Students Pack Tsai for Great Debate on Immigration Policy
By William Hinkle
BOSTON--Supporters of immigrant rights and temporary worker programs emerged victorious in the Great Debate on Wednesday night. Hosted by Boston University, the 24th Great Debate posed the question, “Can stricter law enforcement at the border and the workplace solve the U.S. illegal immigration problem?”
Led by B. Lindsay Lowell, the director of policy studies at the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University, the winning “negative” side argued for comprehensive reform that would include legalizing or granting amnesty for the country’s 12 million illegal immigrants, ridding the system of the backlog of immigrants waiting for legal status, and instituting temporary worker programs.
Lowell was joined on the “negative” panel by Shuya Ohno, the Director of Communications for the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, and Anuj Shelat, a senior in the B.U. School of Management who stressed that America should help develop a stronger Mexico to curb the immigration problem.
“We need to end agriculture subsidies and stop unfairly exporting our problems to other nations,” Shelat said.
The “affirmative” side was led by Mark Krikorian, executive director for the Center of Immigration Studies, a non-profit, non-partisan research organization in Washington, D.C. Krikorian presented “attrition through enforcement” as the only workable solution. The goal of “attrition through enforcement” is to increase the number of illegal immigrants leaving the country and decrease the number entering.
In order to achieve their goal, Krikorian and the “affirmative” team proposed a two-front attack – stricter enforcement on the border and in the workplace. Emphasizing that all people respond to incentives, Krikorian concluded, “Enforcement inside the country and on the border will make it less attractive here and induce some illegal immigrants to deport themselves.”
Lowell countered by saying, “Enforcement cannot be the only solution. It is not a panacea.”
Stephanie Hoffman, a first year law student at B.U., and Mayor Louis J. Barletta of Hazleton, Penn. argued with Krikorian for the “affirmative.” Barletta’s presentation focused on anecdotes of crime and murder that he said were committed by illegal immigrants Hazleton, the first town in the country to pass legislation that punished businesses and landlords who knowingly hired or harbored illegal immigrants.
Not quite at its maximum capacity of 525, the Tsai Performance Center was mostly filled by students, in addition to professors and concerned citizens. The crowd lauded Shelat, Barletta, and Ohno with cheers of “Hear! Hear!” and also hissed, “Shame!” to Ohno.
During the contributions from the floor, eight members of the audience sided with Lowell and the “negative” side whereas six voiced their support for Krikorian and the “affirmative.” The question, which will be one of the major issues of the 2008 election, engendered passionate and thought-provoking responses from both sides of the debate.
Although the “negative” side of the debate won and garnered more crowd support, it was a close contest in which many members of the crowd recognized the strong arguments presented by both sides.
Andy Birosak, a 21-year-old senior in the College of Communication, said the outcome should have been different, however. “Although I agree with the ‘negative’ policy-wise, I don’t think that team answered the question and should have lost the debate.”
Samantha Hoy, also a 21-year-old senior in the College of Communication, disagreed, “I don’t think either team answered the question because I don’t think the question has an answer. The ‘negative’ team framed their debate better and that is why they won.”
