Immigration debate presented at Penn State Abington campus

A polarized debate on immigration at Penn State University’s Abington campus Tuesday drew a mostly moderate crowd of students.

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, faced off against Enrique Morones, founder of Border Angels, on the controversial subject.

Stein presented an argument for securely enforced borders and a cap on immigration, while accusing his opponent of presenting a smear campaign against FAIR.

“They want to take away from the American people the right to decide who comes into this country,” Stein said. “We do have the right, and what we need to enforce that is common sense solutions.”

Morones, on the other hand, emphasized humane and accessible paths to legalization, and called FAIR a hate group. He lumped Stein’s organization among those who use fear tactics to incite hatred of immigrants, legal and otherwise.

“Organizations like FAIR are steering people in the wrong direction,” Morones said. “It is important for you to study the information, find your own direction, because the future of the country is in your hands.”

Stein stated in his opening that he and Morones have debated frequently on the topic. That didn’t prevent the discussion from getting heated at times.

Morones took the stance of morality and compassion for those who are unable to find a legal way to enter the country, even selling T-shirts at the event that read, “Who would Jesus deport?”

Stein focused on the economic and environmental concerns that result from a growing population, particularly the undocumented subgroup and the chain of family members that could follow them into the country.

“My opponent says if someone is hungry, feed them. If they are thirsty, give them something to drink. The Colorado River Basin is drying up, how many people can we support in this country?” Stein asked.

While the speakers had separate and deeply contrasting views on how to reform immigration policy in the United States, both agreed on only one thing: that the political and public discussions have been “disappointingly polarized,” as Stein put it.

When asked to lay out his preferences for reform, Morones cited a conversation he had with President Barack Obama, and the criteria for legalization they had discussed, including assimilation and learning English, pay a duty to gain citizenship and wait in line for legalization.

“We would rather pay a duty to the country than to a smuggler to get into the country. And we do want to get in line, as long as there is one. If we create a line, one that does not exist right now, we don’t care if it takes 10, 20 or 50 years, we just need a pathway to legalization,” Morones said.

Stein also gave guidelines for what he would consider productive changes to immigration policy, which included cutting off the chain of family members that would follow legalized immigrants beyond spouse and children. He also spoke of increasing enforcement of immigration laws and documenting laborers.

“If you allow employers to have the cheapest and most exploitable workers, then they will. That is why we have a disappearing middle class. We need to have a system that works,” Stein said.

While the speakers themselves spoke passionately about the issues at hand, at their respective positions, the audience was reserved in its support of either Stein or Morones. In a concluding exercise, students were asked to raise their hands to show which debater had a stronger argument. Of the large audience, an equally small number of students and faculty raised their hands for each one.

http://www.montgomerynews.com/articles/2010/10/03/glenside_news_globe_times_chronicle/news/doc4ca29b42282df341178327.txt