Argument #1

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

- Emma Lazarus, 1883

This famous poem is inscribed on a bronze plaque on the interior of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. It has been said that it is this poem that gave your Lady Liberty her reason to exist and made her the unofficial greeter of immigrants coming to America through Ellis Island.

To answer my colleague's question of whether "invaders" are considered part of the "invaded" group simply because they were there for some period of time - as a matter of fact, that is quite common historically. Invaders of the Roman Empire are now as Italian as anyone else. The British are a collection of Romans, Vikings, and several different generations of French from when those groups invaded, stuck around, and eventually integrated completely into the society. America was "invaded" by Germans (5 million between 1850 and 1930), Irish (4.5 million, same period), Italians (2 million between 1910 and 1920 alone), Eastern Europeans (2 million, 1880 - 1924), Chinese into California during the gold rush, and several other smaller groups have all been woven into American society. Many of these people came into the country illegally though Canada or Mexico or by paying off some ship captain. So being considered part of the group just because you stick around doesn't just happen, it's common. American sovereignty isn't being challenged by immigration; it's being expanded.

I ask this question: where does America stand without the labor of immigrants, many of whom are undocumented? People come to this for a chance at a better life. They get their chance, plus make life better for the rest of the population. Immigrants work hard doing jobs that many citizens consider beneath them. Immigrants spend money, improving the American economy, and send money home to their families, improving the economy of America's trading partners. Maybe they don't have their paperwork, but they contribute to society through their hard work. Without the work of immigrants, costs would be higher, goods would be fewer, and the economy would be weaker.

I do not dispute that the government has the power to regulate immigration. It is my argument that extensive regulation and punishment of those who violate policy is bad for the government and its people. Those already here need a clear, fair path to legal status and citizenship, and those wishing to come need the ability to do so legally so that they have no need to come illegally. A concise policy must include reasonable parameters for both goals. People are not illegal and must be treated with respect regardless of their immigration status. This problem cannot be solved simply by shipping people back to a country they haven't seen in decades or walling off a border. America needs immigrants, the ones who will come and those already here.

Introduction, Pt. 2

I too would like to thank Jeffrey for the eloquent introduction. As most of you are probably unaware, I am often considered "the Standard of Oratory." I served my beloved city, Athens, as both a speech-writer, lawyer, and foreign envoy. After being conquered by Phillip of Macedon, I was at the forefront of the rebellion and negotioniations. I am a man of strong convictions, and strong words.

Now, to business:

The United States, unlike my beloved Athens, is not being invaded by recognizeable foreign army; however, it is being invaded none-the-less. The goal of an invasion is to infiltrate the borders of another nation, and to take anything that is for the taking. When Hitler invaded Poland, it was to expand his empire; when the Mongols invaded China, it was to pillage and steal whatever could be stolen; when the British invaded America, it was to sell Beatles albums. And now, America is being invaded by illegal immigrants who seek to take what is not theirs by law: employment.

America's sovereignty is being challenged not with impunity but with indifference. This indifference stems not only from the invaders from the outside, but also from its own citizens. Many people, such as my esteemed colleague Locke, claim that the U.S. is a nation of immigrants, and should therefore be a safe haven to all who seek a better life. It is true that the U.S. is largely populated by the descendants of immigrants, however, these people have also written laws to govern further immigration. These laws do not prohibit immigration, they merely regulate it. This provides a system that leads to eventual citizenship. Have invaders in the past been considered part of the group simply because they have been there for a time? I think not.

Introduction

Thank you, Jeffrey. I must say, it is good to be flexing my debating skills once again, and against such a challenging opponent as Demosthenes. As many of your readers may be aware, I was one of the most influencial thinkers of my time, especially when it came to your Founding Fathers. My Second Treatise on Government is a cornerstone philosophy of your Constitution. Please, wake up, I promise this will not be a history lecture or philosophical discussion of the implications of the social contract or theories of knowledge. I am here to add my voice to the debate over illegal immigration, and so I shall.

Let me begin by acknowledging that most immigrants to this country, legal or illegal, are hard working individuals who want nothing more than a better life for themselves and their families. The American Dream has always been that freedom and hard work can result in a better life. It is for this reason that America stands as a beacon to all people and as a symbol of hope and a promise of a better tomorrow.

America must strive to continue as the light which guides the world, accepts ideas and people freely, and offers free refills on soft drinks. Security is a valid concern. It is, after all, the primary function of a government to provide security of its citizens' inalienable rights. America can maintain its own security while accepting the hard-working, honest people who wish to live within her borders, and it must do so.

Immigration Introduction

In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue. And entered the country illegally, setting off a chain of events eventually leading to every major war, epidemic, and illegitimate child in the history of the world. Our distinguished guests, John Locke and Demosthenes of Athens, will offer their thoughts on the current state of illegal immigration, problems and solutions. Mr. Locke, your scissors beat Demosthenes' paper, so you may begin at your leisure.

Introduction

Welcome to White Guys With Irrelevant Opinions. The idea for this forum of debate and intellectual pursuits began in 2003 when the founding White Guys, Lee and Jeffrey, began hosting debates on their websites and blogs. The first WGWIO, as it if often called, was published in the now-defunct Quarterly Report of the original Daily Jeffrey (also defunct). Subjects were chosen based on mutual interest of the debators and have included women's rights, Christmas, war vs. diplomacy, and a debate on the public school system. The final debate, on public schooling, included a guest debator, Nate, sitting in for Jeffrey. Records are unclear, but it is believed that Jeffrey died was therefore unable to fulfill his usual role. Jeffrey has since gotten better, and the debates continue.

For those familiar with the old style of debate, there have been several changes. First, since the original Daily Jeffrey no longer exists, the debate has been moved to a new forum. Blogger offers several advantages over the old system. For one, readers can see the debate develop over time as the learned participants offer their arguments as new entries. The new system also allows for the incorporation of comments, a nice feature to get the pulse of the audience. The most noticeable change, however, will be that Jeffrey and Lee have stepped down from their roles as debators and have graciously allowed two of history's greatest thinkers and orators to take their places. Have no fear, they are still "white guys" and the "opinions" are just as "irrelevant" "with," but these distinguished gentlemen are more suited to analyze and debate the critical issues of our time than were the original duo. Lee and Jeffrey are still around - moderating the debate, offering comments on points of interest, but they will no longer be the primary voices of White Guys With Irrelevant Opinions. I will allow each new debator to introduce himself during his opening statement, and I have no doubt that you will learn much about each as arguments are presented, rebutted, and defended.

General debate format will remain the same. An opening statement by each side, two rounds of debate per participant, and a conclusion for each. Order of debate will be determined by the ceremonial game of paper-rock-scissors. Moderators may change these rules or adapt them as necessary for changing debate needs (e.g. triple-threat debates). Now, onto the topic at hand: