Fuentes Debate Outline

Summary of the main points against non-European immigration -

1) “Will of the People” Argument

Argument - The will of the American people was not represented when
Congress voted on the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act; This immigration reform
fundamentally changed the composition of America, and most people
would have been opposed to that, had that information been made public.
One may go as far as to say that this move was actually subversive and
that the will of the people was intentionally betrayed.

Counterclaim - The will of the American people was expressed in this

congressional vote.

Counterargument - If the will of the American people was actively betrayed,

one needs to provide sufficient evidence that 1) the politicians in favor of
the bill knew the impact it would have, and 2) that the politicians made an
effort to suppress this information so that the public would not be able to
accurately assess the bill.

Evidence for counterargument -

a) According to a Harris Poll done in 1965, 7/10 Americans were in favor
was abolishing country requirements in favor of skills for immigration
to our country. A 1965 Gallup Poll confirms this as well, stating only
32% of Americans cared what the country of origin of an immigrant
was. [1]
b) Widespread bipartisan (74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans)
support in the House and Senate for this bill.
c) Efforts to appease conservative lawmakers (ie: Michael Feighan, a
“Dixiecrat” of Ohio) to make the “family member” provision the most
important one, actually backfired.
 i) Feighan still had popular support in his district after the 1965
Immigration Act passed, winning with 76.06% of the vote in ‘66
and 72.38% of the vote in ‘68.
d) No widespread movements or “voter retribution” for the passage of
this act ever happened.
e) Bonus Meme - He seems to wiggle between “it’s happening quickly!”
vs “it’s happening slowly!” when it suits his argument.
f) The “Kalergi plan” that was previously cited is not sufficient evidence
for politicians being subversive for a variety of reasons.
i) Firstly, it’s the “Hooton plan,” not the Kalergi plan.
1) Hootan was not a politician, he was a physical
anthropologist who wrote an article in the New York
newspaper, PM. [2]
(a)“The families of the men already married should
remain in Germany for a period of years, but might
eventually be permitted to join the fathers. The latter
should not be allowed to return to Germany. The
objects of this measure include reduction of the birth
rate of "pure" Germans, neutralization of German
aggressiveness by outbreeding, and
denationalization of indoctrinated individuals.”
(b)“During the period of supervision and occupation of
the several states by armies and civilian staffs of the
Allied Nations, encourage members of these groups
to intermarry with the German women and to settle
there permanently. During this period encourage
also the immigration and settlement in the German
states of non-German nationals, especially males.”
2) Hooton’s plan had nothing to do with using North Africans
to breed with Germans.
ii) Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi was the co-founder of the
Pan-European Union. He was not “instrumental” in any way in
the UN.
iii) Kalergi is not Jewish.
Bonus counterclaim: We exist in a Democratic Republic where we elect
our officials to vote on our behalf. It is not a requirement that they vote with
the will of their constituents as part of our government. If you do not like
this, you must change the fundamental nature of our government.

2) Constitutional AKA “Original Intent” Argument

Argument - The Founding Fathers wrote “to ourselves and our posterity,” in
the preamble of the Constitution. We can use context clues from other
writings of the Founding Fathers, such as The Federalist Papers to figure
out what they meant by “posterity.” In The Federalist Papers #2, John Jay
writes - “a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same
language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of
government.” It is clear from these statements that the Constitution was
clearly designed to protect the “European, Christian people.”

Counterclaim - This “original intent” does not matter because it was never
written explicitly into the Constitution, and the “original intent” that you claim
exists doesn’t exist. John Jay never even used the word “posterity” when
discussing these concepts in the Federalist Papers.

Counterargument - If one wants to suggest that The Federalist Papers give

an indication for the type of people the Constitution was written for, and if
we ignore the fact that the Constitution, despite being very precise in a lot
of its language, never explicitly mentions any specific groups of people, one
would have to concede that the current definition of “white European” was
not used at the time the Constitution was written.

a) Why does the Constitution not explicitly call for European only
immigrants to be made into naturalized citizens? Article 1, Section 8,
Clause 4 very clearly delegates the powers of naturalization to the
Congress and does not explicitly denote any group of people that
should not be naturalized.
i) In an 1819 letter that John Q Adams, one of the main, seven
founding fathers, wrote as secretary of state, "The government
 of the United States has never adopted any measure to
encourage or invite emigrants from any part of Europe... They
must cast off the European skin, never to resume it. They must
look forward to their posterity, rather than backward to their
ancestors..." [source]
ii) In a 1788 letter to Francis Van Der Kamp, a dutch politician,
George Washington states “I had always hoped that this land
might become a safe and agreeable asylum to the virtuous and
persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might
belong.” [source]
b) Wouldn’t we only consider Anglo-Saxon Protestants as the original
people of the Americas if we really wanted to read this hard into the
word “posterity?”
i) In the book “Gentleman Revolutionary: Gouverneur Morris, the
Rake Who Wrote the Constitution”, John Jay, who would
become the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, suggested
erecting “a wall of brass around the country for the exclusion of
Catholics” when considering New York’s Constitution. [3]
ii) According to the 1790 US Census, Over 81% of free people in
were British, not a “mixture of white Europeans.” [4]
1) Almost none of Scandinavia is represented here. No
Italians, no French, very few Germans.
iii) Benjamin Franklin, another key founding father, hated many of
the people you consider “white” and doesn’t sound like he’d be
interested in their posterity at all. In a 1751 short essay titled
“Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of
Countries, etc,” Franklin wrote - “Why should the Palatine Boors
be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding
together establish their Language and Manners to the
Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the
English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so
numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them,
and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than
they can acquire our Complexio
iv) n. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of
purely white People in the World is proportionably very small.
 All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America
(exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the
Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are
generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the
Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English,
make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the
Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased.” [5]
c) In a letter to Samuel Kercheval, Thomas Jefferson, an important
founding father, quote on changing the Constitution - “I am not an
advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws
and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human
mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new
discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and
opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must
advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a
man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized
society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous
ancestors.” [6]
d) Related point - our rights do not come from a Christian God, they
come from something greater than Man. This is what is meant by
Natural Rights. People are endowed by “their Creator” in the
Declaration of Independence, not Yahweh or God or Christian God.
i) Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of
Independence, was absolutely not Christian. [7]
ii) Per the establishment and clause and free-exercise clause,
Christianity is explicitly NOT given special consideration. It was
established for “our posterity,” not the “Christian posterity,” not
the “white European posterity.” “Our” is defined by citizenship,
which has never been defined as “European.”
Bonus Counterclaim - The Federalist Papers were written in an attempt to
unify the people of America, not to establish that no immigrants could be
allowed into the country. Of course the writers would try to make the people
sound as unified as possible, it was borderline propaganda.
 3) Fundamentally Changing the Public to Win Votes Argument

Argument - There is political incentive to change the composition of the

American public by importing people who will vote a certain way. This is not
a legitimate way to win seats in government, or other political power.

Counterclaim - The Constitution sets forth rules by which people are

allowed to vote. If you don’t like the process of letting naturalized citizens
vote, then your issue is with the Constitution, not any changing
demographic.

We believe in the marketplace of ideas! I hope I can convince new

immigrants to adopt my belief system. Muslims already have, in the United
States, compared to those abroad!

4) Immigrants Importing Their Problems Argument

Argument - People immigrating from countries with severe problems are

likely to bring those problems to the United States. If we bring in too many
immigrants from any country with severe problems, a sufficient number of
those immigrants could cause the United States to resemble the countries
they came from. One cannot divorce a country’s people from its problems.

Counterclaim - Immigrants alone do not have the power to bring structural

problems from their country to the United States, and this has never been
sufficiently demonstrated.

Counterargument - One needs to demonstrate immigrants bringing

immigrant problems into this country for this argument to be true. However,
immigrants do not bring their problems with them according to most data.
a) According to a 2015 report from the American Immigration Council,
Immigrants are less likely to commit crime than the native born. [8]
 i) “The 2010 Census data reveals that incarceration rates among
the young, less-educated Mexican, Salvadoran, and
Guatemalan men who make up the bulk of the unauthorized
population are significantly lower than the incarceration rate
among native-born young men without a high-school diploma.
In 2010, less-educated native-born men age 18-39 had an
incarceration rate of 10.7 percent—more than triple the 2.8
percent rate among foreign-born Mexican men, and five times
greater than the 1.7 percent rate among foreign-born
Salvadoran and Guatemalan men.”
ii) According to a report from the Police Foundation
“Undocumented Immigration and Rates of Crime and
Imprisonment: Popular Myths and Empirical Realities,” Foreign
Born Latin Americans have a .99% chance to be incarcerated
compared to 1.71% of native born white people. [9]
iii) In a Cato Report, using US Census Data from the American
Community Survey, titled “Criminal Immigrants: Their Numbers,
Demographics, and Countries of Origin,” even illegal
immigrants commit less crime than natives with .84% of them
being incarcerated compared to 1.53% of the native population.
[10]
iv) According to a US DoJ report, “Household Poverty and
Nonfatal Violent Victimization, 2008–2012,” Crime has always
been highly correlated with geography and income, across all
races and all levels of income, with the exception of hispanics,
who always seem to be fairly underrepresented. [11]
v) According to a 2014 report “Identifying the Effect of Immigration
on Homicide Rates in U.S. Cities”, Immigration can’t even be
correlated with an impact in large city crime rates. [12]
vi) Restricting men would BY FAR reduce crime. According to the
Federal Bureau of Prisons, men account for 93.2% of the
Prison Population. [13]
b) Some problems are literally tied to geographic conditions. Andrew
Balls, Pimco's Chief Investment Officer for Global Fixed Income,
former Financial Times journalist and also ex-teacher of economics at
 Oxford University, published an article in the National Bureau of
Economic Research remarking on such as the correlation between
geography (temperate vs non-temperate zone) and its impact on
societies. [14] How can Africans bring harsher crop conditions or
hotter weather to places they immigrate to?
c) According to a 2014 Report from the US Census, “The Foreign-Born
Population From Africa: 2008–2012” black African immigrants in
general have higher degrees compared to white people, with 41% of
African immigrants having degrees compared to only 36% of native
white people. [15]
i) The same report shows that 60.9%Nigerians in the US have a
Bachelor’s degree or higher. [16]
ii) A 2012 report by the US Census “The Foreign-Born Population
in the United States: 2010,” shows that If you come from Africa
you have a 10% higher chance of having a Bachelor’s degree
than if you came from Europe. [17]
iii) Nigerians are the most educated immigrant population in the
United States. “Although they make up a tiny portion of the U.S.
population, a whopping 17 percent of all Nigerians in this
country held master's degrees while 4 percent had a doctorate,
according to the 2006 American Community Survey conducted
by the U.S. Census Bureau.” [18]
d) Communities of white people exist that do commit crime.
i) The Italian Mafia in New York.
ii) The Ku Klux Klan south of the Mason Dixon line.
iii) Biker Gangs ie: Hells Angel
iv) Meth labs and drugs in the rural Midwest.
v) The Aryan Brotherhood, a gang that makes up less than 0.1%
of the prison population but is responsible for between 18-25%
of the murders in the federal prison system. [source]

5) “What If an Immigrant Kills Your Child?” Argument

Argument - We have the potential to reduce the number of people killed in
this country by immigrants to zero by eliminating all immigration.

Counterclaim - We will never reduce something that benefits society to

eliminate all risk of fatality.

Counterargument - There are plenty of things that we have in society that

benefit us that carry a significant risk of danger, but we accept them
because of the trade-offs in freedom, economic productivity, and
happiness.
a) Firearms kill over 30,000 people annually, 10,000 by homicide and
20,000 by suicide. [19]
b) Vehicle fatalities kill over 30,000 people annually. [20]
c) Heart disease kills over 600,000 people annually but we still allow
things like fast food which contribute to obesity and heart disease.
[21]

6) Immigrants are a Net Negative Argument

Argument - We pay out more in taxpayer benefits (ie: welfare) than we get
back from economic activity from low-skilled immigrants. Immigrants are,
therefore, a drain on the economy.

Counterclaim - Immigrants provide great economic benefit and have a

negligible fiscal impact.

Counterargument - Through a wide variety of meta-analyses and studies it

has never been demonstrated that immigration has ever presented an
undue burden on state or government budgets. It is widely accepted that
immigrants present a massive boon to economic activity.
a) A 2014 Cato institute paper asserts that most studies state the fiscal
impact of immigration being negligible, and cites many ways that
 immigrants have had positive impacts on the economy, and predicts
that future immigration should have no dramatic fiscal impact. [22]
b) A 2017 report by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and
Medicine asserts
i) "Immigration's Long-Term Impacts on Overall Wages and
Employment of Native-Born U.S. Workers Very Small, Although
Low-Skilled Workers May Be Affected, New Report Finds;
Impacts on Economic Growth Positive, While Effects on
Government Budgets Mixed"
ii) "When measured over a period of 10 years or more, the impact
of immigration on the wages of native-born workers overall is
very small."
iii) "Immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run
economic growth in the U.S."
c) Even though we’re not arguing illegal immigration, even those
immigrants put into the system in unexpected ways
i) “Stephen Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security
Administration (SSA), told VICE News that an estimated 7
million people are currently working in the US illegally. Of those,
he estimates that about 3.1 million are using fake or expired
social security numbers, yet also paying automatic payroll
taxes. Goss believes that these workers pay an annual net
contribution of $12 billion to the Social Security Trust Fund.”
[23]
d) Borjas, in the totality of his immigration studies, one of the most cited
“anti-immigration” economists, asserts that immigration has a net
wash impact on fiscal budgets. [24]
e) African countries are joining the 1st world at accelerated rates,
there’s no reason to expect this to stop.
i) According to Economic research published from the Federal
Reserce Bank of ST. Louis, birthrates are falling across Sub-
Sarahan Africa [25]
ii) Stats from the site Our World in Data (sourced from Gapminder
and the World Bank) show Child mortality and under 5 mortality
have decreased substantially across all of Africa. [26]
 iii) The same source shows that life expectancy has grown at its
fastest rate in Africa over the past 15 years. [27]
iv) The same source African countries are becoming increasingly
literate. [28]
v) Hilton building 100 hotels in Africa over the next 5 years. [29]
f) Some successful immigrant business founders
i) Mike Krieger--Brazilian--Instagram co-founder
ii) Arash Ferdowsi--Iranian Parents--Dropbox co-founder
iii) Sean Rad--Iranian Parents--Tinder founder
iv) Sanjay Mehrotra--Indian--Sandisk co-founder
v) Iqram Magdon-Ismail--Zimbabwean--Venmo co-founder

7) Social Cohesion Argument

Argument - Any benefit that we gain economically can be dismissed if it’s

gained at the cost of social cohesion. It has been sufficiently demonstrated
that immigrants of non-European origin can cause divisiveness and loss of
trust in communities.

Counterclaim - This social cohesion can exist even with immigrants of

different color, and the economic and social payoff is worth working
towards.

Counterargument - The main researcher that was cited for this argument
was Robert D. Putnam. He claims that his work has been taken out of
context to make arguments that he or his research would not agree with. It
needs to be sufficiently demonstrated that long term harm will come to
America if we continue to integrate different people into this country and
change who we consider to be American.
a) A quote from in an interview about our civic life: “I think immigration is
a big success story in America, I absolutely do. You won’t find me not
saying immigration is an important success story in America.” [30]
b) In a brief filed to the Supreme Court for Fisher vs University of Texas
(Fisher I), defending the affirmative action program there, “Quite to
 the contrary, Dr. Putnam’s extensive research and experience confirm
the substantial benefits of diversity, including racial and ethnic
diversity, to our society. In his essay, Dr. Putnam concluded that,
while increased diversity may present challenges in the short to
medium term, greater diversity can lead to significant benefits to
society in the medium to long term. These benefits are manifest in
higher education, as Dr. Putnam’s more than 40 years of experience
as a professor at Harvard University and the University of Michigan
demonstrate.” [31]
i) “These results also have been observed in other American
institutions. The integration of the United States Army has
progressed over the last 30 years, to the point where studies in
the 1990s found that “the average American soldier has many
closer interracial friendships than the average American civilian
of the same age and social class.””
ii) In a 2007 publication, ‘Diversity and Community in the Twenty-
first Century The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture, Putnam
states “Scientific examination of immigration, diversity and
social cohesion easily could be inflamed as the results of
research become part of the contemporary political debate, but
that debate needs to be informed by our best efforts to
ascertain the facts. It would be unfortunate if a politically correct
progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social
solidarity posed by diversity. It would be equally unfortunate if
an ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism were to deny that
addressing that challenge is both feasible and desirable.”
[source]
c) Great social pain was felt during the Irish and Italian integration
periods, but those people were eventually accepted as Americans like
everyone else.
i) Irishmen came to the US for labour reasons, such as the
construction of the Erie Canal, and also settled into urban areas
so they could form Irish communities. [32]
ii) During this period of mass migration (The Italian Diaspora, the
largest emigration from any country in recorded history[33]), 4
 million Italian immigrants arrived in the United States, the
majority from 1900 to 1914. Once in America, the immigrants
faced great challenges. Often with no knowledge of the English
language and with little formal education, many of the
immigrants were compelled to accept low-wage manual-labor
jobs, and were frequently exploited by the middlemen who
acted as intermediaries between them and the prospective
employers. Many sought housing in the older sections of the
large Northeastern cities where they settled, that became
known as "Little Italies", frequently in overcrowded substandard
tenements which were often dimly lit with poor heating and
ventilation. [34]
1) The March 14, 1891, lynchings were a series of lynchings
of eleven Italian Americans in New Orleans, Louisiana, for
their alleged role in the murder of police chief David
Hennessy. It was the largest mass lynching (as distinct
from a massacre) in U.S. history. [35]
iii) You would have an even stronger constitutional argument if you
advocated for the deportation of Irishman and Italian because
they were Catholic.

8) Intrinsic Spirituality Argument

Argument - Ethnic groups of people have different types of “souls,” which

makes it hard for them to mesh with other types of people.

Counterclaim - There is no such thing as a soul.

Counterargument - Nothing can be demonstrated that is metaphysical. If it

exists, it almost by definition is unfalsifiable, which makes it unworthy of
any sort of moral or intellectual consideration.
 9) Brain Drain Argument

Argument - We should prevent high skilled immigrants from coming to the

United States as it weakens the high skill labor pool of the country they are
leaving.

Counteargument - High skill immigrants should not be forced to stay in a

country in which they have no opportunity. This can serve to disincentive
seeking higher education in said country and can lead to a number of other
negative effects. High skill labor leaving your country also leads to some
surprising positive effects as well.
a) A 2012 comparative study by International Migration The Migration
and Development Pendulum: A Critical View on Research and
Policy,” many surprisingly positive effects are found when high skill
labor emigrates. [36]
i) “One of the earliest arguments against the concept of the “Brain
Drain” was the “Emulation Model” (Grubel and Scott 1977).
According to this model, the migration of skilled and educated
persons results in those remaining in the source country
demanding higher wages and better education.”
ii) “Another argument suggests that even when the migrants don’t
return home, the knowledge they acquire often does...As
communication channels improve, it has become easier for
these migrants to share their newly acquired knowledge with
those at home.”
iii) “Another important factor is the effects of remittances.”
1) “In 2003, remittances in Jamaica represented nearly 18%
of its GNP. Remittances in Guyana accounted for 8.1% of
GNP, 5.3% in Grenada and 4.5% in Barbados (Sanders
2007). A study by the Inter-American Development Bank
(IDP) found that in 2002, remittances to the Latin America
and the Caribbean amounted to $32 billion. It is not
uncommon for the total remittances to exceed foreign aid
for many Caribbean countries.”
 iv) “Kapur and McHale (2003) discuss remittances as the
difference between abject poverty and food on the table for
many of the people receiving the funds. They also talk about
remittances in terms of “Trickle-Up Economics” since when
remittances go to the households; they are firstly spent on basic
needs such as clothing, food and basic health care. The
remaining money may then be invested in land, farm tools,
livestock and possibly travel expenses to send another family
member abroad to work (Kapur and McHale 2003).”
v) “Assuming that this spillover of knowledge (which I discussed
earlier) happens, how applicable are the skills and information
to the source country? According to Hart, these countries may
lack the absorptive capacity to make the most efficient use of
the new technological knowledge and expertise acquired by
expatriates (2006).”
vi) “This shows the need to reframe the debate on migration and
development. Because development is a condition for attracting
migrants’ income-generating investments rather than a
consequence of it, policymakers would be wise to reverse their
perspective on migration and development. Rather than asking
what migrants can do to support development, or to forcibly,
unrealistically and harmfully link the issue of return or
temporariness to development, governments would be much
better off identifying how to make conditions in origin countries
attractive for migrant to invest socially, politically and
economically. The second question that they should be asking
is how they can design immigration policies that empower
(instead of exploit) migrants and that maximize their social,
human and economic capabilities to contribute to development
in origin countries.” [36]
b) A 2005 paper “A gain with drain? Evidence from rural Mexico on the
new economics of the brain drain.” assert “the returns to -- and the
continued possibility of -- internal migration appear to create dynamic
incentives for investment in schooling which, in turn, reverses the
static, human-capital depleting effect of internal migration.” [37]
 c) China educates Africans and is building a good relationship with the
country in doing so. China is the second most popular country for
African Students. [38][39]
d) Countries already are starting to incentivize students from leaving
after becoming educated. [40]
Bonus counteargument - Even if we accept that “brain drain” is real and
harms other countries, we could alleviate that loss in other ways.

10) White Guilt Argument

Argument - Only white countries are expected to take on and help

ethnically divergent populations, non-white countries do not share this
burden.

Counterclaim - Non-white countries do indeed help refugees and other

people coming into their countries.

Bonus counterclaim - Even if they didn’t, we don’t base our values on the
values of other countries, we would never use this argument for any other
type of value we hold to be important in this country.

Counterargument - Just look at the numbers.

a) Refugees, asylum-seekers, internally displaced persons, returnees,
stateless persons and others of concern to UNHCR from 2015. [41]
i) Germany - 749,309, or 0.9% of total population.
ii) Sweden - 357,628, or 3.6% of total population.
iii) Turkey - 2,754,540, or 3.5% of total population.
iv) Iran - 979,491, or 1.2% of total population.
v) Lebanon - 1,088,231, or 18% of total population.
vi) Jordan - 689,053, or 7.3% of total population.
vii) USA - 559,370, or 0.17% of total population.