Head-2-Head: The Need for Internment Camps for Illegals in the U.S.

Welcome to another Head-2-Head Political Debate!

Participants

Pro - xpert11
Con - Justin Oldham

Agreed Upon Rules

1. let's keep it clean and well written.

2. Anything that can be linked should be considered for use as source material. External sources are accepted. The goal should be to speak in your own words.

3. Once a post has been made, it can't be edited.

4. No post should be longer than 10,000 characters.

5. Either side can take up to 36 hours to make its required response. this allows us to go to work or take time to think.

6. No responses are required on a Friday, Saturday, or a Sunday. This lets us have time for thinking and other things.

7. xpert11 will should state his case "in favor of" first, and Justin Oldham will follow with his argument "against."

8. After that, we should take turns doing point and counter point. Him first, then me. Let's go six rounds of point and counter point.

9. After six rounds of point and counter point, we could each make a single summary post.

10. Judge decides who wins

General H2H Guidelines

1. Any violation of the terms of a debate will result in a forfeiture.

2. Debate posts may not be edited by participants for any reason.

3. Any participant may voluntarily forfeit at any time.

4. Forfeitures are final. If you want a rematch, start a new debate thread.

5. Only agreed-upon participants may post to a debate thread.

6. Disruption by non-participants in debate threads, T&C violations or failure to cooperate with the H2H staff may result in loss of Fighter status.

7. AP/H2H staff may take action as they see fit to maintain proper H2H forum operation.

8. As with all forums, the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use apply.

 

Gentleman, Good Luck! I will have the Fighter status awarded to those who require it and you should not that until you receive it, you will not be able to post.

Again, Best of Luck!

[edit on 11-4-2007 by chissler]

Background this topic arises from my emigration policy which can be found here.

So why should illegal aliens be interned before being deported or allowed to enter the US ?
When an illegal or alien is caught trying to enter the US or is found to be living in the US the following needs to happen in no particular order.
The persons health physical and mental health needs to be assessed.
Legal questions need to be answered. Will the person be deported or allowed to remain in the US ?
The legal process where a person future will be decided.
A persons identity needs to be verified and if applicable a background check.

Currently there is no central location where the above can take place. When the above measure don't happen or the process fails problems are created .

A note on the external sources I present. I had trouble finding info that was more then just political biases. So they are intended more as an outline rather then an in depth look at what they deal with. I point this out because I don't want to get up in side debate about figures e.t.c.

Health problems can or have arisen when illegal aliens bring related health problems that have been controlled or don't exist in the US and/or unwanted .

men, women, and children who are sneaking across the border into the United States do so without medical inspection, which in itself is a criminal offense and a public health travesty.

Unexamined, they are free to spread out through the country carrying any infectious diseases they may have. In the past, when Europeans made up the majority of immigrants in the United States, each person who sought to enter the country was subject to a health examination. Those diagnosed with an unacceptable health condition were immediately returned to their port of origin

link

The legal process can run into difficulty for any number of reasons including a person not showing up for a hearing or a person not leaving the US after being deported. Should the person be considered for entry into the US there skills they would offer need to be considered at the same time.

More than 623,000 of the estimated 11 million to 12 million illegal aliens in the United States have been caught at least once by law enforcement agencies and ordered to leave this country.

They’re still here — and there is no reason to believe that they will leave of their own volition or be apprehended and forced out.

link

Screening people. For National Security reasons illegal aliens should be screened so that the likes of known terror suspects and other undesirables don't slip thou the net.


Simple logic tell us that if the legal process , Health care, and screening took place under one roof so to speak that the problems above could be eliminated or quarantined. For example people wouldn't be able to skip there court date so easily and the logistics could be put in place to ensure that those who are to be deported actually leave the US. It is important to remember to keep some things in mind such as the size and number of internment camps depends on the number of illegals who cross the border and that other measures are required to prevent the masses of illegal aliens coming to the US.

Don't get me wrong I of course support the concept of the internment or transition camps (or what ever you want to call them ) its just that I don't want people to think that the idea is some kind of wonder fix for the immigration problem.

Background:

The decision to implement a policy of mass internment for illegal aliens who are caught after undocumented entry in to the United States would have long-term negative effects on American society, Federal and State governments, and the national legal system.

The historical fact is that every nation which has embarked on a policy of mass internment has suffered from the ill effects of their own efforts. This is due in large part to three factors.

a) The legal authority which legitimizes mass internmet requires extraordinary investments in manpower and infrastructure which often result in an overly agressive policing effort backed up by an expensive and ineffecient system of housing, supervision, and containment.

b) Bureaucratic processes associated with investigation, arrest, and physical detention result in an overburdened court system that is constantly challenged to distinguish between detainment of recognized armed combatants, political detainees, and criminal incarcerations. This usuaully results in an inefficient and ineffective system of appeals which generally do not allow for restitution in cases where the detainee was arrested and held unlawfully or without merit.


c) The effect of surveillance and subsequent involuntary segregation that results from the implementation of mass internment polcy is known to be debilitation to the society which sponsors it. Lawful citizens who not targets of the detainment process are often forced to give up some of thei civil rights. This routinely results in social stigma that is reinforced by an inefficient and ineffective system of appeals which generally do not allow for restitution or public absolution in cases where the accidental detainee was arrested and held unlawfully or without merit.


Observations:

All national governments have more than one means at their disposal to ensure domestic security while at the same time minimizing the influx of illegal immigrants or undocumented workers. These include, but are not limited to, the following:

a) Vigorous border security. All governments are encouraged by national and international law to police their own borders. It is the policy decision of any sovereign government to create barriers, checkpoints, or systems of manned or unmanned patrol which can facilitate the extent or lack of actual border security.

b) Local, State, and national level law enforcement. It is the policy decision of any soveriegn government (within its jurisdiction) to recruit and maintain police and investigative forces which can facilitate the extent or lack of protective anti-criminal forces which will have some direct bearing on the detection and capture of unlawful residents, illegal aliens, or undocumented workers who are employed by other than legal means.

c) Dedicated legal system. It is the policy decision of any soveriegn government (within its jurisdiction) to recruit and maintain judges, court officers, and legal representation which can facilitate the extent or lack of protective legitimate legal prosecution under the law which will directly bearing on the capture, arraignment, and deportation of unlawful residents, illegal aliens, or undocumented workers who are employed by other than legal means.


Position:

Mass detentions that could alienate or abuse entire segments of the society should be avoided on both moral and ethical grounds. The legal and bureaucratic forces which would make these policies possible would most likely harm the society until they were done away with in favor of a more even-handed application of the law [see, EXAMPLE #1]. Social values and professional ethic remain in tact when transparant legal means are used to apprehend anyone in violation of the law, regardless of which laws they may have broken.


Example #1:

Exibit A:
Executive Order 9066. Signed in to effect on February 19, 1942. This legal order authorized the Secretary of War (later Department of Defense) to establish miltiary areas which could be used for the detention.

Exibit B:
Executive Order 9102. Signed in effecto nMarch 18, 1942. This legal order authorized the Secretary of War (later Department of Defense) to detain specified classes of people for national security purposes.


Context:

Japanese Americans were interned en masse during the first half of 1942 with the full legal authority of the United States government. Roughly 1,200,000 persons located, arrested, and moved in to Federally funded detention facilities. Although the were released by Presidential order by the end of 1944, the effects on the society were noticeable.

In spite of best efforts, thousands of legal challenges went unanswered by persons of other than Japanese extraction who wre unjustly detained. the scope and scale of the detainment proved to be much more extensive than planners had allowed for. Conditions in many camps, like the famous "Manzanaar," were unintentionally deplorable.

This single act of mass detention proves on its own merits that whole generations of Americans can be unjustly harmed by the best of intentions. During the course of my rebuttles, I intend to produce further examples which will demonstrate that this policy, no matter how well intended, is no substitute for a robust legal system and well-funded law enforcement capability.

First I will deal with your background arguments.

Now to the Resources required to run internment camps.
What is your definition of enormous amount of resources ?
Unless you are assigning one acre of land per detainee the idea of inefficient housing is dubious at best. As for supervision of the detainees good planning of the systems that would be put in place would help future efficiency. As for the cost of running and building the internment camps much depends on what role the government and the private sector have in running the camps.
For arguments sake lets say the private sector takes of catering and cleaning if more then one firm is allowed to bid for the work costs can be reduced.

Now to the possibility of people being wrongfully detained.l
As for people being mistakenly detained here is one way of looking at the problem. Some people are wrongfully imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit .Ever measure needed to prevent wrongful detention should be put in place but its important to remember that no system is perfect
How many people give this as a reason for not having prisons ?

Should the Bureaucratic process be the cause of wrongful detention or cause other problems then clearly changes need to made to the Bureaucratic process. The burden on the court system would in part be reduced by holding legal proceedings in the Internment camps. As for illegal aliens legal appeals causing a bottleneck this would happen if illegal aliens weren't detained in in internment camps either . Even if there a legal bottlenecks it is still better then having illegal aliens at large. Questions could be asked of the legal system but that's another topic.

Armed combatants end up at Guantanamo bay so that's not an issue. I am assuming that by political detainees you are referring to refuges. Without internment camps there is nothing to stop refuges and criminals from disappearing into the wood work before the legal process has taken place.

As for lawful citizens giving up there rights and the social stigma I'm going to wait until you elaborate or provide examples before I provide a rebuttal because I'm don't know the direction your coming from ( who is the social stigma attached to ? What rights do legal citizens give up and why ?).
I am looking forward to reading what reasoning you provide on this matter.

Now onto your observations.
Now this is where things get interesting. Border security measures can reduce the numbers of illegal aliens who cross a nations border. Border security dose not deal with people after they have entered a country illegal. Along these lines improved border security cant prevent the spread of third world diseases as outlined above once an illegal alien has entered the US. The same applies to the screening of illegal aliens. In short improved border security would reduce the size and numbers of internment camps but not eliminate the need for them. Your next couple of observations form a part of the jigsaw puzzle that this debate deals with in part.

Now I will deal with your example.
I am not proposing a racial based policy so the odds of people being mistakenly detained based on there skin colour is significantly reduced. As for generations of Americans being harmed by illegal aliens being interned that notion is ludicrous the detainees aren't even US citizens and the people in question may not even remain in the US. Providing that someone is a legal US citizen or resident of the US they should have documentation that proves this and there is also the option of giving a legal US citizen or resident a quick way of proving that they are in the country legally via an ID card. See this discussion we had previously here

As for the treatment of detainees and conditions there dose need to be oversight with laws that are enforced that protect a detainees human rights. The treatment of detainees was also dealt with in discussion here


I will await your arguments concerning how a robust legal system and well-funded law enforcement capability can be used instead of internment camps before I offer a rebuttal.

I have a corrrection to make. Example #1, exibit A:

"Roughly 1,200,000 persons located, arrested, and moved in to Federally funded detention facilities."

Edit: The factually correct number of detainees was 120,000 persons.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My opponent asks a number of questions which will allow me to make my point by answering them.

Originally posted by xpert11
Now to the Resources required to run internment camps. What is your definition of enormous amount of resources ?"

Internment camps have historically been intended to be temporary facilities. They exist to fulfill a government policy, after which point they will be removed. In terms of their scope and scale, the resource committments required to facilitate internment most closely resemble those needed for national prison systems.

To provide context, I will be referring to United States national prison statistics to make my point. I will do so for the following reasons:

1. The internment camps suggested by my opponent will have to be just as capable and extensive as any system of Federal prisons.

2. The internment camps suggested by my opponent will actually have to be more capable than Federal prisons. This is becuase my opponent suggest that these camps will be used for more than simple incarceration (as defined by U.S. law).

According to prisoncommission.org, the U.S. Federal government spent $60 Billion dollars in calender year 2006 to incarcerate 2.2 million persons. That's a rough average of $27,000 per person.

In simple terms, that's less than one percent of the known U.S. population at this time. It is generally accepted that there are not less than ten million illegal aliens inside the borders of the United States at this time.

Operating on the assumption that enhanced law enforcement would be capable of finding and arresting just 20% of the expected illegal population in any single calender year, it can be realized that the incarceration requirements for illegals would be atleast equal to if not greater than those requirements for the gneral Federal prison system.

On the basis of this assertion, I say that "enourmous resources" would amount to more than $100 Billion dollars per year. This financial figure does not address the real estate concerns that would be associated with the actual locations of the internment camps.

Originally posted by xpert11
As for the cost of running and building the internment camps much depends on what role the government and the private sector have in running the camps. For arguments sake lets say the private sector takes [care] of catering and cleaning if more then one firm is allowed to bid for the work costs can be reduced.

Internment facilities that could acommodate entire families for long persiods would by necessity have greater physical space requirements than a standard legally defined Federal prisons. By necessity, these facilities would have to be larger than Federal prisons. Construction cost of said faciltiies would be commensurately higher than for Federal prisons.

Acording to the Justice Policy Institute, the average Federal post-trial penetentiary costs approximately $100 million dollars for every 1000 persons. Assuming that internment facilities were built for just three million persons, that would mean an estiamted startup cost of $300 Billion dollars. This construction, likely to be carried out over ten years, would allow my opponent's suggested policy to be implemented with an average capture rate of no more than 20% of the illegal population per year.

Even if these estiamtes represent low-end averages, the simple fact is that the United States would spend more than twice the annual incarceration budget just for the detention of ilegal aliens. Even we assume that the private sector participat (as suggested) lowers these total costs by 10%, the dollar amounts alone are prohibitive.

In recent years the privatization of prisons has come under close scrutiny. Profit motives of the corporations which build and run prisons for a fee suggest that these companies are, in fact, not capable of doing the job cheaper than Federal authorities.

My opponent's assertion that family services, medical needs, and judicial proceedings could all be taken care of by on-site providers suggests that the cost in dollars to the average taxpayer would be in excess of these conservative estimates. If there is any truth to the theory that costs can be lowered by "economy of scale," we would in fact be looking at the construction and maintenance of small cities which would be singificantly larger than even the biggest Federal prison.

Originally posted by xpert11
The burden on the court system would in part be reduced by holding legal proceedings in the Internment camps. As for illegal aliens legal appeals causing a bottleneck this would happen if illegal aliens weren't detained in in internment camps either. Even if there a legal bottlenecks it is still better then having illegal aliens at large.

It takes a long time to find and aprehend illegal aliens. It takes a long time to grant them fair hearings. When interned, they may be held for a period of time that is longer than it may take to hear their cases and deport them. If time is money, the added step need to detain and old would be unnecessary if an exapanded legal system were empowered to porcess as many cases per year as was prudent.

It may be deplorable to suggest that law enforcement agencies might act on annual quotas for arrest and detainment of illegal aliens, but this is just one fiscally responsible option open to today's Federal government. This is a long term problem that reuqires a long term solution that will be palatable for the taxpayer and ethical for the nation.

Expeditious law enforcement carried out with public approval can eventually make this a "lesser" problem without compromising social justice. When illegals are apprehended and processed in a short amount of time, it becomes harder for them to hide. With greater public approval of transparant prosecutions, it will not be necessary to enact harsh-er surveillance, search, and eavesdropping laws.

Originally posted by xpert11
As for lawful citizens giving up there rights and the social stigma I'm going to wait until you elaborate or provide examples before I provide a rebuttal because I'm don't know the direction your coming from ( who is the social stigma attached to ? What rights do legal citizens give up and why ?).

We live in an age of terrorism. Like it or not, our leaders are asking for expanded law enforcement powers to deal with this threat. the simple fact of the matter is that these expanded powers will be used in other legal policy areas, such as illegal immigration. As illegal immigrants seek to hide from the police, Federal, State, and Local officials will have to dig deeper to find them. that's what they'll tell us when we question their use of these expanded legal authorities.

There is a social stigma attached to the policy of racial profiling, which is commonly acknowledged as necessary in anti-terrorist procedures because an overwhelming majority of terrorists are known to come from specific regions and social groupings. Thre is also a social stigma attached to racial groupings in the United States that relates specifically to the demographics of prison populatutions because an overwhelming majority of inmate come from specific social groupings.

The internment policy suggested by my opponent would unintentionally 'target' a large segment of U.S. society. American Hispanics would be stigmatized by this policy because they would represent the overwhelming majority of detainees. The accidental detainment of even a few lawful Hispanics per year would only add fuel to this unwanted fire.

I want to deal with the cost element that Justin has raised.
The cost of Real estate and constructing interment camps is a one off assuming that the land isn't leased. Now lets start with the basis of the claims made about the alleged enormous cost of constructing and running internment camps. Nows lets deal with the basis of the future claims.
Now the cost of running Federal prisons isn't considered to be enormous unless I have mis understood Justin point.

In terms the increased cost estimates constructing and running internment camps compared with federal prisons is where the comparisons to the Federal Prison system break down. Since the number of illegal aliens caught crossing the US borders is about 5.2 million which is greater then the Federal Prison population according to the source that was provided above.
So why is the above comparison faulty at best ?
Well even if you don't factor in the likes of holding legal proceedings being held in the internment camps the fact that they would deal with more people would mean the greater funding would be needed.
The costs of running internment camps needs to be viewed relatively.
Or put another way if you were to cater a dinner for two groups of people. Now one group of people is larger then the other but both groups are having the same meals and are using the same catering company. The cost of catering for the larger group of people will naturally be higher. The larger group of people is hardly going to claim that there costs were enormous.

source

On another note Dealing with the the percentage of illegal aliens who can be detained by law enforcement falls beyond the scope of the topic.

The claim that the costs would be prohibitive is strange in the context of the US spends in other areas such as defense ( the 2006 US defense budget was $419.3 Billion not including other costs.)

source
As noted already the US government could take measures that would reduce the number of detainees and thus reduce the overall cost.

As for the extra space required for family's the aim isn't to provide a five star hotel vast amounts of room shouldn't be required to ensure that detainees have live in humane conditions. Effective planning would help when it comes to the making the best use of the space available.

I want to acknowledge the point raised about questions concerning the privatization of prisons without going off topic. The best method and who should run the internment camps would need to be determined the job should go to who can do the best and low cost job.

Could you elaborate on your idea of expanding the legal system ?

The notion of having a quota that decides how many illegal aliens would be arrested each year is farcical. That would be like only arresting so many people a year who commit murder and after that letting people away with the crime. The idea that someone would hold the opinion that only arresting a quota for the number of arrests is ethical but the internment of illegal aliens isn't is extremely bizarre.

Please explain how illegal aliens would be processed quickly after capture when you point out how the appeals process can extend the time of the legal process .
Why is it acceptable to have an lesser problem ?
What is to stop the problem from growing bigger again ?
Where will the illegal aliens stay while they are being processed ?
Could you elaborate on your reference to transparent prosecutions in terms of how it will help solve the problems at hand ?
Do you separate the risk of illegal aliens bringing health related problems to the US from that of social justice ?

The use of expanded law enforcement powers to locate illegal aliens falls beyond the scope of this topic expect for in one regard.
If you don't hold illegal aliens in a central location for processing wont the expanded law enforcement powers be needed to track those who skip bail e.t.c ?

Racial profiling as a method of investigating crimes and preventing terrorism needs to be separated from any social stigma attached to illegal aliens. Unless you believe that people should be encouraged to break the law then there is going to be a social stigma attached to law breakers and not just illegal aliens. Any kind of action taken against or involves determining the legal status of people who have entered the US illegally is going to deal primarily with the ethnic group that makes up the majority of illegal aliens. The issue has nothing to do with the internment of the people in question.

Also if we applied your logic elsewhere Hispanics who are convicted of crimes wouldn't face any jail time because the risk of the occasional wrongful imprisonment. Please don't read this as me saying that wrongful imprisonment or detainment is acceptable.

The socio-ethical ramification of mass internment inside the borders of the United States would be significant, if it were to occur. The special interests which would have to align themselves to be in favor of this policy would have to over rule the opinions of others who were not in favor of it. Any such decision would have drastic consequences for the future of our legal system and the juris prudence (i.e., color) of high court decisions.

The assertion that increased border security, in and of itself, would lessen the long term extent of the problem of illegal immigration is at best justification for increased funding of border security, itself. The fact remains that the total number of existing undocumented persons is so large that it will take decades to find and prosecute the statistical majority of htem. Because ongoing border security is necessary to ensure that the total aggregate of unlawful residents does not increase at an unacceptable rate, border security itself must be viewed as one of many expenses associated with the overall task of national security, which involves the supportive process of detention and deportation of illegal immigrants.

There are two ways to count the cost of prosecuting and removing illegal and undocumented persons. The first is through a system of jurisdictional policing efforts which do not incur the costs associated with long-term incarceration. The second would be to adopt a system that embraces long-term incarceration. The chief advantage to long-term incarceration appeara to be that regional crime rates might fall due to segretory effects. The judicial system, to whatever extent it may be enhanced,, would be able to take its time with charges and deportations.

However, this is not the case. American politics turns on two things. Race and money. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11 of 2001, legal citizens from all walks of life have become aware of the fact that demographics and economics lay a role in who gets prosecuted and who gets persecuted. It’s just not possible to say that mass detention would be a non-racial policy. The demographics of this problem speak for themselves. An overwhelming majority of the illegal immigrants targeted for internment prior to processing and deportation would be Latinos and Hispanics. They would be poor Latinos and Hispanics.

In order for my opponent’s suggested policy to become the law of the land, several important landmark findings would have to be rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court before any sitting President could authorize such a massive undertaking. The entire legal process would be challenged at every step by privately funded political interests. With the case law to guide them that resulted from punative law suits after Japanese internment during World War two, its unlikely that the Supreme Court would hear the case. Assuming that Federal Superior Court judges ruled in favor of the policy, they would still have to attach stiff caveats to ensrue transparency of the process and the post-appeal results.

Today’s Federal court system is not large enough to handle the volume of traffic that it gets. There are simply not enough judges and court officers to handle the work they’ve already got. Even if the policy of mass internment were carried out, Federal courts (circuit and appeals) and the law enforcement agencies that support them would have to be radically increased in both manpower and facilities. Such an “upgrade” would take ten years to implement and support, assuming that the mood was right in Congress to authorize such expenditures.

The aforementioned expansion of Federal offices is necessary with or without the policy of mass internment. This becomes the case when one realizes that border security must take place on som level, now matter what politicians decide to do about the matter of illegal immigrants. As our population increase, so too will the needs of agencies tasked with border security. Due to the associated costs as alluded to in my first rebuttal, I submit that there will not be enough Federal dollars available for border patrols and mass internment at the same time.

With more Federal judges, court officer, and pre-trial holding facilities, it becomes possible for law enforcement planners to develop fiscal and prosecutorial goals that will allow them to make the most of the resources they have. They won’t be able to find, process, and deport all the illagals at once, or even within a single decade. They could, however, be equipped to handle just enough cases each year to become a more effective deterrent. As long as we remain a prosperous and free nation of individuals, other people will want to come here. “One hundred percent” border security isn’t possible. It is, however, possible to do just enough law enforcement to make it harder for illegals to come to America and hide from the police while siphoning jobs and benefits from lawful residents.

Superior law enforcement will achieve more than mass detentions. When that process is transparent, it will be open to any observer. Some of the more draconian laws will not be necessary because the overall mood of the society will be one of cooperation. Our society currently accepts or turns a blind eye to the realities of illegal immigration because many of the proposed solutions appear to be undesirable. The very idea of mass internment is repugnant to most Americans because we’ve done it once before, and we’re stil shamed by what we allowed our leaders to do, “for national security.”

Well there is the group of people known as legal citizens and residents of the US these people should come first . Assuming that special interest groups were responsible for the relevant legislation passing that would due to the inner workings of the US political system rather then the concept of interning illegal aliens itself.

Are you saying that illegal aliens need to be detained in some before being deported or allowed to remain in the US?

No border is ever going to be perfect so you still have to deal with those who get past improved border security. The oblivious flaw is what happens when the number of illegal aliens who slip past improved border security measures is greater then the quota of illegal aliens arrested each year. People will always try to enter the US unless the conditions in there country of origin become more favorable and because of the US being the Land of the Free.

Its time to examine a key question at the heart of the debate that my opponent fails to address adequately .
Where will the illegal aliens stay while they are being processed ?
Lets say that there is an increase in the number of law enforcement officials who arrest illegal aliens . After the illegal aliens have been detained two things could happen they could be let out on bail or kept behind bars until the legal process. Now if you let the person(s) out on bail they are likely to skip the legal proceedings and disappear into the wood work. So if the other option is used and they person(s) are kept in a cell until and while legal proceedings happen.

So what is the difference between between placing illegal aliens in custody rather then internment ?
The place of holding that the illegal alien is staying in cant be used for a legal citizen or resident who has been arrested.
There has been no health checks . The illegal alien could have brought health problems to the US which go undetected.
Transport may be required if the legal process takes place in a different location to where the person(s) are being held in custody.

In terms of ethics how is it any better to place an illegal alien in what amounts to a jail cell rather then in an internment camp ?
Ethics aside you have overlooked the fact that your race based argument that you claim exits would be used against your ideas as well. Opposing the detention of illegal aliens in internment camp and then supporting there detention in pre trial custody is a logical fallacy.

The issue of race has once again re appeared and threatens to take the focus off the topic.
Under the law people of any skin color can break US immigration laws . A person is either in the US legally , illegally or guilty of visa violations there is no dependency on the persons skin color.
Economic and social conditions in the country of origin dictate in part why people would enter or try to enter the US illegally and be detained and interned. To be quite frank the racial issue only appears because the majority of the people who would be interned may not be of white skin colour.

As for the Supreme Court they would decided if interning illegal aliens is Constitutional rather then if there is need for them to be interned. So the Supreme Court has a sort of a side role in this debate.
The oblivious question that would be asked is dose the Constitution apply to those who aren't US citizens ?

The other thing worth noting is that in the past decisions made by the Supreme Court that were and remain unpopular with elements of the population. People are free mount legal challenges that contest internment camps in a court of law the key question would be if they have a legal case or if they are just grandstanding.

Which aspect would (supposedly) take ten years the expansion of law enforcement or the expansion of the Federal court system ?

Congress authorizing the expenditure need is another side issue but I will say that many of the members of Congress would vote for anything if a bill contained spending in areas that suits them .

There will be no deterrent in place because only a set number of people would be arrested each year. Think of it this way people slow down if they see a police car because they know the cop will pull them over and fine them no matter how many other speeding tickets he/she has given out already on the given day. Your concept of saving money at the expense of the US national interests and society could spill over into other areas of law enforcement. In the future other crimes may not be investigated due yearly quotes having already been filled .

Note my opponent has said that the cost of interning illegal aliens and improving border security is prohibitive for the worlds richest nation. This is a very narrow view that ignores any possible ways that the US government could use existing and/or raise revenue if needed. If this same narrow view was applied to defence spending people would claim that there isn't enough money to fund both the USAF and the USN. People would also question the existence of either service.

American society is more likely to turn a blind eye to the illegal immigration problem because of self interest rather then any dislike of the likes of internment camps. Now as for the comparison to the internment of Americans of Japanese origin in WW2. The key thing to point out is that when Illegal aliens would be interned they would have already broken or in the very least be suspected of breaking the law. The internment of Americans of Japanese origin in WW2 was more of a pre-emptive measure.

The American legislative process is predicated on social, economic, and political considerations. My opponent’s assertion that the matter of illegal immigration is somehow a sterile non-racial issue is, at best, idealistic. The real-world fact of the matter is that demographics do play a major role in every domestic policy enactment. Please let me explain why this is so.

U.S. politicians are, by profession, compromisers and deal makers. This translates to the public sentiment that “the majority rules.” As we are having this debate, there is no majority consensus on the matter of large-scale detention for the purposes of domestic security. There is, however, social guilt which is still in play relating to the unjust and unlawful treatment of non-caucasins which has happened in our not too distant past.

These historical remembrances manifest themselves in a distinct and documentable distaste for the idea of mass detention. In the late 1980’s, Americans expressed their disapproval of the mass detainment of of more than two thusand Cuban refugees who were expelled from Castro’s regime as part of the infamous “Marriel Boatlift.”

Mainstream media sources at that time investigated the circumstances of that detention, and found them to be lacking. In spite of allegedly best efforts, criminals, political dissidents, and harmless civilians, were haphazardly “sorted.” The average American was left with a bad impression of government sanctioned mass detentions.

Working backwards through American history, we can see many more examples of incarceration which ave left the American populace feeling that large-scale mass detentions are somehow unclean, undignified, and unjust. The distinction is made by the average voter between prisons which are meant to incarcerate and punish known offenders, versus the holding of persons of uncertain history. This bias predisposes the majority of voters to be NOT in favor of large-scale holding facilities which exist soley to “hold”

During the 1970’s, anti-Soviet dissidents who escaped from Warsaw Pact countries told many horrible storiesabout life in the gulags. These eyewitness accounts had a profound effect on the American psyche, which was still recovering from the horrors of World War Two, and the accounts of concentration camps found in Japan and Nazi Germany. From 1945 to the present, American books and movies have made strong associations between mass detention programs and installations and authoritarian regimes. The underlying assumption being that “only the tyrants do that sort of thing.”

In the United States, specifically, there was a period that lasted from approximately 1900 to 1930 in which prison theory was particularly brutal in its application of retributive punishment. Much of that harsh treatment was meated out to prisoners behind closed doors and barred gates where the general public was not aware of what was going on. When reformers did finally shed light on these questionable practices, the majority of registered voters were outraged. The 1930’s marked a sea change in popular culture, during which “chain gang” books and movies were quite popular. Villains who mistreated prisoners routinely came to justice in these entertainments, after many car chases and shootouts.

This small sampling of 20th century trends demonstrates that the majority of Americans do not approve of mass interment, which meansthat by extension, they would not tolerate it from their elected leaders. With this in mind, it seems unlikely that special interest groups would support such a move. It’s true that a determined body of politicians could ram it through, and it is true that a sympathetic President could sign such a measure it nto law, but this proposed program would have no support from the outraged majority.

The key to winning support for an aggressive law enforcement effort to curb the rising number of illegal aliens insidethe U.S. can be found in aseries of compromises. Winning support from the majority for an increased border security effort will result in greater support for a policy which seeks to process, prosecute, or deport as necessary. This goal can’t be achieved if the proposed policy resembles anything that can overtly be connected to past detention efforts that are stil thought of as indecent, inhuman, or unethical.

Because there are budgetary limits to consider, it may be wise to pitch for support which would be based on existing legal infrastructure. As we do this, we would have to make one vital compromise. Expansion of the U.S. law enforcement infrastructure would mean more police, court officials, and pre-trial facilities. Expansion of Federal capability to process detained persons would be much more palatable to the average voter because they would know that regardless of legal status, defendants would receive what the majority regards as a fair hearing.

Federal judicial and penitentiary systems are not capapble of handing the case loads inflicted onthem today. Increasing the nation’s law enforcement capability by two or even three times its present capacity would grant the taxpayer the assurancesthey need that they themselves will not run the risk of being preyed upon by an overly agressive government. I would also satisfy the society’s need for an effective redress to the issue of illegal immigration.

The simple fact of the matter is that we don’t fully enforce the laws we have on the books now. Doubling or tripling the Federal capacity for enforcement of legal policy that affects illegal immigrants would result in an ethical compromise that would satisfy the need for improved border security, which would include the detection and deportation of undocumented persons. Thee policy golas could be met without resurrecting the ghosts of past American prejudices which are connected to mass internment.

Detaining and deporting undocumented person as a matter of process can be mandated and carried our as long as the underlying concerns are acknowledged and addressed through specific policies and procedures that allow for limitations on annual deportation capability. Internment camps are designed to hold people for unspecified periods of time. As demonstrated, this would not be acceptable to interest groups or popular with the average voter. When Federal law enforcement has a definable capability to detain and deport meaningful numbers of illegal alines in a satisfactory amount of time, there will be no need for internment camps.

This compromise isn’t perfect, and it doesn’t get all of the illegal aliens out of the country in as hort period of time, but it does provide the society with an ethical “middle ground” on which to base future immigration policy. The pheasability of the build up in Federal capability becomes much more likely wben it is understood that it will take not less than ten years to build and staff for the hundreds of new facilities and thousands of new positions which would be required to make for a more effective domestic residency protocol.

The actual “how” of the thing really does matter. Mass internment has too many negative connotations within the social memory of the American society. Allocating enough resources to actually enforce the laws we already have would be the first of many steps taken towards the ultimate goal of effective border control and policing of illegal immigrants. Accepting that the long view is necessary, we can understand how it will be possible to begin the decades-long task of reducing the population of undocumented persons within the scope of our accepted and honored legal system while at the same time protecting our future generations from more unpleasant memories.

Idealism and supporting the internment of illegal aliens is an oxymoron. The lack of a public consensus on this issue is most likely due to a lack of debate . So the more members of the public who read this thread the more the merrier. The guilt felt associated with the Internment of Americans of Japanese origin is a separate issue entirely. The only people that gain from promoting the bogus concept that the internment of illegal aliens has something to do with racial issues is the aliens themselves. I'm sure those who intend to enter or have entered the US illegally would prefer the status quo and would connect the idea of interning illegal aliens to that of interning Americans of Japanese origin . Since I have already established that interning illegal aliens isn't a race issue it makes no logical sense to compare the internment of Americans of Japanese origin to that of the internment of illegal aliens.

So my opponent hasn't added anything that supports the idea that illegal aliens shouldn't be detained due to racial issues.

I need you to clear something up for me are you saying that the public is against interning illegal aliens but there isn't a consensus amongst US political leaders ?

I want to deal with aspects of the Mariel Boatlift .
source

First all the refuges seem to have been split up amongst military bases and refuge camps .
The media can hardly be used as an accurate gauge of events. Often the media will omit details to make a story more sensational. It is also worth noting that a refuge camp would contain more temporary measures such as tents and that an internment camp would contain more permanent structures. More permanent structures would allow for far better conditions then in any temporary set up .
Some of the Refuges proved to be convicted felons and former residents of mental health facilities .
Now I wonder if the felons committed a crime before it was realized that they had a criminal record ?
I also wonder if the refuges suffering from mental illness did any harm to the public or the peers before there condition was revealed ?
The other possibility is that the information was passed on via political channels.

So here we have a pretty good case for interning illegal aliens . The convicted felons and mentally ill refuges could have been screened out from the rest without any risk to the general public. The legal process and screening of the illegal aliens could have taken place in a central location. Security measures that would already be in place to deal with any civil disturbance .

The history of the conditions inside the penal system is interesting to say the least but has no relevancy in this debate for the simple reason that the internment camps would not be based on US prisons from an historical era.

So you are claiming that the majority of people would oppose screening those who try to enter the country illegally even after the events of 9- 11 ?
I'm going to leave national security to my last rebuttal so that all I'm going to say on the matter for now. The problem is that an increase in the number of officials barely tackles some the problems at hand. Law enforcement officials aren't medical doctors , or necessary have the knowledge and info available to Id a terror suspect. Law enforcement officials would also lack access to a illegal alien background unless they have been detained in the past.

My opponent admits the need to expand existing infrastructure and yet the expansion dose not offer the same functionality that an interment camp would. Put another there would be a lot of pre-trial facilities full of illegal aliens who would have had no real background or health check.
It makes little sense to clog up the likes of existing and new infrastructure when everything that needs to be done can be accomplished separately and in a central location.
The notion that people would accept an increase in the number of law enforcement officials and yet oppose interning illegal aliens makes no sense what so ever. Realistically the people that oppose interning illegal aliens will also oppose any increase in the number of law enforcement officials.

The concept of deporting a meaningful number of illegal aliens each year is very subjective ( a small amount of the illegal alien population is hardly meaningful ), and the idea would fall prey to flaws that come with having quotas. See my above posts for more on this aspect of the topic. A number of factors could determine the time it takes to recruit the people that are needed to run internment camps. For example in areas where there is high unemployment there would be a large labour pool on offer as well as economic benefits . The economic benefits of increased in the local region would benefit society.

I would say that having a system that Justin suggests is far more likely to produce unpleasant memory's due to its flaws. People would get very frustrated with a system that can only deal with a limited number of law breakers each year. Internment camps would produce memory's of “ I'm glad that (enter name of person ) was prevented from entering the US.

Moving on there are two separate issues on offer. I can not begin to comprehend what survivors of a stay in a Gulag went thou. The Gulags were for political prisoners if I can use that term rather then anything to do with emigration. Regimes like the Soviets detained people for slave labor and death rather then looking out for the nations interest .
Would you compare the US prison system to the Gulags ?
If the answer is no then you cant compare the internment of illegal aliens to the Gulags because both the prison system and the internment of illegal aliens is in the public interest.
Now onto the second issue the works of books and film are often fiction. Put another way if we to adopted the same way of thinking to the Vietnam War a jaded veteran of the conflict could return to the jungle and win the war single handily with an M16

Originally posted by xpert11
The lack of a public consensus on this issue is most likely due to a lack of debate.

The social debate concerning mass internment has been with us in one form or another since the founding of the nation. Americans tend to look at the issue in rather broad terms. Our love-hate relationship with prisons and their role in our society demonstrates that we are, in fact, still loosely engaged in this debate. The fear of mass internment is still real enough for many American to spawn a popular conspiracy theory. There is a factor in American psychology that is hard to define. The same anti-authoritarianism that sparked the Revolution (1775-1783) can still be found in our social fabric today.

Even if one assumes that my opponent is correct regarding his observaton that there hasn't been much debate on the topic, it can be argued that there is no taste for such a decisive debate in our society at this time. This would tend to reinforce my point that the majority of special interest groups who lobby our politicians would not support such a policy. With this in mind, it appears to be unlikely to be brought forward by any politician at this time.

Originally posted by xpert11
The guilt felt associated with the Internment of Americans of Japanese origin is a separate issue entirely.

The lessons learned from the internment of 120,000 Japanese Americans play a central and decisive role in the opposition to the policy of mass internment. Even if the policy truely has no basis in race, it can be argued that it's still not good for us on the basis of our past experience with mass internment.

Originally posted by xpert11
The only people that gain from promoting the bogus concept that the internment of illegal aliens has something to do with racial issues is the aliens themselves.

There are several lobbies that would oppose a policy of mass internment for different reasons. I'd like to make a moment to name just a few.

1. Pro Immigration lobbyists are numerous, well connected, and well funded. Their ability to influence Congress is well known.

2. Pro Hispanic groups are numerous and moderately well funded. They can and do expcersize the power of their vote.

3. The prison reforms lobby has ties to many different groups around the country that make it a potent force on Capitol Hill.

4. Internationalist groups like Green Peace and Amnesty Itnernational would be ready, willing, and able to oppose legislation.

5. The Catholic Church would oppose mass internment policies citing the horrors of World War Two as just one of many moral reason to NOT do such a thing. Their influece in this matter could be considerable.

6. Migrant labor unions would most likely flex their political muscles to prevent any member of Congress from voting in favor of this policy.

7. Environmentalist groups would be likely to oppose mass internment policy on moral, ethical, and "green" arguments.

8. NAFTA and CAFTA signatories would most likely put pressure on Congress to strike down this policy.

9. The United Nations (in general) would oppose this policy for a wide variety of reasons.

10. Individual States might oppose the policy if they were advised by their Legislatures to do so.

Originally posted by xpert11
Since I have already established that interning illegal aliens isn't a race issue it makes no logical sense to compare the internment of Americans of Japanese origin to that of the internment of illegal aliens.

The issue becomes "racial" for most Americans because it would target an overwhelming percentage of non-caucasions while impacting a very minimal percentage of caucasians. In and of itself, political correctness considerations prevent this from being a popular policy because of its label.

Originally posted by xpert11
So my opponent hasn't added anything that supports the idea that illegal aliens shouldn't be detained due to racial issues. .

Illegal aliens should be detained under the accords of due process without antagonistic labeling which would inflame legal residence who happened to be of the same background.

Originally posted by xpert11
I need you to clear something up for me are you saying that the public is against interning illegal aliens but there isn't a consensus amongst US political leaders ?

I do not believe tha the general public would be in favor of mass internment at this time. Contemporary leaders in Congress are deeply divided on this issue. There does not yet appear to be any common ground for consensus or commiseration.

Originally posted by xpert11
The history of the conditions inside the penal system is interesting to say the least but has no relevancy in this debate for the simple reason that the internment camps would not be based on US prisons from [any] historical era.

Actually, there would be a great many similarities between a contemporary internment facility and past prisons and mass detention complexes used by the Federal government. I'd like to take a moment to describe just a few of this paralells.

1. Relevent photos from the period 1942-1946 demonstrate that Japnese American internment facilties looked very much like concentration camps found in Europe at the close of World War Two. Opponents will be quick to use this imagery.

2. Perimeters and patrol patterns would be reminscent of Luft-Stalag procedures employed by various armies during the post war period as they administered displaced persons camps. Opponents will take note of such similarities..

3. Even if it assumed that internment camps will be constructed with family housing in mind, it will be nearly impossible to avoid the resemblence to large-scale soviet-style block housing that was commonly used for dissidents.

When put in to a political context, image matters. If too much luxury is provided for detainees, there will be ciriticism. If too little is provided, thre will be a backlash. The simple trouth is that "adequate living standards" will always be open to debate.

Originally posted by xpert11
The problem is that an increase in the number of officials barely tackles some the problems at hand.

A very substantial increase in police, support personnel, and facilities, would make a difference in border security and the procesing of illegal aliens if and only if there was a more vigorous effort to enforce the law. It is now standard operating procedure within the framework of Federal law enforcement to create a dossier on detained persons, which inlucdes mental and physical doagnostics.

Originally posted by xpert11
It makes little sense to clog up the likes of existing and new infrastructure when everything that needs to be done can be accomplished separately and in a central location.

Americans have had bad experiences iwth seperate legal infrastructures. The most current example would be the matter of enemy combatants now in holding on the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba). It's true that this seperation is being carried out under specific legal guidance from the office of the Attorney General, but it's still an unpopular activity that most voters will point to when expressing their dissatisfaction.

Lawyers who challenge a mass detention policy in court will surely predicate some of their arguments on the examples provided to them by virtue of the operation of those seperate judicial protocols and facilities.

Originally posted by xpert11
Realistically the people that oppose interning illegal aliens will also oppose any increase in the number of law enforcement officials.

It's true that there would be opposition to the expansion of Federal police forces and facilities. That opposition would be less than what politicians would face if they attempted to implement a policy of mass internment. Why? Because there is a greater appearance of "legitimacy" in an expanded policing capability than their is in a policy that has so many hostile connotaitons.

Originally posted by xpert11
The concept of deporting a meaningful number of illegal aliens each year is very subjective ( a small amount of the illegal alien population is hardly meaningful ),

As you say, the actual satisfaction derived from the number of person deported would be subjective. That would, however, be a matter for public opinion and political compromise to decide. Because the exact scope and scale of the problem and resource committments can only be guessed at, we will have to assume that whatever the numbers are, they will represent the best deportation capability that can be generated at that time.

The American public's perception of what it means to be "interned" will forever be linked to any number of unpleasant events. When all is said and done, there is a fear that any effort to put a segment of our society in to a "camp" of any kind will signal the downfall of the nation as we know it. This holds true, even when the people being put behind wire arrive here illegally. The ultimate fear is that "we" will be next.

I will leave the conspiracy theory and its hear say and unnamed sources for another topic. I will add that Rense has been questioned as an accurate source elsewhere on ATS. One must question the assertion that the lack of political discussion can be linked to the need for interning illegal aliens. .Politicians are often more interested in scoring cheap political points rather then actually dealing with a real or the issue(s) at hand.

Since the internment of illegal aliens isn't a race issue how can conclusions be drawn from the parallels that Justin draws to the internment of Americans of Japanese origin ?

Lets not confuse the issue of who would oppose interning Illegal aliens with the need for Illegal aliens to be interned. However in this case it is worth while taking a brief look because my opponent has produced what at first appears to an “A list “ of possible opposition.

The lack of a middle road probably harms the cause of those who don't want immigration stopped but would like measures taken to curb illegal aliens.

The prison reforms lobby dosnt have a place in this matter due to the subject matter.

How many people are going to heed the word Greenpeace ?
Greenpeace have proven to be a bunch of extremists just take a look there antics in the Southern Ocean.

Given the fact that the Catholic is based in Rome and Catholic church recent track record (the sexual abuse scandal and opposing the use of condoms in Africa ) one can clearly state that the Catholic church is in no position to talk about ethics or morals.

Questions that fall beyond the scope of this thread and bring the creditability of any opposition from Pro Hispanic groups and Migrant Labor Unions into question.

Environmentalist groups like there prison reform counter parts have no place in this debate due to the subject matter.

South American governments that signed NAFTA would oppose any measures that threaten to curb illegal emigration because illegal alien workers contribute to there countries economies.

Due to corruption and the US government only taking heed of the UN when it wants the UN opinion on this matter would matter very little to say the least.

Are you saying that if the internment camps went via another name that there would be less public opposition to the concept due to the political correctness being taken out of the picture ?
Those emigrants who have entered the US legally could well support the concept . It is only the illegal aliens who would have an reason to be inflamed by the measures we are debating.

Now my opponent is relying on the reader to reach pre conceived notions.
The visible comparisons that Justin offers are superficial and hence have little value.
Take a look at the photo
photo
Now when you first looked at the above photo did you think that you were viewing a concentration camp ?
If you think that you were viewing a concentration camp you thought wrong. You are in fact looking at an American POW camp.
More photos to look at.
photo
photo
photo

Now after looking at the three above photos and factoring in the past sixty years in design aspects do you think that you are looking at a concentration camp ?
If the answer is that you didn't think that you were looking at a concentration camp then my point is proved. For the record the first two photos are of Supermax prisons and the third is a medium security prison.

The woes connected to Guantanamo Bay could be easily avoided by enforcing standards of humane treatment of detainees and ensuring that any of necessary legal frame work is in place before the internment camps go into operation. Put another way a Nuremberg type situation where the laws didn't exist when the crime took place is avoided.

Those people who fear a government take over aren't going to view the increase in Federal law enforcement officials with anymore "legitimacy" then they are the concept of interning illegal aliens. There mindset prevents them from doing so. If any such pre conceived notions such as the one outlined above exist outside of this thread it would be far from impossible to change. The fear that “we are next “ as Justin put it simply isn't rational.

Originally posted by xpert11
One must question the assertion that the lack of political discussion can be linked to the need for interning illegal aliens.

The American political system can in some cases be characterized as a fistfight over what the politicians want, and what the voters want. Operating on the accepted fact that there is no meaningful national debate on this topic, I conclude that that there is not yet a meaningful interest in the subject. At the very least, it can be argued that no majority of special interest groups see need for such a policy.

Originally posted by xpert11
Since the internment of illegal aliens isn't a race issue how can conclusions be drawn from the parallels that Justin draws to the internment of Americans of Japanese origin ?

An examination of the facts will demonstrate that the Japanese internment resulted in an abosolute detention of a majority which was, specifically, Japanese American. This policy, however misguided, did target more than 99% of that demographic. Internment of illegal aliens today would result in the detention of a demogrpahic that would be more than 90% Hispanic. On the basis of this statistical fact, American voters would (based on social factors previous explained) regard this as a policy which targets a defined racial group.

Originally posted by xpert11
Lets not confuse the issue of who would oppose interning Illegal aliens with the need for Illegal aliens to be interned.

American political imperatives are often defined by the more vocal members of the society. When those individdals become spokespersons for forumlated and financed movements, they become capable of expressing a policy goal that politicians can be urged to champion. When thre is no such movement, politicians determine that there is no need that htey must address.

Originally posted by xpert11
The lack of a middle road probably harms the cause of those who don't want immigration stopped but would like measures taken to curb illegal aliens.

As a logical argument, this observation underscores the assertion that a more vigorous enforcing of existing laws would be good for the society. At the very least, the moderate elements referred to by my opponent would be pursuaded to support greater enforcement because such a policy would represent a step forward that was not full-blow mass internment.

Originally posted by xpert11
The prison reforms lobby dosnt have a place in this matter due to the subject matter.

Detention, in its many forms, involves complex moral arguments which require majoritive suport from the society in order to remain in effect. those for and against prsions participate in that debate. Prison reformers, in particular, are necessary subject matter experts. The assertion that they have no place in this debate presumes an authoritarian bais.

Originally posted by xpert11
How many people are going to heed the word Greenpeace ?
Greenpeace have proven to be a bunch of extremists just take a look there antics in the Southern Ocean.

An examination of Greenpeace FAQ's indicates that the organization has a paying membership in excess of 2.8 million persons world wide. Within the context of American society, this group has a voice in our political process because it can fund lobbyists who in turn have the potential to influence politicians. The assertion that this groups is not relevent to the political process is, at best, an opinion which can be easily refuted by the observations which I have just made.

Originally posted by xpert11
Given the fact that the Catholic [Church] is based in Rome and [its] recent track record (the sexual abuse scandal and opposing the use of condoms in Africa) one can clearly state that the Catholic church is in no position to talk about ethics or morals.

A brief examination of recently gathered statistics indicates that there are several hundred million Catholic adherents worldwide. Many of that rather large demographic live in the United States. Within the context of American society, this group has a voice in our political process because it can fund lobbyists who in turn have the potential to influence politicians. The assertion that this group is not relevent to the political process is, at best, an opinion which can be easily refuted by the observations which I have just made.

Originally posted by xpert11
Questions that fall beyond the scope of this thread and bring the creditability of any opposition from Pro Hispanic groups and Migrant Labor Unions into question.

There are tens of millions of Hispanics in the United States. many of them have close ties to migrant woker advocacy groups. Because a policy of mass internment of illegal aliens will target mostly Hispanics, it should be expected that persons of such heritage residing inside the United States would use every advoacy tool at their dosposal to express their opinions on the matter. In many cases, the interest groups in quiestion will be defending their clients or paying members, and they'll do it through regognized legal channels such as the use of lobbyists who will influence politicians. The assertion that these groups have no place in this debateis , at best, an opinion which can be easily refuted by the observations which I have just made.

Originally posted by xpert11
Environmentalist groups like there prison reform counter parts have no place in this debate due to the subject matter.

Like their reformist counterparts in the prison industry, Environmental groups are funded by a cross-section of American society. these organizations excersize theri infuence over politicians by raising money to send lobbyists to argue their case. In many cases, these interest groups will be defending the official position of their clients or paying members through regognized legal channels such as the use of lawyers and lawsuits which will influence politicians. The assertion that these groups have no place in this debate is, at best, an opinion which can be easily refuted by the observations which I have just made.

Originally posted by xpert11
South American governments that signed NAFTA would oppose any measures that threaten to curb illegal emigration because illegal alien workers contribute to there countries economies.

That is factually correct. Those governments would also lend their support to lobbying groups inside the Unite States, if they felt it was in their best interests to do so, their influence may be small, but it would be added to the overall effort to stop the policy of mass detention from going in to effect.

Originally posted by xpert11
Due to corruption and the US government only taking heed of the UN when it wants the UN opinion on this matter would matter very little to say the least.

The United nations is a large and well funded lobby group in its own right. Like any other large bureaucratic body, it would be able to lend support to lobbying efforts inside the United States in an effort to halt the policy of mass itnernment.

Originally posted by xpert11
Are you saying that if the internment camps went via another name that there would be less public opposition to the concept due to the political correctness being taken out of the picture ?

It's possible that a less offensive vocabulary might lessen the opposition to some small very extent, but the intent of the policy would still be questioned and the long-term implications would still be undesireable to an overwhelming number of special interest groups.

Originally posted by xpert11
Those emigrants who have entered the US legally could well support the concept. It is only the illegal aliens who would have an reason to be inflamed by the measures we are debating.

A majority of those persons who fund special interest groups that would oppose this policy are legal residents of the United States. Based on material previously presented, it is quite likely that the illegal immigrant community would oppose this policy.

Originally posted by xpert11
The visible comparisons that Justin offers are superficial and hence have little value.

Walls, bars, dormintories, and staffing will differ, but the intent to detain remains the same regardless of historical period. Lavish or not, stringent or not, a cage is a cage and its intent cannot be denied.

Originally posted by xpert11
Now after looking at the three above photos and factoring in the past sixty years in design aspects do you think that you are looking at a concentration camp? For the record the first two photos are of Supermax prisons and the third is a medium security prison.

In reference to my remarks on the matter of visible comparisons, it is worth noting that those special interest groups for and against the notion of mass itnernment have had input in to the design, construction, and operations, of the facilities you see in those photographs.

Originally posted by xpert11
The fear that “we are next “ as Justin put it simply isn't rational.

Americans have a long history of questioning government which dates back to the founding of our first 13 colonies. It's one of many threads that are woven in to our social fabric. An enacted policy of mass internment would only "rationalize" that fear and give it a modern context to go along with two centuries of justification.

A lack of political debate can not be connected with the need to intern illegal aliens.
Using my opponents logic one could say that there was no need for better Airport security before 9-11 because the matter was not discussed widely. Whether or not the supporters of interning illegal aliens are organized well enough and have the financial means to present there case to politicians is a different issue entirely. Remember that problems and issues can exist without them being discussed.

Is there such a thing as a majority of special interest groups ?
Give that each special interest group by itself has its own agenda and nothing else it is hard to see different interests groups forming a majority in the true sense of the word.
It is true that if you don't speak out you wont be heard. However the issue of having the right personal to sell a political policy is another topic.

There is no connection what so ever between the lack of a middle road and the need for an increase in the number of law enforcement officials. Logically my point illustrates that the link between lobbyists and US politicians makes the system or the politicians susceptible to extremists but alas that is yet another topic for another thread.

I respectively submit that I have disproved the idea that there is racial issues involved with interning illegal aliens and that Justin hasn't added anything new in this regard.

I never said that Hispanic groups and Migrant Labor Unions had no place in the debate I said that Environmentalist groups and prison reform groups have no business in the subject matter. I did point out that questions could be asked Hispanic groups and Migrant Labor Unions stance on the issue at hand.

Since the issue of interning illegal aliens has nothing to do with the environment and my opponent has done nothing to suggest other wise there is no reason for Environmentalist groups to take part in this debate. Unless prison reform groups chose to expand there arisen es the same logic applies to them. Now as for the accusation of authoritarian bias.

I have said why certain organizations would be ignored , cant or don't have the creditability to oppose interning illegal aliens or why a certain group wouldn't take part in the debate.
In terms of subject matter would it be considered authoritarian if people questioned why a mechanic got involved in a debate about brain surgery ?
I did not say that certain organizations should be banned from taking part in the debate if I conveyed this idea unintentionally I apologize.

Now onto the number of Greenpeace members and Catholics world wide. The numbers look impressive at a first glance but you have to bear in mind that they are the the total of worldwide members rather then the number of American members. It is for this reason that the relevancy of the figures in this debate is questionable. Any group that has enough money can fund a lobbyist this hardly makes Greenpeace special. The ability to fund lobbyists isn't the sole factor in choosing a topic to debate in the political arena. No organization is going to fund a lobbyist to argue a topic related to a subject matter that there organization doesn't deal with.

Returning to the Catholic Church we have two separate issues. The first issue is the fact that the Catholic church is in no position to preach about ethics and morals of course this in no way prevents them from doing so but the Catholic Church creditability would take a major hit in the process . The second entirely separate issue is what Justin raised is the political clout of the Catholic Church.
Now here is something interesting to think about.
If the fear of the government taking over is rational then why don't the people that hold this belief oppose the Catholic Church having any political influence ?
After all the Catholic Church gets its direction from Rome and not anywhere in the US.

Are you implying that the likes of Environmental groups and prison reform groups are funded by illegal aliens ?
If they are funded by illegal aliens is this the reason the groups would oppose interning illegal aliens ?

The South American governments would oppose any increase in law enforcement officials for same reason they would oppose interning illegal aliens. The fact remains that the US government would ignore the UN views on this matter.
The UN acting as a lobby group ?
You've got to be kidding. The UN is made up of far to many different “self interest” groups with different agendas to make a effective lobby group. Of course illegal emigrants would oppose this policy its kind of like the only people that fear going to jail are criminals. Legal residents of the United States could also fund lobby groups in favor of interning illegal aliens.

The act of detaining people differs from using superficial arguments to make false comparisons with the past. At any rate neither person on this thread is against detaining illegal aliens the question is where and why they should be detained ?

National Security.
After 9-11 there is no need to present a case about the threat terrorism poses.
However the possibility remains that a terror suspect could enter the US illegally and be detained and still slip thou the net.
Why ?
One law enforcement person is unlikely to have access to all the necessary information from the different agency's to make an informed decision. Interning illegal aliens would allow the person(s) to be screened no matter if it was a state or federal law enforcement official who detained the person(s). In some states local law enforcement officials can detain illegal aliens. Local and Federal law enforcement officials would be able to turn over illegal aliens for processing allowing them to pursue other tasks . source

Checking a person background requires time and classified intel may also be used. While a person is interned those who have access to the classified intel and other data would be able to help determine a person future. By keeping illegal aliens in central locations terror suspects could be weeded out . Internment camps would also allow a central point for the flow of classified intel and other data that is required when processing an illegal alien(s). The US can simply not afford to risk detained terror suspects from going undetected.

The American political process is like no other in the world. Politicians and civil servants at all levels receive input from every part ofhe society. Rich and poor alike. The extent of special interest groups and their relationship to each other is often a source of bewilderment and contraversy.

Originally posted by xpert11
A lack of political debate can not be connected with the need to intern illegal aliens.

Any policy debate which does not reach the national level can be said to lack sufficient political support to result in legislation. It can also be regarded as being in sufficient opposition to suggest that the idea in question is not popular with interest groups or politicians. To quote my opponent, "problems and issues can exist without them being discussed."

Originally posted by xpert11
Is there such a thing as a majority of special interest groups? Give that each special interest group by itself has its own agenda and nothing else it is hard to see different interests groups forming a majority in the true sense of the word.

As a technical procedural point, if a majority of special interest groups that are speaking up during a debate agree to oppose a policy of mass internment, they can in fact be said to be the majority of interest groups involved in the discussion (which they would be, in purely numerical terms).

Originally posted by xpert11
There is no connection what so ever between the lack of a middle road and the need for an increase in the number of law enforcement officials.

Actually, there is, because the compromise in this case would be an expansion of law enforcement capability and judicial infrastructure rather actual mass internment.

Originally posted by xpert11
Logically my point illustrates that the link between lobbyists and US politicians makes the system or the politicians susceptible to extremists but alas that is yet another topic for another thread.

With all due respect, your point would be validated if you had asserted that extremists could challenge the majoritive opposition.

Originally posted by xpert11
I respectively submit that I have disproved the idea that there is racial issues involved with interning illegal aliens and that Justin hasn't added anything new in this regard.

I'll stand on what I have consistently said throughout this discussion. The threat of mass detention and its consequences to the society would, by necessity, mobilize the most affected racial groups. They would be motivated by racial politics. The topic therefore remains inextricably linked to...race.

Originally posted by xpert11
I never said that Hispanic groups and Migrant Labor Unions had no place in the debate I said that Environmentalist groups and prison reform groups have no business in the subject matter.

Environmentalist groups would be motivated by the same sorts of humanitarian concerns that would galvanize other special interest groups. It should be noted that a single mass detention facility will have very large waste disposal and water handling needs which could adversely effect surroudning ecologies if not dealt with in the most responsible and expeditious of ways. Likewise, prison reformers will feel obliged to have input on camp operations procedures and a long list of detainee protocols which have quite a bit in common with normal pentitentiary practices.

Originally posted by xpert11
The ability to fund lobbyists isn't the sole factor in choosing a topic to debate in the political arena. No organization is going to fund a lobbyist to argue a topic related to a subject matter that there organization doesn't deal with.

As demonstrated, lobby groups can have wide and varied areas of interest and expertise. To borrow my opponent's metaphor, an auto mechanic may not be a surgeon, but that shouldn't prevent them from having questions and concerns about surgery. To quote my opponent, "[the] Catholic church is in no position to preach about ethics and morals of course this in no way prevents them from doing so..."

Originally posted by xpert11
If the fear of the government taking over is rational then why don't the people that hold this belief oppose the Catholic Church having any political influence? After all the Catholic Church gets its direction from Rome and not anywhere in the US.

As a factual matter, many of the same people who could or would oppose the Catholic church could and would take issue with a policy of mass internment.

Originally posted by xpert11
Are you implying that the likes of Environmental groups and prison reform groups are funded by illegal aliens? If they are funded by illegal aliens is this the reason the groups would oppose interning illegal aliens ?

While it would not be unreasonable to presume that some illegal aliens do make monetary donations to prison reformers and environmentalist, it should be noted that both of those groups could oppose the policy of mass internment on humanitarian grounds. An auto mechanic is not a surgeon, but they are still entitled to disagree with something that surgeon might do on the basis of moral, ethical, or social considerations.

Originally posted by xpert11
The South American governments would oppose any increase in law enforcement officials for same reason they would oppose interning illegal aliens.

I believe you are correct. Their influence, no matter how small, might very well extend to financial support of interest groups inside the United States that would use that money to fund their own domestic opposition to the policy of mass internment.

Originally posted by xpert11
The UN acting as a lobby group? You've got to be kidding. The UN is made up of far to many different “self interest” groups with different agendas to make a effective lobby group.

the United Nations is a large organization made up of hundreds of departmental and sub units, any number of which would have some policy interest in opposing a mass internment program inside the United States.

Originally posted by xpert11
Of course illegal emigrants would oppose this policy its kind of like the only people that fear going to jail are criminals. Legal residents of the United States could also fund lobby groups in favor of interning illegal aliens.

You a correct in assuming that some legal U.S. residents would send money to special interest lobbyists to speak in favor of a mass internment policy. As demonstrated, I submit that those special interest groups in favor of this policy would be in the minority.

Originally posted by xpert11
At any rate neither person on this thread is against detaining illegal aliens the question is where and why they should be detained?

While the need to detain may not be questioned, the method is most certainly in question. Mass detention carries with it too many historical implications of future misdeads.

National Security.
After 9-11 there is no need to present a case about the threat terrorism poses.
However the possibility remains that a terror suspect could enter the US illegally and be detained and still slip thou the net.
Why ?
One law enforcement person is unlikely to have access to all the necessary information from the different agency's to make an informed decision. Interning illegal aliens would allow the person(s) to be screened no matter if it was a state or federal law enforcement official who detained the person(s). In some states local law enforcement officials can detain illegal aliens. Local and Federal law enforcement officials would be able to turn over illegal aliens for processing allowing them to pursue other tasks . source

Originally posted by xpert11
By keeping illegal aliens in central locations terror suspects could be weeded out. Internment camps would also allow a central point for the flow of classified intel and other data that is required when processing an illegal alien(s). The US can simply not afford to risk detained terror suspects from going undetected.

National security, as a function of domestic law enforcement, can be acheived without resorting to a strategy of mass detention that has certain peripheral benefits which can be associated with the actual process of normal and accepted deterrence.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post will conclude the point and counter-point portion of this debate. My opponent and I will now present our closing statements.


Mod Edit: Inserting [quote] tag to make the post readable.



[edit on 19-4-2007 by chissler]

Final Summary.
First I am going to make a few points concerning Justin last rebuttal.
Since there is no consensus amongst US political leaders the possibility remains that political support for the internment of illegal aliens could be build up. An interesting point would which side would be able pour in the most money into the debate I would suggest that legal emigrants ,citizens and residents who support the internment would be in a better position to fund there cause. This would be due to the majority of illegal aliens of South American origin working in low paying jobs.

Things such as an internment camps water supply is heavily depended on the location so there isn't much that can be said on the issue like this one other then that local environmental groups could take up the cause rather then Greenpeace. There is a difference between wanting input into the daily running of internment camps and opposing there existence.

Things such as an internment camps water supply is heavily depended on the location so there isn't much that can be said on the issue like this one other then that local environmental groups could take up the cause rather then Greenpeace. There is a difference between wanting input into the daily running of internment camps and opposing there existence.
A car mechanic might question the medical practices of a surgeon but you are unlikely to see an organization made up of car mechanics questioning the medical practices of a surgeon.
Why ?
The individual has the right to voice there opinion but they don't necessary speak on behalf of an organization that they belong to. An organization can also choose not to fund lobbyists if they choose not to take part in a certain political debate.

Then the question becomes do the groups in question knowingly taking money from illegal aliens ?
If the groups in question are knowingly taking money from illegal aliens then there opposition to internment camps would have nothing to with humanitarian reasons.

With the exception of South American governments who signed NAFTA people outside of the US would be reluctant at best to give money that fuels a political debate in another country. The size of the UN would having no bearing over the fact that the US government would ignore what the UN says. Special interest groups that favor interning illegal aliens would not be the minority that they are made out to be.

Assume that those who oppose emigration entirely and those who advocate open borders with no checks are the extremist. By Justin logic interning illegal aliens is also a middle of the road option the difference being that interning illegal aliens would successfully deal with the problems at hand.

Debate summary .
The claims that interning illegal aliens would be a case of racial biases have been dis proven by myself. Even if the claims of racial biases were true they would prevent any of Justin plans from being put into action.

The economic cost of running internment is proven to be in proportion with there role. My opponent tried to use the figures he presented to prove otherwise.

Note my opponent never answered this question.
In terms of ethics how is it any better to place an illegal alien in what amounts to a jail cell rather then in an internment camp ?

The concept of an increase in law enforcement officials acting as a deterrent was undone by my opponents concept of quotas.

The creditability of an organizations opinion ,An organization reason to get involved and who the US government would listen to have been dealt with see my last two posts for the break down. My opponent fudged the membership numbers in order to create a “big” impression.

In order to get a grip of the other matters raised I invite members to read the debate in its entirety.

Personal Summary
Thanks go to Chissler for running the H2H forum and to the judges for taking the time to judge the winner of this debate. My thanks must also go to my worthy opponent Justin Oldham without him this debate would not have taken place. On a personal level I have enjoyed taking part in the debate.
I would like to encourage readers who don't yet have fighter status yet to give a debate a go.

The United States of American is an ongoing social experiment. It has been called the melting pot of the world. Its government is built on compromises, and its many peoples are still learning how to get along with each other. When we enact national policy, it must be with this spirit of compromise in mind. Mass internment of illegal aliens will alter our social fabric in a way that will forever neutrlaize our ability to make the compromises that are needed to keep our compacts and value in tact.

We know better than to do this. It's a mistake we've already made with one very small segment of our society. If we forget that lesson, we risk making that same bad decision again, with a much larger portion of our population paying the price for that lack of recall and reticence. The logistics are extreme, as is the policy itself. Federal authorities have a long history of NOT giving back the power that they are given. If we allow mass internment of illegal aliens, we will be paving the way for mass internment of legal Americans who may be classified as "in need of incarceration for national security purposes."

The problems associated with illegal immigration have been a century in the making. The right and just solutions, whatever they may be, will take alteast that much time to find and implement. the path we choose matter as much as the journey itself. We can deal with undocumented persons through legal means that we know and trust, or we can revert to heavy-handed methods which we arleady know will not serve us well in the long run. We know what the best choice is, and it doesn't involve barbed wire and the infamous architectures that tyrants can so easily justify.

As of right now, this debate is officially closed and will be reopened when the results are announced.

Thread Closed.

Stay Tuned....

The results are in, and we have a winner!

First of all, I would like to thank both members on their efforts here. This was no easy debate, and it came with a hefty time obligation as well. Both of you deserve a round of applause, as this was a hard fought battle.

Now let's stop beating around the bush and get to what we came for.


Message From The Judges

This was a great debate from both participants, but in making my decision I looked to the following:
- Who was clear and to the point
- Relevant facts and figures
- Sources
- Who Answered questions brought up by opponent in an orderly fashion

xpert11 put up a good debate as well but I felt it was lacking in source material. The source material was often news articles and wikipedia. Im not sure how much that should factor though. I did like one point xpert11 brought up about one of Justin Oldham's sources. The rense conspiracy source was not the best, but xpert11 also used sources from ATS which is similar in fashion.

I believe Justin Oldham's summary was on the weak side, but in the end he was the clear winner in my opinion.

--

IMO, Justin Oldham made the better argument. Kind of. What I really thought was that xpert11 didn't prove that internment camps are necessary to address the issue.

Random thoughts - If I had to argue Justin's position, I wouldn't have relied so heavily on the Japanese internment and would have pressed harder on the financial aspect of such an undertaking. xpert11's plan starts to fall apart when you start picking at the details.

xpert11 just didn't prove that internment camps would be the best way to deal with illegal immigrants. There are so many other ways to deal with this and the idea doesn't seem all that well thought out. I thought he actually did fairly well holding his own, considering the fact that his policy is daft.



Right from the horses mouth guys. Both judges have awarded Justin Oldham with the victory, and have provided some great feedback for both members. Ultimately, that is what the H2H Forum is all about. Sure we all like to win, but if we can walk away from this with some constructive feedback, we've armed ourselves for our next debate. It's all about progress.

So one final congrats to both members!

For your efforts, both of you have been awarded with a substantial amount of points. Just a little thank you from the staff for your efforts.

This thread is now open for any "Fighter" to comment on.

*Walks to podium*

I admit that I did stick to the small caliber ammunition. I wasn't out to absolutely crush him. I didn't see the need to pick any fights over this. I am convinced that he sees the issue his way, and I really am not for such a policy. Passion is good, but I'm not a muckraker.

The financial side of the argument alone would, I think, be enough to win this debate. Using readily available statistics and logic, it would be possible to plow somebody under with raw numbers. I don't think the dollars exist to deal with this problem as suggested.

If you're willing to be partisan, it would be much easier to swamp somebody with the bureaucracy political process arguments. There is no politician in office today who would committ to the kind of spending and legislation tha would be needed to make this policy work as stated.

The Rense article served its primary purpose, which was to demonstrate the stated fears that some Americans do have about the existence and future implementation of "camps" in America. It served a secondary purpose in that it was an emotional tangent that my opponent chose to follow.

Picking the fight early on is a known and accepted tactic. Getting the other guy to foam at the mouth so that he'll make a mistake is a time honored tactic. I just didn't see the need for it. I chose to end my presentaiton with an emotional appeal rather than a factual piledriver so that we could both walk away from this on a positive note.

it takes a lot of courage to argument for something like this. I'd like to conclude my remarks here by acknowledging that Xpert11 had his work cut our for him, and he did not flinch away from it. I'd be happy to debate with him again some time on another topic.