My verdict
Sorry it took so long for my verdict to get here. I didn't want to read that novel until I was off the percocet.
badlydrawnjeff
Pros: Good suggestion about use of satellites and more Border Control agents along the Rio Grande and Mexican border. While cargill was right to point out that this would involve a sizable cost, it's a reasonable solution to suggest. Also a good job dealing with the relatively silly entertainment industry argument put forth.
Cons: I don't think there was enough initial consideration of the effects of completely sealing the borders (or sealing them with very limited exceptions). Also, there wasn't much of a "wholly new" immigration policy laid out, which would be necessary (per BDJ's argument) to unseal them. In addition, the example of international students forcing American students to be shut out of college altogether simply can't happen; every state has numerous open-enrollment colleges. They may be branch campuses of larger universities or community colleges, but one can always transfer after a year or two.
cargill
Pros: I disagree that closing our borders and re-examining our policy on immigration will have the desired effect on these issues and in turn I feel doing so will ultimately only harm us as a nation in both the short term as well as in the long. Very well put, especially when put in context of the specific problems raised. Good job pointing out BDJ's contradiction between closing the border and pretty much ignoring the Canadian border. The concentration on the economic effects of closing the border was well-considered.
Cons: As with BDJ, not terribly much in terms of what can be done to truly reform the system, which seemed to be the way the topic was framed. The entertainment examples, with the exception of the economic effects discussions, weren't all that helpful (for example, I have to question whether we'd really be worse off if BNL, Moby, and Fatboy Slim were all sent home), as they were more a matter of taste than tangible effects.
Overall, this was an excellent debate. Hopefully, it won't be as long next time. In the final judgement, I have to go with cargill. badlydrawnjeff took an extreme initial position without, it seemed to me, fully considering the effects that his recommendations would have, and that put him in a sizable hole to begin with. cargill did a more thorough job of explaining why sealing the borders was bad than BDJ did of why it was good, and that's what it came down to for me.
badlydrawnjeff
Pros: Good suggestion about use of satellites and more Border Control agents along the Rio Grande and Mexican border. While cargill was right to point out that this would involve a sizable cost, it's a reasonable solution to suggest. Also a good job dealing with the relatively silly entertainment industry argument put forth.
Cons: I don't think there was enough initial consideration of the effects of completely sealing the borders (or sealing them with very limited exceptions). Also, there wasn't much of a "wholly new" immigration policy laid out, which would be necessary (per BDJ's argument) to unseal them. In addition, the example of international students forcing American students to be shut out of college altogether simply can't happen; every state has numerous open-enrollment colleges. They may be branch campuses of larger universities or community colleges, but one can always transfer after a year or two.
cargill
Pros: I disagree that closing our borders and re-examining our policy on immigration will have the desired effect on these issues and in turn I feel doing so will ultimately only harm us as a nation in both the short term as well as in the long. Very well put, especially when put in context of the specific problems raised. Good job pointing out BDJ's contradiction between closing the border and pretty much ignoring the Canadian border. The concentration on the economic effects of closing the border was well-considered.
Cons: As with BDJ, not terribly much in terms of what can be done to truly reform the system, which seemed to be the way the topic was framed. The entertainment examples, with the exception of the economic effects discussions, weren't all that helpful (for example, I have to question whether we'd really be worse off if BNL, Moby, and Fatboy Slim were all sent home), as they were more a matter of taste than tangible effects.
Overall, this was an excellent debate. Hopefully, it won't be as long next time. In the final judgement, I have to go with cargill. badlydrawnjeff took an extreme initial position without, it seemed to me, fully considering the effects that his recommendations would have, and that put him in a sizable hole to begin with. cargill did a more thorough job of explaining why sealing the borders was bad than BDJ did of why it was good, and that's what it came down to for me.