By Sophia Rowel//On Wednesday Oct. 10, while the general population prepared to watch another riveting presidential debate, Hood College students experienced an exciting debate between Hood College Democrats and Hood College Republicans on the topic of immigration.
On the Democratic side, seniors Gabriel Cassutto and Kaylene Wright presented a fact-based line of reasoning and ethics while the Republican team composed of junior Luke Staley and sophomore Samantha Salus, offered more on the defense of American values and political structure. The heated discussion attracted a large audience and certainly provided comprehendible political observations for the crowd of millennials.
As immigration has become such a heated area in presidential campaigns, both sides were tasked with relaying the stances presented in each respective party platform.
Democrats kicked off the conversation with an introduction that called attention to the historic relevance of immigration in the discovery and founding of the United States. “If we choose the path of fear, we not only alienate millions of innocent people, who strive for a better life for themselves and their families, but we degrade the belief, values, and essence of what is inscribed on the statue of liberty,” Cassutto says leading into a quote from “The New Colossus.”
Samantha Salus introduces the Republican sentiment, stating that while acknowledging that the country was built on such ideologies of immigration, “[Republicans] do not condone illegal immigration as it devalues the exclusivity of America and what it means to be an American.”
While she agrees that America serves as a “humanitarian power” aiding other countries, Salus points out that our obligation lies with the needs of our own citizens first.
The first issue of discussion: current immigration policy. Both Salus and Staley attacked the crime-related danger and economic factors contributing to a need for tighter border control.
Salus cited the recent killing of Kate Steinle that took place in 2015. Juan Francisco Lopez, a seven-times-convicted illegal immigrant was convicted of second-degree murder after shooting and killing Steinle on a San Francisco pier.
Wright and Cassutto considered the roundup of illegal immigrants as proposed by the Republican Party Platform to be “unreasonable considering the financial cost and resources required” suggesting that instead the U.S. should work to create a path to citizenship for law abiding families who contribute to the economy and society.
Support for the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was limited to the Democratic Party; the immigration reform bill from 2013 was also clearly supported.
Staley highlighted that he was a first generation American and that while he wanted other people to immigrate to America, they should go the legal route to do so. To express the necessary exclusivity of American he offered the example, “If you were on a sports team that you really liked, and everyone wanted to be a part of that sports team, you couldn’t just let anyone on the team. Because that wouldn’t make it a good team anymore.”
Cassutto challenged whether the issue was that the people in question were illegal or that they were immigrants, suggesting that if illegal status were the issue than making the path to citizenship less rigorous should offer improvement.
The next phase of the debate, queried each party’s position on the acceptance of refugees. Wright began the discourse by dissecting the common claim of security threat posed by refugees upon entering the country.
“From 2001 to 2015 the U.S. has admitted 784,000 refugees from places such as Syria, Iraq, and Central America into our country,” she goes on to clarify that of those admitted into the country “only three of them have been arrested for suspected terror related activity.” None of the three successfully carried out a plot.
The rigorous nine-step two-year vetting process set for Syrian refuges is the most-strict system in place for any persons entering the country.
Staley recognizes the obligation to support the war torn country but doesn’t believe we should allow large masses of the people into the country. He further asserts that followers of Islam are “less likely to assimilate to Western values and more likely to become radicalized,” pointing to the final verses of the Quran as a reference, concluding that it is ultimately dangerous to allow them into the U.S.
The Republicans then point to Sweden, the proposed “rape capitol of Europe,” as an illustration of such danger after the country was expected to take as many as 160,000 refugees.
Cassutto quickly challenged this approach, indicating that the surge of rape in Sweden had less to do with Syrian refugees and more to do with the expansion of the country’s legal definition of rape. “There are over 1.4 billion [Muslims] in the world. Less than .005% of them are militant… and extremists,” he cites regarding the claim of radicalized Islamists.
Wright chimed in explaining, “These [refugees] are afraid of what we’re afraid of,” identifying that their country is being attacked by militant Islamists and while they may be of the same faith, they obviously carry separate interpretations.