One of the key questions in the broader immigration debate concerns the number of immigrants allowed to legally enter the United States each year.  Immigration advocates, including some business leaders, generally argue that numbers should go up. Those who would restrict immigration, including some labor unions, advocate for legal immigration numbers to be cut. These resolutions are likely to spur a debate not only about which way, but about how much, and why?

You should choose either “reduce” or “raise” in your resolution; this will be the affirmative side in your debate, while the other will be the negative. We suggest split-testing each version of this resolution to gauge which will more evenly divide your community.  Keep in mind that to oppose raising numbers does not mean that one is necessarily for reducing them and vice versa.

Another key question in the broader immigration debate concerns who the beneficiaries of immigration policy should be.  The current system leans heavily toward family sponsorships (more than 60% of all green cards); these include not only spouses and minor children, but extended family as well.  Less than 17% of all green cards are granted based on a job offer, investment, or other economic-related criteria.  While the majority of sponsors for family-based green cards are themselves U.S. citizens, the immediate beneficiaries of this type of migration are the families. This dramatically increases the number of immigrants who enter the country each year.

This resolution is likely to lead to a discussion about just who we let into our country and why—and through that, how we balance competing values.  It puts forward a dichotomy between two major concerns and the policies that emphasize each.  If you would like to look at the economic impact more broadly, consider as an alternative, Resolved: Immigration to the United States should be mainly based on economic considerations.

Immigration is the main driver of U.S. population growth. Many in favor of restricting immigration seek to maintain a desired level of population or population growth that they consider sustainable, with sustainability defined in any number of ways, such as by resource consumption or social acceptance and assimilation. Others might argue for limits based on some measure of economic need, including the demands of the job market or demographic trends like an aging population.  Still others argue for a much more open immigration policy, noting major benefits from immigration to the country as a whole or the difficulty determining what the “right level” is.  This is a foundational debate in the overall conversation about where immigration policy should go.

This resolution offers an alternative to direct questions about deportation. Those arguing in the affirmative are likely to make the case that, contrary to popular belief, there are few options for undocumented immigrants to legalize their status.  Those arguing in the negative are likely to argue that this policy will encourage others to come illegally.  Speeches could also touch on the rule of law, questions of fairness, and forgiveness for those who have become members of American communities.  The conversation as a whole will likely get at how to balance the different values that Americans hold to create a solution for this seemingly intractable problem.

Note that we offer two suggestions for the language in this resolution.  Neutral language is best when possible, but sometimes, there are only two charged alternatives.  In such cases—and this is one of those—we suggest you use the language that appeals most to the minority view in your community or to the side that you seek to attract to your debate.  This can help those who hold unpopular views feel more welcome and encouraged to speak.

Some states and localities want to restrict immigration to their communities and to play a bigger role in enforcement. Others want to welcome immigrants and reduce or deter immigration enforcement in their communities. Should states and localities be able to pick and choose which parts of the immigration system they like, or should there be one federal policy?  What about allowing states and localities to sponsor immigrants to come there to meet labor needs? (There have been many proposals in the past for state-based visas.)  Should states and localities be required to participate in immigration enforcement, even if it hurts other community policing interests?

This resolution brings the debate close to home and will likely lead to a lively discussion in communities where there are large numbers of immigrants.  It will also appeal to those who are interested in conversations about federalism, which may be especially attractive to Reds.

The US permanently resettles more refugees from around the world than any other country. Since the 1960s, US immigration policy has leaned toward welcoming those fleeing violence and persecution, and we have always allowed for those who reach our shores the ability to ask for protection.  In recent years, however, this has been increasingly challenged, both at our border and from overseas.  This resolution would allow for a robust debate on where things stand now and perhaps get some ideas for where it should go.