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.

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.