Lucien KnechtliIn-class Debates
On the side defending the existence of sanctuary cities, I believe that a proposed “safehaven” for illegal immigrants should not exist, at least in the form that it does right now. Theyargued that a large portion of the workforce is currently composed of illegal immigrants, and thatthe removal of these safe havens would result in the deportation of that workforce, crippling our economy. I agree that deporting these individuals would damage our economy to a certainextent, but I disagree with the assumption that every illegal immigrant would immediately bedeported. Sanctuary cities are simply where a city ignores the law set forth by the federalgovernment, which creates an undesirable dual-federalism state of government. Rather thanestablishing certain areas where people are exempt from federal law, or at least affected by it to alesser degree, the issue should be confronted in a manner which follows a legal path. By protecting or ignoring the presence of illegal immigrants, cities are encouraging people to break or ignore federal laws which they believe to be unjust or simply a hassle to follow. They shouldinstead attempt to change the law which they are protesting against. On the side of theopposition however, I have an issue with assumption that deporting a criminal when he isarrested is a desirable outcome of removing sanctuary cities. Simple deportation would not solvethe crime problem, nor will it solve the problem of illegal immigration. Criminals should betreated the same whether or not they are citizens, and be forced to serve the full term of their punishment.
In this debate, the supporters and objectors were arguing for and against entirely differentsystems. The opposition claimed that the health care bill called for a universal health caresystem which would adversely affect the average citizen, while those who were arguing for the bill claimed that it was simply the establishment of a cheaper alternative to the current insurancecompanies which would not affect the health care itself in any way. On the side of the proposers,I heartily agree with their statement that the establishment of these cooperatives would create amuch-needed alternative to the current expensive health care plans currently available. It wouldlessen the load for programs such as Medicare / caid because people who would normally resortto relying on them would be able to afford switching over to these new, cheaper programs. Inthe end, the government would in fact be playing the role of an insurer in some cases, rather thana service provider, and would be able to pour less money into programs to support those whocannot currently afford health care and promote other ventures which need the money more. Theopposition stated that complex systems such as health care should not be handled by the federalgovernment, referring to inefficient organizations such as the DMV and IRS, but in reality, thesecooperatives would be run in the same way that normal companies are, just providing a cheaper service. The current health care system is highly corrupt, with doctors referring to insurancecompanies about whether or not they should conduct a certain diagnosis, placing the lives in thecompanies hands, rather than the much more capable ones of the doctor on the scene. In additionto this, they claimed that this was a solution to the negative influence that health care insurance