because of his recent deeds? Or, should he continue to serve a life sentence because he murdered a great multitude of people in cold blood?

Despite the fact that the serial killer has done good for society now, the fact remains that he has still committed many crimes, and he should thus still be punished as he was originally going to be. So the mere fact that they are beneficial for society does not negate the bad thing that they did.

Thus, pro will need more to the argument than that, because the exact same logic applies to this scenario as well.

Fear not, pro has more. Immigrants also bring in new knowledge. And yet, as we already established, the mere fact that immigrants are beneficial for society sometimes does not negate what they have done.

The same applies to his argument about technological advancement, and economy advancement.

Thus, pro will need more to the argument than that, because the exact same logic applies to this scenario as well.

Also, foreigners make up 14.3% of the US population. Of course some of them are going to contribute to technological advancement! The very fact that there are people in the the country means there will be innovation. But these people could be foreigners or Americans, and they would still innovate. This is not nearly as significant as pro is making it out to be.

I will also point out that 16% of inventors being foreign means that 84% of inventors are natives.

To put pro's numbers into perspective, when you flip them around, you realize that natives generate 75% of innovative output in the computer, communications, electronics, and medical fields, and 85% of older technologies such as metalworking, transportation, and engines. You can do this for every percentage of immigrants he cites. In all but one case (which isn't even relevant here because it was in Canada), natives make up the majority, and mostly they make up significantly more than immigrants. So, natives are much more influential to the country than immigrants, according to pro's very numbers.

But fear not, for pro has more. The birth rates are declining. Pro claims that the solution is simply to let more immigrants in. But this is not the real solution. This is simply an avoidance of the problem.

The birth rates are going down. Is it because there are less people in the US to give birth? No, the US population is still going up. It's just increasing more slowly. So, even though there are more people in the US than there were before, the birth rate is still declining. That means there are less births per woman in the US Women are having less children on an individual level. Do you think that's because of less immigration? No. Why would it be? An individual woman is not going to decide to have less children because there aren't enough immigrants. Something else is causing that woman to have less children. Something else is causing women across the United States to have less children. Whatever that is, it is most definitely not because of immigration. This is the birth rate, so we're talking about natives here, not foreigners. This is a problem with natives, not foreigners. The proper thing to do would be to address what is actually causing the birth rates to decline, not to simply let in more foreigners to replace them. If all you do is let foreigners in, the problem will continue to exist, and it could potentially get worse.

Fear not, pro has more. He says that to deny someone's access into the country is to deny their right of choice. But I ask you, are you denying the right of choice of the serial killer in prison? Or perhaps, if a random person asked to enter your home and live in it for the rest of their life, are you denying their right of choice to simply tell them no? Or, are you exercising your right of choice to deny them permission to enter into your home! When we say "freedom," we obviously do not mean you can do anything. That wouldn't work. That means you'd be allowed to kill someone. No, freedom simply means you are allowed to do a great multitude of things, to the point where the only things you are not allowed to do are things that most reasonable people on earth would agree are wrong. This is why people continue to say Americans are free.

And no, the choice of someone to move into the USA is not the same as the choice of someone, who was born in the USA, to stay in the USA Would you say the choice of a person to enter into someone's house is the same as the choice of someone who was born in that house to stay in that house? The person who entered the house needs permission from the house owner. In the same way, immigrants need permission from the country to enter into that country. And they have the right to deny you access for a good enough reason, just like a homeowner does. And really, a homeowner has the right to deny a stranger access into their home for any reason. It's their home, and the stranger definitely does not have the right to enter that house any time they want.

The same applies to his argument about the equality of human rights.

Thus, pro will need more to the argument than that, because the exact same logic applies to this scenario as well.

Fear not, pro has more. For some, it is dangerous for people to stay in their country, and it is safer for them to move into America. Is it America's responsibility to solve other countries' problems? Well, let me ask you this: is it your responsibility to donate to every charity on earth related to giving people basic human needs? After all, even if you donate to one charity, there is always another charity you did not donate to. But even if you don't have the money to donate to that charity, you at least have the money to donate to some charities. You have spending money. And every time you spend spending money on something you did not need, couldn't you have spent that on charity?

Obviously, the America should not be forced to let everyone (with documentation) into the country just because their native country is worse, regardless of whatever problems it may cause them as a result. Especially because America has every right to close their borders or at least significantly restrict their borders when they need to.

Moving on to his counter-counter arguments. Yes, we do not judge the entire American population by the crimes committed by few. This is why illegal immigration is more relevant here, because aside from the fact that illegal border crossing is also a crime, the lack of documentation means the U.S. as no idea who you are, meaning they have no idea if you've committed a crime. If you were thinking of letting someone into your house, but you knew there was a chance that they were a criminal, would you take that opportunity if you knew there was a way for you to know? And yes, the odds are low, but from 2021-2024, 10.8 million people crossed the border illegally. Risking even a low chance 10 million times will result in a great multitude of the rare outcome. And since it's illegal, it was never supposed to happen in the first place.

I don't have a lot of character space left. Given all this, why should the US keep its immigration at the same level? Because a government should prioritize its own citizens before foreigners. It's a basic governmental principle that applies to all countries, including the US. So when a bunch of foreigners are taking jobs and houses, it would be better for natives to take jobs and houses.

Given that I ran out of space before drawing out this argument further previously, I will now finish what I started by starting with what I finished with.

Fundamentally, a government should prioritize its own citizens over foreigners. This is because the citizens belong to the country from the start, but the foreigners do not, at least not at first. And this applies to things in life as well: fix the biggest problems in your own life before trying to fix others' problems. Pro actually demonstrates this very point, by saying that a person who cannot provide for their own needs cannot provide for the needs of others. Therefore, a country who cannot provide for its own needs cannot provide for the needs of others.

But it is important to note what he said later: "Care for all." He's trying to make the point that you shouldn't care more for an American than a foreigner. But actually, the very principles he drew out demonstrate the principle of caring first for yourself and your things, and then the others, which applies to America too.

Pro admits that foreigners are taking jobs, houses, and wages, by operating his response as though he had already acknowledged that to be true. This is because he instead said that the same applies to Americans, so there is no difference. But is there? After all, if a country should prioritize its own citizens first, that means it does matter that a foreigner has taken a job from an American-born. What use is it to be a nation if you do not prioritize your nation of people, but prioritize other nations of people? We are America-first, so the jobs and houses should first go to the Americans, and then the foreigners, in America. And if certain Americans can't find a job or a house because a foreigner took it, that is a problem.

By the way, there are about 267 million adults in the US, which means that $100 billion divided into 267 million is $374.54 per adult in the US, not $500, which is 25% less.

Anyway, here's another interesting point you can draw from his statements. Pro said this:

...a country cannot even afford to let other countries collapse, without damaging its own economy.

That's rather interesting, because sometimes people immigrate to America because their country sucks, and maybe even their economy sucks, and America is better. Once again, this is an example of people fleeing the problem instead of solving it. And if you don't solve the problem, it will continue to get worse. This means that if people only decide to flee to America instead of trying to fix their own country, then the other countries will collapse, which, as Pro admits, would damage America's economy.

So once again, we shouldn't be relying so much on immigration. Immigration appears to only be a way to flee from the problem, not to face it head-on and solve it.

[The] serial killer is the one violating body autonomy, property choice, movement of others, and their choices. So to prevent him in that is good.

It's not just because he violated the body autonomy of others. It's because he committed a crime. A different man can go to prison for doing illegal drugs, which is not violating the body autonomy of anyone, yet he still goes to prison. Gambling is also illegal (unless it's run by the government because they're greedy). The point is that he did something wrong, and that's why he went to prison.

And to clarify, in the context of the immigrant, since we're talking about legal immigrants, I'm not saying they're a criminal. I was simply pointing out that that logic you used alone does not entirely mean that we can let in as many immigrants as possible, because the conditions you proposed also apply to the serial killer. But because the serial killer still goes to prison, that means there are other things that add to the reason than simply saying that you are "violating their body autonomy." It's not as simple as that, and that was the only point I was making here.

Now, Pro cited a source saying the crime rate among immigrants declined. But is this really true? The source says that in 1980, immigrants made up 6.2% of the US population, and the crime rate was 5,900 crimes per 100,000 people, but in 2022, immigrants made up 13.9% of the US population, and the crime rate reduced by 60.4% to 2,335 crimes per 100,000 people. But this doesn't say anything about the immigrant crime rate, just the total crime rate. This article infers that the immigrant crime rate dropped only by confusing correlation with causation. There are so many things that can change the crime rate, not just population size. Such as culture, law enforcement, and socioeconomic status. This article presents an oversimplified idea of how crime rates work, and this alone should not be enough of a reason to believe that immigrants are the reason why crime rates have gone down.

The source also says, "immigrants—including undocumented immigrants—are less likely to commit crimes than the U.S.-born." But actually, entering the country as an undocumented immigrant is a crime. And by continually staying in the country without a document, you are continually committing a crime. Illegal immigration is a separate issue with way more problems that isn't the topic of this debate, I just wanted to point out the foundation this article is built upon.

What we are choosing between is "more migrants" or "no more migrants", and the latter means less people in a country who will innovate.

As I said, more immigrants does not solve the core issue of why the US birth rates are declining. So assuming we will have less people in the country to innovate assumes that all we do is let no more immigrants in. In reality, what ought to be done is to fix whatever is causing the US birth rates to go down, and the lack of immigration is definitely not the reason why, as I demonstrated earlier.

This growth of [the] US population is a lot thanks to migrants. And with birth rates declining fast among [the] native population, bringing in migrants is an effective way for [the] country to get new people.

This was in response to a quote of mine saying the US population is still going up. But if you look at it in context, what I was talking about was the birth rates, meaning the native population.

The birth rates are going down. Is it because there are less people in the US to give birth? No, the US population is still going up. It's just increasing more slowly. So, even though there are more people in the US than there were before, the birth rate is still declining.

My point was that women are having less children on an individual level. And no, bringing more immigrants in is not the solution to this. I know he technically said "for a country to get new people," but in context, he was clearly implying that that is the solution to this. It is definitely not.

As I already said, in the midst of the very quote Pro responded to, women are, on an individual level, having less children. There are less births per woman in the US than there was. Therefore, this is a problem with the native population, not the immigrants. So to solve the problem, you address the native population, and figure out what's going on with them. Bringing in more immigrants will not do this, it will only let the problem continue to happen, as this is nothing but a way to flee the problem instead of facing it head-on.

Also, to use Pro's logic about US crime rates, the birth rates have reduced by 69.1% from 1980 to 2022. And since the immigrant population nearly doubled in that time, that means they're at least partially responsible according to this logic. So, using Pro's logic, immigrants are not the solution to the problem, but the causer of the problem.

This logic is of course flawed, as it too confuses correlation with causation, just like the argument from immigrant crime rates. And so my point is not to say that immigrants are causing the birth rates to go down, but rather that the faulty logic he uses to conclude that immigrants reduce the crime rate also can be used to say that immigrants reduce the birth rate.

Migrants are not stealing houses, or breaking into them in most cases. So I don't see what the point of this argument is.

My hypothetical was not talking about a person breaking into someone's house, but rather a person simply asking to enter someone's house. Someone breaking into a person's house is akin to an illegal immigrant, while someone asking to enter a person's house is akin to a legal immigrant. My point was addressing the second category, since that is the topic of this debate.

My point was to point out that there is a difference between a native and an immigrant, by illustrating the difference between someone who was born in a household and someone who was not. They really are different, because one was born into that household and automatically gets permission to stay, whereas the stranger must get permission from the house owner to enter into the house. But they're both people, right? What's the difference? Well, it turns out that where you were born really does matter, it's not just about the fact that they're people. And that is why they are different.

Mentality of care doesn't demand you to donate all your money to charity. Merely [to] donate enough to help while still maintaining a lot of your property freedom.

Okay, then to flip this back to immigration, the mentality of care doesn't demand the US to let in as many immigrants as possible, that being every person who applies, but merely to let in enough while still prioritizing the needs of their own born citizens first. And this scenario implies the existence of a person who applied and yet got rejected, simply because the country is prioritizing US-born citizens first.

...even if one was to prioritize [its] "own citizens", the logical step would still be to let more migrants in for more innovation, technology and workforce which benefits [the] native population too.

Unless they're taking jobs and houses from them.

I will start by reiterating a point I have made in my other two arguments, before getting into more details. Pro has said things like "two heads are smarter than one," to suggest that bringing in more immigrants is good for knowledge because there are more people to increase the knowledge. But, as Pro has also said, the same could be said about Americans who live in the US. And so the mere fact that immigration would bring in more people isn't necessarily enough, and here's why.

As I said, there are less births per woman in the US than there used to be. This is a problem. The native birth rates are going down. When a country has a problem with its citizens, what ought it do? It ought to figure out the root of the problem and then fix it. What it ought not to do is avoid the problem by providing a temporary solution to the symptom. This is like being sick, and taking medication to cure the symptoms, instead of the sickness. When you do this, the sickness continues to exist, and actually has the opportunity to get worse, because it's going untreated.

And so when you let in immigrants to mediate the US population, you do not fix the sickness, you fix the symptoms. And that's only temporary, because the sickness is not only continuing to exist, but it's getting worse. Letting more immigrants in is nothing but a burden on resources to serve as a distraction.

This is why the US ought not to increase their number of immigrants: so they can focus on fixing the problem that's causing women to have less children. This will get rid of the sickness, and it will lead to a healthier country that is ready for immigrants. And for this reason, the fact that immigrants are good for knowledge just because an increase in the US population would increase the knowledge is a way of avoiding the underlying issue we're trying to solve.

But as I said, I will now go into more details, because it's not like all Pro said is that they're good because they'd add to the US population. He also claims that immigrants are actually better for the country than natives on an individual level. For example, immigrants generate more than 25% of innovative output in the computer, communications, electronics, and medical fields, and 15% in older technologies such as metalworking, transportation, and engines.

To which I pointed out that that still means that natives make up 75% of the first and 85% of the second, which means they generate way more than immigrants, so the numbers don't actually say that. He said that immigrants innovate more than natives by showing me numbers that show you that immigrants make up a small minority of innovators. So Pro then responded by saying that we're choosing between "more immigrants" vs "no more immigrants," the latter of which would mean "less people in a country who will innovate." So once again, it's good because of more people.

But again, saying it would lead to less people in a country who will innovate is assuming that all you do is let in no more immigrants, instead of doing what the US ought to do which is address what's causing women to have less children, instead of relying so much on immigration. Increasing the population is not a good enough reason to let in more immigrants when the problem you're trying to do this to fix lies in the native population.

And so even if immigrants do some good things for the country, you need to first address the problems happening with the birth rates, and increasing immigration because of this means that addressing the problem would have to involve decreasing immigration.

This should respond to arguments 1-4, 6-8, and 11 on the list.

Migrants reduce crime rates.

The best numbers you could provide made some weak correlations and confused them with causation, which you doubled down on when you said "Causation is determined by consisted correlation." But first of all, in this context, many things can continue to get greater for decades, so this is still not a strong correlation. And second of all, as I said, I could just as easily draw the connection between the increase in immigration and the decrease in birth rates and say that immigration caused it. After all, it's been happening for decades, that seems pretty consistent to me. This is nothing but weak, faulty logic. Confusing correlation with causation is a very common logical fallacy people mention in everyday conversation, so I would have thought you'd know not to do that in a dedicated debate.

Homelessness is a pure result of lack of mentality of care, not result of migrations.

And yet when talking about immigrants taking away houses, instead of denying it, you said, "[The] same could be said of Americans who live in [the] USA." And I already demonstrated that a country should prioritize its own citizens, which means it's a problem when an immigrant takes a house from a native.

Body autonomy, freedom of movement, [and] property choice are universal human rights which humans don't lose merely for being born in [the] wrong place. Human rights aren't lost just because [a] person is born somewhere else, nor is [a] person's value determined purely by [their] place of birth.

I actually did respond to this, by pointing out that actually, it's not just about the fact that they're human, and their birth place does in fact matter. I did this by comparing it to a household. People born in the household are inherently allowed in the house, whereas an outsider needs permission. Even though those people are both people and both have body autonomy and freedom of movement and human rights, they are still different in their allowance to enter the home.

[The] USA was literally built by migrants, not by [the] local population at the time, and it grew mostly thanks to migrants.

The USA did not have the same problems it has today, such as declining birth rates. There was either no sickness, or different sicknesses, that required different solutions. So what they ought to have done back then is not the same as what the US ought to do today.

So there's your responses. I'm already down to 3,900 characters, time to speed this up.

Will homeless [people] stop being homeless if migrants are not allowed in? No. Because homeless [people] don't have money regardless. But migrants help create jobs more than [the] native population does, and thus improve job opportunities for homeless [people].

Again, if you address what's causing the birth rates to decline instead of letting in more immigrants to fix it, the result will be a fixed growth of the native population, which will result in the same benefits of creating jobs and innovation. As I already said, the numbers you cited show immigrants as a significant minority of innovators.

America’s tax revenues would suffer severely from banning immigration.

Pro didn't cite where he got this quote from so unfortunately I couldn't find it. But the study I could find. But once again, if you address what's causing birth rates to decline, the native population growth rate will go back to increasing, which will benefit tax revenue. So while immigration appears to solve the problem, the declining birth rates are slowly getting worse and creeping up on the US. Which, indeed, would cause the US to suffer severely. Because if you banned immigration and then did nothing, no problem will be solved. That's why you need to solve the problem as well. And this will change the numbers he cited as time goes on, if this were done.

Would [a] homeless person [have] better job opportunities if migrants weren't there? The answer is no, because migrants create more jobs than [the] local population, so they are a net benefit to job creation.

If the birth rates were fixed, this may not end up being the case. Meaning that if immigrants weren't there and the problem were fixed, a homeless person may actually have more job opportunities.

Also, you again confused correlation with causation by saying other countries have less immigrants but more unemployment. But this is even worse than last time, because we're talking about entirely different nations and cultures. There are eve more factors that could cause this other than immigration, so this is an even weaker correlation.

...caring for [the] local population doesn't mean not caring for migrants...

Yes, it just means caring for the local population first.

Nowhere was this admitted, as migrants consistently increase [the] GDP per capita, and thus actually increase GDP more than [the] local population does, and contribute more in taxes which can be used to solve those very issues Con talks about.

You absolutely admitted it, and I explained it in my statement. In response to "Immigrants are taking away homes," you said that the same applies to natives, instead of saying they aren't. That was what I was referring to.

Countries with high rates of people leaving, generally don't collapse.

If there's a problem and that's why they left, the problem has not been fixed.

[The] same does not apply to serial killers.

I was specifically referring to the person as an individual, because that's all you were presenting in that one argument.

...people are tricked into it without knowing even what they are taking...

That wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about someone who willingly and knowingly purchases and does illegal drugs.

...it makes people believe they can win money...

The house can be rather deceptive, certainly they try every trick in the book. But everybody knows deep down what gambling actually is, they know what they're signing themselves up for.

Saying that entering a country illegally is a crime doesn't change [the] lower rate of all other crimes among undocumented migrants...

Every other crime done by an illegal is one that should not have happened, if borders were simply enforced more.

So its a very good solution if birth rates can't be fixed.

Why assume they can't be fixed? Do not let the sickness increase, cure the sickness. Not the symptoms.