The College Democrats and College Republicans offered differing plans on how to handle the issue of illegal immigration at a debate yesterday in Mary Graydon Center.
The Republicans said they wanted to increase border security through a variety of methods, including expanding border walls and unmanned monitoring drones.
"The United States' immigration policy is the most liberal in the globe, offering more visas than any other nation state," the Republicans said in their opening statement. "Preserving the integrity of America's large, open door policy to legal citizenship can only happen when any 'back doors' are securely shut."
The Democrats said they supported a path to "earned citizenship" for illegal immigrants already in the U.S., as well as using a guest worker program to allow immigrants to enter the U.S. legally.
"We support more practical and cost-effective border control, but we also support more comprehensive reforms that protect our borders while providing practical and fair solutions for the illegal immigrants already in our country," the Democrats said in their opening statement.
Dorian Key, a freshman in the School of Public Affairs and the School of International Service, said current immigration methods have actually promoted illegal immigration.
"We do not have a stable population increase," Key said. "We have illegal immigrants who cross the border, by-stepping jurisdiction, by-stepping legal methods of coming here. That creates a lot of problems in the status quo we have right now. Our side is saying we have a problem that needs to be fixed."
Jong Eun Lee, a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences and editorial columnist for The Eagle, said that while the current system does not work, the best course of action is to try to reform it.
"I believe that the way to go about it is not simply to erect a fence or increase border patrols," he said. "We have to look carefully at our legal position and come to this obvious fact - we cannot close the door on more immigrant workers because we need them to sustain our economy."
Luke Kraus, a freshman in SPA, said the illegal immigrants already in the country would not automatically lose their jobs under their reform plan.
"We're not going to just pass these laws and then suddenly these people are going to be without a job and start rioting," he said. "The current illegal immigrants are going to keep their jobs for some time. But as it gets harder, they're not going to have their jobs, and they'll have to go somewhere else to find a job."
Evan King, a sophomore in SIS, said the point of the guest worker program is to allow immigrants to come into the U.S. temporarily.
"The idea of the guest worker program is that they can come here under the supervision of American laws, do the jobs that they want to do, go back home and are then able to contribute to the livelihood of their families," he said.
Students who attended the debates came away with differing opinions on which party had the better immigration plan. Annika Pettitt, a freshman in SIS, said she felt the Democrats were more effective at closing the debate.
"I think that based on the arguments presented, both sides were equal," she said. "However, I think the Democrats were more effective in presenting their closing argument."
Will Haun, a sophomore in SPA and vice president of the AU College Republicans, said he felt the Republicans presented a better argument.
"I felt the Republicans were the only ones that actually presented a vision in the debate," he said. "The Democrats were simply acting as the party of 'no' and using some Republican talking points to bolster their position."
The debate was co-sponsored by the College Democrats and the College Republicans.
