This past Tuesday, College Democrats and Republicans hosted their first debate. In a packed Kidde 360, students and professors got to witness a professional and organized discussion about three hot topics in today’s political climate: climate change, gun control, and immigration. Representing the College Democrats were Alex Loucas, Sean Hicks, Kerim Karabacak, and Alyaa Elkhafif. On the side of the room, the College Republican representatives were Thomas Moran, Robby Russo, Justin McCarthy, and Jackson Hudgins. Alongside the debaters were Professor Mullen, Professor Cormack, and Professor Cattabiani, serving as mediators in both asking critical questions and in upholding the rules of the debate.
Each side first delivered an opening statement, answered a question from each mediator, asked the opposing side one question, and ended with a closing statement all under a certain amount of time.
As an effect of the prevailing political climate in the United States, identification with a political party or ideology has become the norm. In light of these divisive times, the College Republicans and Democrats organized the event in order to hold a respectful and insightful discussion to emphasize tolerance, freedom of opinion, and spark conversations amongst their peers in the student body.
Opening the night was the discussion about climate change: how each party perceives the issue, and their ideas on how to combat it. Both the College Democrats and Republicans established their view that climate change is, indeed, “human-made.” In addition, resolutions such as shifting federal/state subsidies and removing tax breaks from the “dirty fossil fuel” while incentivizing companies to invest in renewable energy were agreed upon.
However, the two broke apart when it came to the accuracy of scientific predictions and its severity, the amount of involvement of the government, and its place in foreign policy. In particular, a major point of disagreement surfaced about the Paris Climate Accord. “We should rejoin the Paris Climate Accord. If we believe that we can make the goals that are set by the Paris Climate Accord and we agree with them already, then why not rejoin? It’s a statement of goodwill. The entire world got together and said this is an issue we have to tackle.”
Due to skepticism of the severity and consistency of scientific predictions and potential for economic detriment, if extreme actions by the government are taken, College Republicans heavily disagreed with the notion of rejoining. In the accord, according to Russo, though it was not a binding accord, President Barack Obama promised extreme climate change reforms while countries like China did not. In fact, the United States has cut the most emissions out of every country in the world, according to the College Republicans.
In their opening statements, the two parties separately highlighted the two major critiques relating to the issues of gun violence and gun control: loose gun laws enforcement and the lack of mental health treatment for potential aggressors. The Democrats believe that loopholes in the system in purchasing a firearm, for instance through the private sector, gun shows, or through family, align with the lack of a federal standard for background checks at the heart of the gun violence issue. College Democrats representative Karabacak stated, “every day, hundreds of people die from gun-related death across the U.S. It is a tragedy that is uniquely American […] It is no question that gun violence is a problem but the real question is how do we solve [it].” Despite their concern with gun violence, representatives of the College Democrats established that they are not against the second amendment but are rather trying to reduce gun violence.
On the other hand, the College Republicans, who wholeheartedly support the right to bear arms, acknowledge the gun violence problem in the country and do agree that the system of background checks needs to be improved. They believe that the United States needs better-educated gun owners, but, more importantly, a fix to the mental health crisis. Both parties pointed to this issue during the debate; some statistics quoted were that 6 out of 10 gun deaths are suicides, and 2 out of 3 mass shooters showed signs of mental health issues with most showing signs before committing the act. Though the Democrats support having mental health evaluation being apart of the background checking process, they hope that Republicans will support health care that can offer that, given that most Republicans were against Obamacare.
The final topic for discussion for the night centered around immigration. Beginning their opening statement with the plaque on the Statue of Liberty, College Democrat Alyaa Elkhafif established the party’s support of illegal immigrants and for the protection of the path for children of illegal immigrants to citizenship, making the strong remark, “The system is broken, it is backlogged, and it needs immediate fixing.” Likewise, Moran of the College Republicans cleared up a Republican misconception during his part of the debate:
“We are not anti-immigrant. We do not hate people because of their country of origin. However, the government of the United States of America exists solely to defend the interests of American citizens. Those who cross the border illegally — those who do not register themselves with the United States of America — are not American citizens, [and] therefore are not protected by the American government.”
Both parties agree that immigration has benefited the United States in several ways, such as bringing cultural diversity and economic development through labor and inventions. However, when speaking upon the immigration process, the Democrats criticized its restrictive nature:
“One of the primary actions undertaken by the Trump Administration has been to try to enact a merit-based immigration system […] it discriminates against less-skilled immigrants […] that goes contrary to many waves of immigrants that the United States has laid home to, where most come in as unskilled and low paying wage working […] they represent the backbone of the American economy.”
Though when it came to speaking about border security and its relationship with the illegal immigration happening at the southern border, either for a better life or for trafficking of illegal goods, they agreed on the fact that the United Staes has the right to secure its borders, but disagreed on the whether the wall was both physically and economically efficient.
Lastly, the two parties were asked about their opinions on amnesty, which the United States had last done when Republican Ronald Reagan was President. The two parties came to an agreement and would grant amnesty to hardworking and law-abiding illegal immigrants to become citizens, while still maintaining their border laws.
The debates were ended with handshakes and enthusiasm being exchanged between the opposing teams. Satisfied with their successful discussion, Russo alluded to there possibly being another debate in the upcoming semester. Despite the way both parties have been represented throughout the past decade, the individuals representing their selected parties proved to be both educated and able to share opinions with the other party. Even during the debate, party members explicitly stated stances that would normally be seen as unorthodox. If you missed the first debate, it can be accessed through YouTube, thanks to SITTV’s efforts to livestream and record the event. If you are interested in getting involved with the College Democrats or Republicans, their contact information can be found through DuckLink.
Be First to Comment