There is no "debate". There are those who are Waving The Bloody Shirt of this girl's death as a means to legitimize anti-immigrant bias..... ...and those of us who exist in the fact-based (rather than emotion-and-group-identity based) universe. There are those who believe in individual accountability for wrong-doing.... ...and those of us who believe in group-accountability for individual wrong-doing.

100% of illegal immigrants are criminals.

Illegal immigrants shouldn't be there [spoiler]it's literally in their name[/spoiler]

Interesting watch if you think immigration (legal) solves world problems.

We have enough criminals as it is. We don't need to import more.

[quote]The problem that people have when attacking the illegal immigrant is because that crime they committed could have been 110% avoidable if we had stronger border security. It shouldn’t even have happened which is why people get pissed.[/quote] Well, the problem with this argument is obvious from the get-go. Namely, you can apply it to virtually every single criminal incident that ever has or will occur. Every criminal incident can be prevented when we argue from counter-factuals. Every incident, we can always say that "if such and such had been the case, this crime would not have occured." What's even worse is that, simply, we [i]do[/i] have relatively strong border security, as well as agencies such as ICE and CBP. So it's unclear if the conditional here is even true. Anyone peddling the idea that we have "open borders" is either intentionally lying to you for some agenda, or they're just ignorant, to be blunt. Moreover, the position here needs to be clarified - how much stronger would our border security have needed to be in order to prevent the girl's death? Until someone can answer this question, I think it's just a meaningless idiom. Stronger border security!! Stronger!!! grrr!!! I address this point a bit further below [quote]The other side of the argument is that citizens commit more crimes than illegal immigrants so we shouldn’t make a big fuss over if he was an illegal or not. But the problem with this argument is that it could and should have been avoidable. Stopping citizens from committing crimes is impossible, no one knows when or how the crime will be committed. But illegal immigrant crime can be stopped if you just stop them from getting into the country. Now I’m not saying the crime will be completely stopped but the chance of it even happening is slowed greatly.[/quote] I'd say that the other side of the argument would be to point out that the only person responsible for her death is the person who actually caused it, which is the killer. I think that's a rational conclusion any person can agree with. - moreover, I'd argue still that "stronger border security", whatever that means, would not have guaranteed this wouldn't have happened. You'd need to demonstrate that, under "stronger border security", her killer wouldn't have been able to get into the country, which is pure speculation it seems because such an argument would have to assume that the killer couldn't just find a way around whatever these "stronger border security systems" are. You [i]have[/i] to assume that in order to make this whole "stronger border security" argument fly. Such an assumption can't be proven, so as far as I'm concerned, this argument is absolutely dead in the water, point blank period You say that stopping citizens from committing crimes is impossible. I'd basically say yes, that's true. So, logically, the same should be the case for illegal immigrants. Remember, "Illegal Immigrants" are, by definition, already in the country. You can't stop an illegal immigrant from entering a country he or she's already illegally immigrated to. This is kind of a small semantics point on one hand, but it is important because it lets us know where we need to focus our sights/efforts. Even though it is extremely difficult, it is far more feasible (and rational) for us to prevent people from coming here than it is for us to hunt down the ones already here and remove them. I'd like to point out that I'm by no means convinced by this liberal argument you provided above, I think it's quite weak and commits the same problem that I see a lot of conservatives make - namely, trying to diminish one issue by highlighting another.

Building a wall is nothing but a waste of money and resources. It would be much better if we Americans increased the punishment when they are found here illegally. If they commit another felony on top of that...the gloves need to come off...

The crime rate for illegal immigrants is 100.0%. Their very presence on US soil without permission, like it or not, constitutes a crime.

Downvoted because not Asterisk.

You write dumb forum stories. Stay in your lane

The problem with your statement is that the US has such a long border that it will never be secure enough. There will always be gaps, holes and work arounds. Not to mention that most illegal immigrants come here legally on work/student visas to begin with.

Illegal immigrants are already breaking the law. ITS IN THEIR NAME. They shouldn’t be protected or get any rights(they shouldn’t be tortured or anything like that but still).

Gladlin already covered how humongous the border is already, and how these "illegal" immigrants were originally legal until their visas expired. Why do you support an idea that costs more when the easiest, and arguably the most cost-effective method to do is to reform the currently flawed and swamped immigration system that the US has right now? It honestly shouldn't take someone over 25+ years to get naturalized in the US, but we still have cases of people who have been here for 30+ years who are still in the system and aren't going anywhere soon. Hell, it took my father almost 30 years to get naturalized, and he was going through the legal process. We spent a lot of money for renewals, going to the embassy, and also ensuring that he wouldn't lose his place in line. I can understand 8-10 years of going through the naturalization process, but 25+ years is overkill. The current immigration system needs to be checked and restructured, and it really doesn't take that much effort to gather data and do comparisons (At least for me, I'm trained in those skills).

This will do nothing to end this debate. Fact is, this will be another hot topic item for politicians to use to help sway voters to them and then get in power and do jack all, just like they normally do. The people who drink their party's Kool-Aid will sing of how their person did so much, because admitting they got duped is too hurtful to their pride. So the cycle will continue and before long a new item will be added and another and another and another, all while these politicians in charge have no one to answer to, exemptions from the laws they make and pass, rob us and our country blind, and then retire fat and wealthy while we continue being idiotic sheep who happily enable the total ass -blam!- of our selves.

This is true and if you try to argue you are blind [spoiler]no offense to blind people [/spoiler]

If you want illegals out of our country based on what they do inside of our country you’re not thinking clearly. The one and only reason illegal immigrants should be kicked out is if they came here illegally by their own choice. Exceptions can be made, in my opinion, when it comes to families who have settled down, raised a family, and contribute to society. No crime should happen. Every single crime should’ve been avoided. The argument that “this crime never would’ve happened if the law was enforced more strongly” is heavily flawed due to the fact that crimes committed by citizens are also applicable to this argument.

Well spoken. Now can you help me with all my English papers? You seem good at writing.

Bananas are tasty