addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Debate whether "Undocumented immigrants should be given amnesty".

Our new location is the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, 1155 Island Avenue, Room 229  in downtown San Diego.  Parking is difficult on nearby streets but you can park in the Thomas Jefferson School of Law (TJSL) parking structure.  Going north on 11th Avenue (just south of Island), turn right into the TJSL driveway.  TELL THE GUARD THAT YOU ARE THERE FOR THE SAN DIEGO DEBATE CLUB.

Our debate topic for Friday, July 19th will be whether "Undocumented immigrants should be given amnesty".  The debate starts at 7:00 P.M. and concludes at 8:30 P.M.

Our presenter for the "yes" side will be Ruben Navarrette.  Ruben is a nationally syndicated columnist and editorial writer for the San Diego Union.  He is a former radio talk show host in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Fresno.  He has appeared on "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer" on PBS, "Now with Bill Moyers," "The Chris Matthews Show" and "The O'Reilly Factor."

The presenter for the "no" side is Randy Berholtz.  Randy is an attorney and law professor at the Thomas Jefferson of Law and a former member of the Republican Central committee.

In addition to the presenters, we will have a 2 panels of 3 experts on opposing sides.  Please join us and be part of the audience. We will have a segment of audience participation where you can raise your hand and speak over a microphone to everyone in the room - or you can just observe. If you plan to attend, please RSVP.

Here is a link to a video of our previous debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiPx_1c3EfI

I hope to see you there on the 19th.  If you plan to come, please RSVP.

Bill

 


Join or login to comment.

  • A former member
    A former member

    I am not in the Debate Club. May I attend, regardless? I hear discussions about this topic on talk radio everyday. I am a retiree, enjoy reading political, true crime, & mystery novels. In 1985 I moved from Chicago to San Diego.

    July 18, 2013

    • Evan B.

      I don't see why not

      July 20, 2013

  • Alberto P.

    It was a fun night, but not an enlightened one. I believe the anti-"Amnesty" group was weak. There are serious issues both economically and culturally that need to be aired in a frank, politically-incorrect way. That didn't happen tonight. Maybe we can try this again, without my friend Enrique Morones throwing verbal bombs and a more informed, sophisticated team arguing against the current reform plan. Thanks for the invite!

    Alberto

    1 · July 20, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    AT&T UVerse is down so waiting for tech to come out - hoping he arrives soon and can still make it

    July 19, 2013

  • Matthew P.

    Hi Everyone, Looking forward to the debate this Friday. I have one question/request about the debate structure that I would like to submit to the group: Would it be possible for both panels to stipulate facts/terms that they agree on prior to the debate and then post that list to the discussion board? Or, as an alternative, for each side to post a list of the facts/terms that they will be basing their arguments around? I'm thinking something along the lines of, "For the purpose of this debate, both panels agree that the term 'illegal immigrant' means '(definition here)'." Or, "The panel arguing in support of amnesty is using the following sources and definitions to prepare arguments: '(the list of sources and definitions)'." These lists don't need to be exhaustive and neither side should be limited to using only the sources they post but I think it would be a helpful guide to some audience members (talking about myself here) who aren't experts on the topic.

    Thanks, Matt

    July 17, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    Something has come up and I cannot make to the event.

    July 16, 2013

  • michael h.

    Friday's debate.

    In an honest and forthright debate the words must accurately describe the situation in question. Amnesty for illegal immigrants, not the failure to carry a documents is up for debate. The prompt does not accurately describe the problem. Avoiding truth for fear of offending is demeaning to illegal immigrants. Irrational sensitivity obscures solutions and inhibits frank discussion. Maybe illegal immigrants do deserve some form of legal status over a period of time and after incurring penalties but pretending that they are here legally is delusional. To my friends on the left, have enough respect for the characters and maturity of illegal immigrants to refer to them in an accurate manner. Or do you feel they can't deal with the truth?

    On Friday the word 'illegal' should be used while making arguments. Af If truth is not at the heart of our journey, they we are really going nowhere.

    1 · July 16, 2013

    • Ryan

      I agree, to deny that they are 'illegal' would be irrational. They can be characterized as other things too, beside 'illegals'. They are fathers and sons, and co-workers and a fabric of our community. There is also the degree of their illegality. Laws that are not enforced as stringently as other laws, cannot hold the same weight. And a law, in and of itself, is not necessarily a 'just' law, as this country has witnessed throughout history, until the law is eventually overturn.

      1 · July 16, 2013

  • Phillip M.

    The longer no amnesty, the longer the economy sinks. The economy is people living and spending and working. Denying amnesty is keeping our own "Berlin Wall".

    July 13, 2013

    • A former member
      A former member

      but if you think about it amnesty is just a trick. it's sort of like when the Nazis asking the Jews to come down to the office and fill out some paperwork

      July 16, 2013

  • John K. S.

    I agree with Mike, let's secure the border. Up legal immigration and grow the economy, but not blanket amnesty and an unsecure border.

    July 14, 2013

    • A former member
      A former member

      Hoe does giving someone a dog tag help the economy? Answer; it does not. It ruins the economy because then they would have to pay taxes and remove purchasing power out of their hands.

      July 16, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    The only solution is the market solution, not a government-imposed jobs protection racket.

    July 16, 2013

  • michael h.

    phil,

    As I am sure your know, the Berlin Wall was built to keep people in a communists state not secure a boarder from legal entry. I suggest you also do some research on a topic ignored. The drug cartels are working to escort terrorist across the boarder for big fees. This is serious business.

    Our government has a Constitutional obligation to screen those who enter and punish those who enter illegally. I may agree to some form of amnesty but we can't ignore the law nor let illegals gain legal entry status by jumping in line ahead of those who waited years to come lawfully. We are after all a nations of laws, not emotions.

    We don't ignore the law in America for economic purposes. Mike

    July 13, 2013

No one went

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy