A few weeks ago, The College Republicans and Young democrats sat down on opposite sides of Bingham 103 to debate immigration, one of today’s hot-topic issues (of course, if Republicans were smart, they would cool down the topic and not talk about anything but the economy until after November).
Regardless, true to their professional counterparts, the political student organization establishment, along with the Carolina Latino/a Collaborative accidentally forgot to invite the College Libertarians.
Opening Statements
CR’s: They gave some statistics, and made sure to mention how very sympathetic they were towards illegal immigrants. They actually took a well-stated free market position, and admitted that free markets and trade work just was well in the labor market as it does in any other market. They came out strong and attacked Reid, Pelosi, Obama, and perhaps best of all, Paul Krugman. They attacked the Democrat position, claiming that the Democrats support things like the Dream Act to get Latino votes, but purposely make them impassible to help and get votes from the Unions. They support “securing the borders” against violent criminals and drug cartels, while increasing the opportunities and work visas for people to immigrate here legally.
YD’s: Three words — comprehensive immigration reform. They also decried the politicization of the issue, and preached the necessity of reducing partisanship (though they made sure to mention that the Democrats had the best solution). They attacked the controversial Arizona bill, suggested an easier path to citizenship for those already here, and mentioned that businesses hire and “exploit” undocumented workers.
Me: I’ve got to hand it to the CR’s for taking a pretty libertarian stance on this one. They broke strongly throughout the debate with both party line and populist sentiment to outline a policy that is just a little too conservative, but not much. In terms of debate strategy, the CR’s began their very smart approach of beating the YD’s at their own game: Compassion for immigrants and support for easier access to legal immigration.
SB 1070
CR’s: Said that the bill prohibits racial profiling, that the Feds need to work with the states, not against them, and that arguing about the bill is mostly moot considering that it was stripped of its teeth in the courts. They avoided the issue when challenged on its possible racism by appealing to the fact that it was shot down by courts. Of course, the question is not “is the post-law-suit bill racist?” but “would the bill, as written, lead to racial profiling. “
YD’s: Said that the bill will necessarily lead to racial profiling, it takes a philosophy of guilty until proven innocent, and it hinders federal enforcement. They had a copy of the bill, which they quoted, which is a definite success for democrats. They mentioned Joe Arpaio, as an example of overly tough enforcement (to which the Republicans correctly noted that his reign of tough enforcement was all before the passing of the bill)
Me: SB 1070 is a funny issue for me. I’m about to take a reasonably solid step out of the Libertarian mainstream here. I think at this point I should mention that these views are my own and not necessarily representative of the views of the UNC-CH College Libertarians, or the Libertarian Party. Immigration is the most recent issue on which I have taken a strong Libertarian stance (I did so, thanks to Professor Art Carden, who I learned from with the IHS this past summer). It’s embarrassing, to be sure, but while this entire controversy was getting heated at the end of last spring, I had a pretty Republican stance on the issue. If I thought that illegal immigration was a moral crime and one that should actually be punished, I wouldn’t really mind the law. The key factor is that the only proof of citizenship needed is a driver’s license. Not a passport, immigration papers, or anything like that. A driver’s license, which everyone shows the cops anyway. It’s not as if it creates any more of a “papers, please” society than already existed. It’s not that I was ever a huge fan of the law, but it did seem to be blown pretty far out of proportion. Now, there is a solid libertarian argument against the need to have driver’s licenses at all, which is another issue. The important thing is, migration is not a [moral] crime, and there should be no barriers to movement in a free society, except where it is necessary to protect against force (i.e. to stop individuals or groups who, in the words of the Libertarian Party platform, “pose a credible threat to security, health or property”).
14th Amendment
CR’s: Correctly but irrelevantly reminded everyone that the amendment was passed to ensure citizenship for freed slaves and their descendants. They made a subdued appeal to the “anchor baby” “argument” quotes), and complained that tax-payers have to subsidize their health care. Ultimately, we should keep the 14th amendment, and allow for more visas to come legally, something they attack the democrats for failing to do.
YD’s: Their whole argument on the subject consists of mocking (fairly) the idea of the “anchor baby”
Me: http://www.unclibertarians.com/2010/09/everyones-confused-on-the-constitution/
Dream Act
CR’s: Made some claim that I didn’t quite understand about the act repealing some law or another, feel free to fill me in here. They also made sure to mention that, contrary to the YD’s claims, the senate version of the bill applies to people 35 years of age and older, not just teens and young adults
YD’s: Claimed that it doesn’t amount to amnesty, just student legal residence. Explained that this status is removed after 6 years, and that the students still can’t get federal grants. Without education, said the YD’s, the Latino immigrant community will become a permanent underclass. They also mentioned Reagan’s amnesty for 3 million immigrants in 1986
Me: The Democrats made a good point about Reagan. That amnesty worked and had essentially no consequences. The Dream act is a wonderful, and doesn’t even go far enough. It all comes down to a fallacy made by the YD’s about a permanent “underclass.” The division of labor requires that some people work menial tasks, until more efficient ways are discovered of performing them. To say that all immigrants should receive a college education is to be ignorant of this. The best policy, as it so often seems to be, is freedom. Freedom to enter the country, freedom to pursue an education if it is your desire, or to find work immediately if it is your preference.
From here, was a segment of audience questions, which were largely unhelpful and uneventful. Some highlights include the CR’s taking the position of a complete end to drug prohibition for virtually all controlled substances, and a very fiery latina woman asking if the CR’s understand the difference between theory and practice (in reference to discrimination and SB 1070). The CR’s stance on drug legalization earned them ten million points, but claiming that Sarah Palin has “Libertarian ideas,” lost them 11 million.
In terms of the debate strategy, the Republicans seemed to beat the Democrats at their own game. They appeared compassionate and supportive of increasing the opportunities for legal immigration. The Democrats were pretty unprepared for that approach, and ended up looking out of place.
