Story and photo by Carrie Pinkard
The USF St. Petersburg College Democrats and Turning Point USA returned to their podiums for a second debate last week. It proved to be more formal— and more popular— than their first.
Instead of the small Student Life Center multipurpose room, the event was held in the University Student Center ballrooms. The groups traded casual jeans and t-shirts for business attire, and Turning Point USA’s one “Make America Great Again” hat became three.
The topic of the debate, moderated by Community and Civility’s Naya Payne, was immigration.
“Let me first start by saying, build the wall and build it tall,” said Turning Point USA President Kacy Cartmell to kick off the debate.
“Our club stands firmly against illegal immigration in all forms, whether overstaying visas or coming across the Southern border,” she continued.
College Democrats President Trevor Martindale began his opening statement by criticizing President Trump’s “divisive rhetoric” surrounding immigration. He said using words such as “illegals” and referring to immigration as an “invasion” demeans immigrants.
“We must humanize immigrants and find a humanitarian solution to immigration,” Martindale said.
One of the first questions was whether employers should be punished for hiring undocumented immigrants.
“I think immigrants, whether they’re legal or illegal, should be able to get jobs. I think if an employer unknowingly hires someone who is undocumented they shouldn’t be reprimanded for that,” said College Democrats Vice President Karla Correa.
“All I have to say is if you do something illegal in this country, there are consequences,” said Turning Point USA’s Vice President Lexi Bishop. Her response got a smattering of applause from the crowd.
Debaters were also asked whether they thought Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE, should be abolished.
“I do believe that we should abolish ICE,” Correa said. “If we don’t abolish it, it needs to be completely reformed. A lot of immigrants are getting deported just for being undocumented. They’re not committing criminal acts, they’re just undocumented.
“ICE was established to arrest felons, not families, and they’re breaking this. If they’re not holding up their part of the bargain, we should abolish them.”
Cartmell disagreed.
“We should not abolish ICE,” she said. “They have a job to do. I get that separating families is bad but it definitely did not start with this president.”
The conversation then turned to immigration detention centers. Martindale said these centers are vastly underfunded and often harbor inhumane conditions.
“You see videos of little kids crying and people screaming for help. You see them explaining that they’re malnourished, explaining that they’re being abused either physically or sexually by employees of the centers,” Martindale said. “I think in an ideal, humanitarian approach, we would not underfund these centers and let these people be treated like they’re not human.”
“If the country wasn’t 22 trillion dollars in debt, maybe we could find the extra funding for it,” Bishop responded.
Payne asked the students if immigrants can ever fully assimilate to American culture, again getting mixed responses from the groups.
“I think America is built on having multiple cultures, being extremely diverse and celebrating those cultures together,” Martindale said.
“Just last week, I had a customer come into my store and they yelled at my coworker because my coworker did not know how to speak Spanish,” said Turning Point USA Secretary Andrew Vandenburg. “The customer didn’t know how to speak English, and refused to learn, but they called my coworker stupid because they didn’t know how to speak Spanish.
“That’s not American. If you are in America, you speak English, OK?”
The groups were asked what they think of President Donald Trump’s plan to build a border wall along the southern border of the United States.
“There’s only so much we can do,” Bishop said. “If building the wall is one of those things, then by all means build the wall.”
Correa disagreed, calling the wall a “physical representation of the cultural and racial insults the president has used since the beginning of his campaign announcement.”
“It is a wasteful expenditure of taxpayer dollars,” she said. “It endangers wildlife, and it stamps on property rights of people in Mexico and the United States.”
While the debate was politically charged, it was never hostile. The audience seemed to diffuse the tension through laughter instead of rage.
One new feature of this debate was that the floor was opened to audience members to ask questions. Many more hands were raised than time allowed, but after a few questions and closing statements, the debate concluded.
Given the success of the event, and the passion of the participating students, it’s likely the next debate is right around the corner.
Excellent!! Very informed students