>> Hi, everyone.

Welcome to Both Sides of the Story.

I'm your host, Alan Gionet, from CBS 4.

Thank you for joining us.

Tonight is the third-place match for our consolation bracket.

Students from Eagle Crest High School in Aurora and Range View High School in Aurora battle it out.

Now, let's meet our participants.

First up, Lindsey Troftgruben.

She is a junior from Eagle Crest high.

Here's her story.

>> Life isn't about staying in your comfort zone.

Realizing that for me allowed me to find so much more happiness in everything that I do.

My name is Lindsey Troftgruben.

I go to Eagle Crest High School.

I'm current a junior.

I originally decided to join debate because my mother used to be a debater, and it's been in the family ever since.

>> Lindsey is a very astute debater.

She listens to her opponent's arguments so carefully, and it's through her really strong listening skills that she's able to take apart her opponent's argument really effectively.

>> So, when I'm not debating, I am a very competitive softball player.

I travel all around the United States for softball.

I'm a pitcher and takes up majority of my time.

I want to go into a career in science.

My sister suffers from a disease called FND, functional nerve disorder, so I really want to become a neurologist and help so many like her.

>> You met Lindsey.

Now, if you've been watching the 2021 tournament, you likely expected to see Kimberly Maranda from Hinckley High School, but because of some family travel, she was unable to join us tonight.

But, stepping in to take her place, we have Daniel Torres Diaz, a senior at Range View High School in Aurora and also a member of the Denver urban debate.

Let's meet Daniel.

>> My name is Daniel Torres Diaz.

I'm a senior out of Range View High School.

I was actually forced to join debate by my friend, but once I was in it, I actually found it really interesting, and then it was about a lot of issues that I'm passionate about.

In the future, I want to go into law, specifically immigration law, just because a lot of people like immigrant families like mine and others I know struggle finding good lawyers, so I want to be helpful to communities.

>> Daniel's a natural debater.

He has passion, he has focus, he has so much energy when he speaks.

Not only is he the captain of our speech and debate team, but he's also in my introduction to criminal justice class.

Just to see him engage with concepts that he's really passionate about, it's amazing.

>> I think what motivates me is the need to be successful, like being the first generation student.

No one in my family has gone to college, so that's something that motivates me to keep going.

>> Now, you've met our two outstanding debaters.

Some of the best in Colorado.

Let's go to our illustrious panel of experts, who will offer their analysis of our debate today.

We'll introduce you.

Here are Dominic Dezzutti, host of Colorado Inside Out, the weekly roundtable program here on PBS 12.

He's joined by Ed Sealover, Senior Reporter with the Denver Business Journal, and Sam Batten, the Executive Director of the Colorado Youth Congress.

Let's set our ground rules right now.

Each side will present their case, they'll ask each other questions, they'll have a chance to offer rebuttals as well.

Both students have prepared a pro and con case for tonight's debate.

They don't know which side they'll defend until we have a coin flip right here in our studio.

So, when it is finished, we go back to our illustrious panel for questions.

We find out whom they felt offered the best arguments.

Let's get started.

Here's the issue up for debate today.

It is this.

Should the United States make legal immigration to the US substantially easier and less expensive?

Big controversial issue.

Let's have our coin flip and get underway.

Lindsey, you are to my right.

You make the call.

Heads or tails?

>> Heads.

>> Heads it is.

What would you like, affirmative or negative?

>> I'll take the negative.

>> Negative.

And that means, Daniel, you begin.

The floor is now yours.

Three minutes to state your case in the affirmative.

Go ahead.

>> My name is Daniel Torres Diaz.

I am excited to participate in this debate.

Today, I will be arguing in support of the resolution.

The United States should make legal immigration to the United States substantially easier and less expensive for the following three reasons.

First, because of the status quo, legal immigration is nearly impossible.

The current immigration process has multiple roadblocks that make legal status in the United States unreachable.

Becoming a US permanent resident or a naturalized citizen is a long and costly process.

If we sum up all the specific payments towards acquiring citizenship to the USA, the amount range is somewhere between $4,000 to $11,300, which is money that refugees just don't have.

Additionally, immigrants have to deal with long lines and policies that haven't been updated in years.

According to cato.org, since 1990, congress has not updated the quotas for the legal immigration system.

During that time, the population of the United States has increased 30% and the economy has doubled.

Because of low quotas, immigrants from Mexico and the Philippines have to wait two decades to receive lawful status.

Those who are applying for their green cards now will die before they reach the front of the line because so many applicants have piled up in the backlog since 1998.

Because of these challenges, innocent refugees are losing their lives because they aren't able to receive the refuge of a need in a timely manner, leading to an increase of illegal immigration since right now, legal immigration is just not an option.

In the 2021 fiscal year, with an admission cap of 62,500, only 11,411 were automated, leaving more than five 51,000 spaces that could have been used to save the lives of refugees.

Legal immigration has become inaccessible and the cost is deadly.

Second, we have a moral obligation to help refugees.

Refugees are fleeing from their home countries due to issues like war, terrorism, violence, and many more.

A country as influential as this should offer as much help to refugees.

America has played a role of international leadership in refugees resettlement from countries where US military forces were directly involved.

The US help the refugee Europeans during World War II and helped fleeing refugees from South Vietnam during the aftermath of the Vietnam War.

But now that many countries are dealing with war and corruption like Venezuela and Afghanistan, we aren't offering proper help.

Denial to help refugees stems from xenophobia and racist beliefs that began after 9/11.

To get rid of the stigma, we need to help refugees by making immigration easier.

And third, because it would heavily benefit the US economy.

According to economicshelp.org, that immigration will lead to a growth in the size of the labor force, an increase in the productive capacity of the economy.

Between 1900 and 1915, 15 million Americans arrived in the US, but this was a period of low unemployment and high economic growth.

Immigration was a major factor in the rapid rate of growth.

Immigrants heavily improved the US economy, which is what we need now due to labor shortages caused by Covid-19.

That is why I urge you to vote affirmative.

>> Daniel, thank you very much.

We appreciate it.

Those are your opening remarks.

Now, Lindsey, you have two minutes for questions and cross-examination.

Go ahead.

>> Yes, you talk a lot about refugees and how America is morally obliged to help these refugees.

In our current status quo, you say that we are not helping these refugees.

Do you believe the only way to actually help these refugees by making immigration easier, or do you agree that it would be changing our current status?

>> Well, I think this both because we need to change the current status of the immigration system by making it easier.

That's what the resolve is doing.

That would definitely help refugees be safer.

>> How can we make it easier?

>> By making it easier, it would reduce the costs so it's not as expensive.

By cutting the wait time from 20 years to make it faster so they'll have to wait so long just to get to the country.

>> So, making it easier would be better, but how do we that?

>> Well, by changing the system as it is now, like cutting down costs, making it cheaper, making the process faster, because right now, refugees are waiting a very long time that they don't have.

>> So, you say that we need to make it quicker, and we need to make it better, but how do we make a quicker and better with having the same amount of security as necessary?

>> Well, we already have security.

The only thing that we're changing is making the process faster, so nothing will change in security.

>> That is all.

>> Lindsey, thank you very much.

That's it for those questions right there.

Now the big question, of course, is should the United States make immigration to the US substantially easier as well as less expensive?

Now, Lindsey, in the negative.

The floor is yours for three minutes to state your case.

Go ahead.

>> Webster defines easy as achieved without great effort.

We yearn for easy, but we need to acknowledge that not everything can or should be easy.

Immigration policy is broken.

It is plagued by lack of funding, antique rules, and bureaucracy.

Done correctly, immigration can increase our gross national product, enhance entrepreneurship, stabilize our population numbers, expand innovation, and enhance our society.

Done incorrectly, immigration can cause economic disruption, create a substantial burden on governmental services, disrupt our borders, jeopardize our security, and drain other countries of the talent they need to be successful.

An effective immigration system requires a balance of merit and humanity.

Roughly 2/3 of the green cards issued every year for the relatives of US citizens and lawful permanent residents.

The result has been termed chain migration, in which initiating immigrants who is granted a green card sponsors a spouse, who then sponsors a sibling, and on and on.

Endless chain.

Ineffective as our system is, the outcome of these chains means that immigration is easy for some, but effectively limits our applicant pool.

Our ineffective system fails to consider the economic potential of the candidate diversity, social needs, entrepreneurial skills, etc., all of which should be considered in any effective system.

Such a system must balance the desire to accept the best candidates with the need to accept refugees from natural disasters and political oppression.

A successful immigration system is also one that reduces illegal immigration.

This can be achieved through a combination of work visas, registration systems, and fair and equitable legal hearings.

Reducing illegal immigration does not mean legalizing all immigrants.

Clearly, the easiest option.

It means creating a flexible system that adjusts for economic variation, industry needs, and volumes.

For example, employees under H2A agricultural visas cannot charge workers for housing and etc., even when it is advantageous for both parties to do so.

H2B visas are extremely limited, especially for profit corporations.

The cap of 66,000 has been filled every year since 2015.

This is not a system that should be easy, but a system that should be administered more flexibly and more effectively.

We need to carefully balance the numbers of immigrants that we allow in each year with the economic realities and the resources available to allow immigrants assimilate and secure employment, housing, education, etc.

Unlimited growth is never a good idea in any aspect of society, but neither is absolute rigidity and limits.

We need a system that balances both.

We also need to have a consistent policy that doesn't change every four years with a change in president.

Successful immigration policies must consider merit of the immigrants, need of the economy, required infrastructure from housing to legal support, world politics, and the social family needs of the immigrants.

This is by definition complex and unlikely to be easy for anyone involved.

It can, however, be significantly better, more flexible, and more effective.

We should never sacrifice effectiveness for ease, but we should create a system that works.

>> Lindsey Troftgruben, with thank you very much, Daniel Torres Diaz, your two minutes now for questions and cross-examination.

Go ahead.

>> Are there caps right now in place to stop the issues that you were talking about, like overpopulation and stuff like that?

>> Se see that there are many caps.

However, our current system is not taking into consideration the effectiveness of the person.

For example, economic prosperity and refugees.

We see that the system is not working for any of those and not beneficial in the current status quo.

>> So, what is the system benefit for?

Who does the system benefit?

>> What we see is that most of the green cards given are for families who are already permanent residents and lawful citizens.

So, I would say that the people who are being benefited are only people who have current people in the United States already.

>> What about the family members that have to wait over 20 years just to get a visa?

>> We see that because our system is not effective, that is the reason they are having to wait.

It is not making the system easier, but making it more effective and more strategic in order to effectively get them over here in time and effectively help refugees.

>> So, what would make the system effective?

We can see that so many other systems, such as a point system.

We have seen that be used in Canada.

We see that they take into consideration all of the benefits each immigrant has to offer, and they balance the current needs of the economy.

Is that the best system?

Definitely, probably not.

However, we need to take into consideration other options, and we need to change ours.

However, we cannot make it easier for security benefits and we need to make it more effective rather than easier.

>> So, what would we do to help the countries that are filled with war right now?

And what will we do about the refugees?

>> Right, by adapting our system, we see that we can actually benefit the refugees because our system will be faster.

It will not be easier, but on this new system, we can see that we can actually help those people.

>> All right, we're going to have to wrap up the questions right there.

However, Daniel, now two minutes for rebuttal.

Go.

>> Okay, I just want to take a step back and the resolve this thing that we should make immigration easier and cheaper.

So, it feels like we're arguing the same thing.

Right now, it's not easy, but that doesn't mean that we're just gonna let all immigrants in by making it easier.

There's still caps, there's still quotas, there's still requirements, there's still types of visas for skilled workers.

Actually, as of now, there is no visa for nonskilled workers.

Right now, what we need to think about is the countries that we messed up.

For example, Afghanistan.

The US stepped back.

Now, because of that, the Taliban has been taking over.

Now, we see people holding onto planes trying to escape and there's nothing we can do about it.

So, by making it easier, it's for moral reasons.

We need to help those people that we put in that situation.

We were offering help and now, we're taking it back.

That's now what we're supposed to do.

We need to offer help.

Right now, they spent 20 years.

Even if their family members, they live their whole lives without a visa because it takes so long.

That's what the resolve is trying to fix by making it faster and cheaper so that families don't have to wait that long, and they don't have to resort to illegal immigration.

Aside from that, it won't have any effect on population or the economy as it will actually improve the economy in having immigrants here the legal way.

We'll have a lot of benefits that we're gonna see, especially now with Covid-19.

We're having a lot of struggles with food, job shortages, unemployment rates, and so right now, we need immigrants to help improve those rates.

As we've seen time and time in history, immigrants improve job shortages.

As the fact I said in the 1900s, how the 15 million immigrants helped improve the economy.

So, this is what we desperately need now.

>> All right, Daniel, have to wrap it up there.

Appreciated very much.

We are tangling with the issue of immigration.

Should we make it easier?

Lindsey, you're in the negative.

Three minutes to respond and close.

Go.

>> So, me and my opponent are both agreeing that our current policy is not working, and we need reform.

However, what we are debating on is the definition of easy.

As I defined, Webster defines easy as achieved without great effort.

This means that we would not be putting as much effort into our immigration reform.

However, what we see is that by putting us on a new system, we can make it smarter, more effective, but it will not be easier, and it will not be cheaper.

The problem is not the fact that we need to completely make our system easy.

They would just let everybody in, criminals and people with disease.

What we see is that all of those problems would add up.

We need to think what's best for the United States, what is best for our economy, and what is best for the families and refugees.

What we see that our current system is not working.

We know this.

However, by making it simply easier, we will be putting less effort into these refugees, and we would not just be benefiting the United States, we would be benefiting only certain people because what we see is that we would actually hurt the United States by just like everyone in.

Easy does not mean that we should make everything legal.

However, that is what my opponent is saying.

What we are saying is that we need to have the same amount of effort, and the same amount of security checks, and the same amount of everything, and the same amount of force, but this will not be easier.

We need to reform the system.

We cannot make it easier, and it will not be cheaper.

If we had more filters and more filters, we see that we can actually let in the refugees.

We can take in consideration families.

We can take into consideration so much more.

Me and my opponent are both agreeing on that.

However, we cannot make the system easier.

It would simply be idiotic.

We need to reform the system, but not make it easier.

>> Lindsey, thank you very much.

Daniel, you now have one minute for your close.

Go ahead.

>> Okay, I agree that me and my opponent are saying the same thing, but she thinks that by making the system easier, we're letting all immigrants and not once and that there will be no regulations, but that's just not true.

We're just making it easier and more accessible to refugee families.

Right now, we had 62,500 cap and that wasn't even filled.

Only 15,000 applied, meaning we had 51,000 open spaces because they were able to afford it.

They applied, but they didn't have enough money to go through.

That's what we're trying to solve to make it cheaper so we actually get highly skilled workers and highly skilled individuals in the country because right now, they're not able to do so.

So, by making it easier, we're actually agreeing on the same thing on letting it in.

We're not going to let all immigrants in.

We still have caps, we still have quotas, and we're still going to have regulations.

That's not going to change.

What's going to be made easier is making the process faster and by making it cheaper.

Thank you.

>> Daniel, Lindsey, thank you very much for that excellent debate.

Very complicated, tangled issue.

Well researched.

Let's go to our panel of illustrious experts to get their thoughts on what they saw.

Dominic.

>> Alan, thank you so much.

First of all, Daniel, Lindsey, I want to thank you for participating in this debate, but also, you are tackling an issue that is probably one of the longest issues being debated in the United States.

Probably as this country was coming together, this particular issue was being debated.

So, you have both done a fantastic job, but as you know, this part the debate, your job is not over.

Now, you get questions from the judging panel.

Sam, why don't we start with you with your question for Daniel?

>> Daniel, thank you for your speech.

My question is that, obviously this is a very polarizing issue and I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

Why is it so polarized?

And what might you say to somebody?

What points might you acknowledge from the other side that might be valid?

>> I acknowledge, just like Lindsey was saying, that the system is flawed, but that is because we're not taking into consideration the refugees' needs or we're not taking a look at what is going on.

We're not checking on to see why immigrants aren't applying.

We're not seeing why these quotas are being filled.

So, the reason is because we're not-- because of xenophobic and racist ideas about immigrants are gonna ruin the country and that's just wrong.

>> Ed, let's hear your question for Daniel.

>> Dan, you've made both good points about needing to make the system cheaper and needing to make the system faster for those who are applying, but often times, the reason something is expensive is because there are resources that are needed to make a system more efficient.

So, how can we do both of those at one time?

And is there any worry that making the system cheaper for people to get in is just going to slow it down because we'll have less resources to administer it?

>> I think, as a part of making the system easier, we would also have to put work into having more people working on cases, so that would also be part of it.

I agree that there might be some issues, but right now, we have the privilege to discuss these issues, but people in other countries don't.

They desperately need to get out of those countries, so that's why we need to take action now.

>> Lindsey, it's your turn on the hot seat.

Sam, your question for Lindsey.

>> Thank you, Lindsey, for your speech.

My question is this.

You argue that the immigration system needs to be more effective and more flexible.

Now, if you were to put yourself in the shoes of a family who's trying to move, immigrate to the United States, wouldn't the end result be an easier process for that family?

>> We see that for the person, it does need to be easier.

However, ultimately, the process cannot be easier.

We see that, just as my opponent states, we need to continue these checks.

Maybe we need to hire more people.

However, that inherently makes the system more complex.

We cannot make the system easier overall.

However, by making it more effective, we can make it easier for the immigrant.

We cannot make the entire system easier.

If anything, we need to add more filters and put more charge on the people by checking their background and incorporating these refugees, analyzing every single person, and yes, it would be more complex, not easier.

>> Ed, your question for Lindsey.

>> Lindsey, let me ask this because one of the points Daniel gets to is the idea that we need to make it cheaper.

How do you feel about that in general?

I know you've made good points here about let's not slide everyone through, but just in the cost factor.

Do you feel like the cost is legitimate for the system for the people trying to get in right now, or is that an area that we need to hit as we are looking at making this more effective, not just easier?

>> As we see, with making the system more effective, we would actually be transferring some of the cost over onto the system.

What this means is that by using more of the cost and using the money that we see, we can make it cheaper for refugees.

By putting in these extra filters, we can make it easier for them to be accessed.

However, we cannot make the system cheaper.

We have resources in place, and we have personnel in charge that we need to pay their wages for.

We cannot easier, however, we can analyze the cost and distribute it better so that we are making the same amount.

Not making it cheaper, but making it more effectively adequate for the refugees.

>> Alan, we're a country of immigrants, but how do we do it the right way?

A question we've debated in this country for a long time.

These two students have done a magnificent job.

Now, it's our difficult job to figure out who won this debate.

>> I would love to solve this today in this half-hour program, but I don't know that we're going to do that.

Let's give our illustrious panel a moment to figure out who they felt one this debate.

That gives me a moment to let you know that next week, we're going to bring you the third-place match from our winners bracket.

All part of the big finale of our 2021 season, which ends with the championship matches from both brackets.

That comes up on December 10th and December 17th.

You won't want to miss it.

All right, panel.

Let's go back to you.

I know you're still talking about it and debating it over there.

I could let you go on all day, but we need a decision.

>> We could go on all day, Alan.

I appreciate being able to do that.

Both of you need to realize that you made our job very difficult.

This is a split decision.

Frankly, we probably could debate it for quite a while ourselves, but our job is to pick a winner.

We've decided in a split decision, Lindsey, you have won this debate with specifically, the kind of points that you made within your case.

The specific points and the evidence you brought up, but you both did a magnificent job.

Please both feel a great deal of pride for what you brought to this debate and how you performed on this stage.

Well done.

>> Lindsey, congratulations to you.

Daniel, thanks again for filling in.

This is your first time out here.

We really appreciate a terrific job by both of you.

Wonderful debate you gave our viewers tonight.

Both of you should be very proud.

We're very proud of the both of you as well.

That's all the time we have for our program tonight.

I want to thank our excellent students and our illustrious panel.

And, I want to thank you for tuning in.

It's the support of viewers like you and our sponsors that helps to make this show a reality.

You can catch up on past episodes of this program at pbs12.org, and you can catch me on CBS 4 for all the latest news and information impacting Colorado.

For everyone here at PBS 12, I'm Alan Gionet.

Thanks for watching, and that is Both Sides of the Story.