A panel in favor of worker programs for illegal immigrants won the crowd at the 24th biannual Great Debate last night, as experts sparred over a hot election issue in one of Boston University’s trademark deliberations on current events.
The victorious “negative” side – led by Georgetown University policy studies director Lindsay Lowell – refuted the idea that stricter border control is best for the country, saying many immigrants do not return to their countries because it is too dangerous.
The leader of the “affirmative” panel, Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian, said trying to naturalize illegal immigrants should not be an option for the United States.
“This year immigration is a very hot legislative and political issue,” moderator Robert Zelnick, the former head of the journalism department, told The Daily Free Press before the debate at a packed Tsai Performance Center.
Also arguing for the negative were Shuya Ohno, director of communications at Massachusetts Immigrants and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, and School of Management senior Anuj Shelat.
“We are a nation of immigration, and we are also a nation of laws,” Ohno said. “Through our voices we can change the laws.”
Shelat said the government should find the root of the problem and seek viable solutions.
“For this nation to restrict opportunities to other nations,” Shelat said, “that’s not the American way.”
Krikorian said the only way to handle illegal immigration is to wear away at it through law enforcement.
“It would increase the number of people leaving the population and decrease the number of people coming in,” he said.
Krikorian said he supports illegal immigrants being denied the right to work, a move that could force them to leave or be unable to sign leases or hold bank accounts.
The affirmative argument was also supported by Louis Barletta, the mayor of Hazelton, Penn.
Barletta said a law in Hazelton punishes all businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens and fines landlords who rent to them. He said these laws were enacted because of crimes involving illegal immigrants.
“I remember going home and saying to my wife, ‘I’ve lost control of my city,'” he said.
Audience members are asked to choose the winner of the debate on how well they make their case, and not based on personal opinions.
