# data[].attributes.body
Template of Templates

In recent discussions of the New York Immigration crisis, a controversial issue has been whether to put a limit on length of stay in shelters. On the one hand, some argue that that is inhumane and they should build more shelters. From this perspective, it would cost tax payers countless money. On the other hand, however, others argue that we need to move them away from the city. In the words of the right, one of this view's main proponents, "The city has projected the cost of the migrant crisis will rise to $12 billion by the 2025 fiscal year… ‘The simple truth is that longtime New Yorkers and asylum-seekers will feel these potential cuts — and they will hurt,’. According to this view, everyone will feel the struggles of the crisis. In sum, then, the issue is whether we stop immigration or pay to accommodate.

My own view is that the federal law is too flexible to prevent criss. Though I concede that we should have immigrants, I still maintain that the volume of which they come in is the deciding factor. For example, Shelters run out of space the faster and faster they come in. Although some might object that the city is at fault for not being prepared, I would reply that the city is limited in resources and nobody can prepare for that much. The issue is important because both long time citizens and new migrants will feel the horrible affects.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of the NYC Migrant crisis, a controversial issue has been whether the city Mayor, Eric Adams should impose a 60/30 day policy of housing. On the other hand, however, others argue that instead Adams should allocate more funding towards the city's outdated migrant system, and allow for the incoming people to become acquainted with family and jobs. In the words of Anne Willams-Ison, one of this view's main proponents, "Looks like about- less than 50% of the people are coming back after those time limits, but we'll know more about those in the coming days-." According to this view, the idea that time limits is working. In sum, then, the issue whether there should be a policy on how long one can stay in the migrant facilities or if they should overhaul the system and create more space is statistically leaning towards the policy side.

My own view is that both of these should be put into effect. Though I concede that I am no expert, nor do I quite grasp how much effort that would take from both parties to not only overhaul the system, but also allow for a policy, I still maintain that there needs to be more space, but also be a set limit that one can use these resources. For example, there will always be migrants, and today there will be more than ever, so the system would need to be expanded to accomodate them as well as a policy to prevent them from taking up space that incoming migrants desperately need. Although some might object that I have no idea what I am talking about, I would reply that if you simply look at the data and look at what we have to offer incoming migrants, we are in some trouble. The issue is important because as a nation founded on immigrants, explorers, and dreams of a better life, it is our duty to see it through that others can have that same opportunity coming here today.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of __________, a controversial issue has been whether _______________. On the one hand, some argue that ________________. From this perspective, ________________. On the other hand, however, others argue that _________. In the words of X, one of this view's main proponents, "_____________." According to this view, __________. In sum, then, the issue is whether ____________ or ___________.

My own view is that __________. Though I concede that ______________, I still maintain that ______________. For example, ________________. Although some might object that _________________, I would reply that _______________. The issue is important because ________________.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of the migrant crisis in New York City, a controversial issue has been whether the city aid shelter should move on from adult migrants after 60 days of trying to connect them with their families and a place to live. On the one hand, some argue that the aid shelters need to stand by their motto of a "home for all people". From this perspective, New York City would need billions in additional funding in order to keep aiding the migrants with proper living accommodations. On the other hand, however, others argue that New York doesn't have the resources to continue to aid migrants for extended periods of time without the people being adversely affected. In the words of Mayor Adams, one of this view's main proponents, "New Yorkers are angry and frustrated, and they’re right to be. I am too." According to this view, the increased cost due to the migrants will not only affect the wallets of the people of New York City but the living conditions of their everyday lives. In sum, then, the issue is whether the local government should aid the migrants for longer than 60 days at the cost of the taxpayers, or they should prioritize the people and not provide housing after 60 days.

My own view is that the federal government should step in not only financially, but to relocate many of the migrants to proper housing outside of the city. Though I concede that some migrants have family inside the city, I still maintain that they should be relocated outside the city, for example, they would have a proper traveling distance that is still acceptable to visit family members. Although some might object that they should live with their family, I would reply that it is affecting the families that we already living in NYC. The issue is important because it affects not only the people of NYC but also the migrants, taxpayers, and everyday life for everyone in NYC.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of the NYC migrant crisis, a controversial issue has been whether there should be a limit on how long the migrants get free housing. On the one hand, some argue that the migrants have been through enough. From this perspective, advocates believe that the migrants should get free housing. On the other hand, however, others argue that the migrants are hurting the economy and need to leave. In the words of Politico one of this view's main proponents, "Days after declaring [that] the migrant crisis would destroy New York City, Mayor Eric Adams warned agency heads they must slash their budgets by 15 percent by next spring to compensate for increasing asylum-seeker costs… “The city has projected the cost of the migrant crisis will rise to $12 billion by the 2025 fiscal year… ‘The simple truth is that longtime New Yorkers and asylum-seekers will feel these potential cuts — and they will hurt,’ Adams said in a prepared speech that coincided with a City Hall press release released Saturday. ‘New Yorkers are angry and frustrated, and they’re right to be. I am too.’  According to this view, the migrants are hurting the city. In sum, then, the issue is whether citizens care more about the migrants or themselves.

My own view is that we should not house the migrants. Though I concede that they have been through a lot, I still maintain that it is damaging our cities and bad for the economy. For example, we as Americans are paying for the migrants through taxes. Although some might object that its worth it and we're barely paying anything, I would reply that it's my money nevertheless and there should be no reason the government is using it to pay for illegally emigrated migrants. The issue is important because it affects our borders, economy, ect.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of border security, a controversial issue has been whether the border is truly secure or not. On the one hand, some argue that it is secure and we aren't letting many illegals in. On the other hand, however, others argue that we let in too many illegal aliens and our borders aren't secure. In the words of the left, one of this view's main proponents "the surge of migrants crossing the southern border has overwhelmed NYC." According to this view the borders are not secure enough. In sum, then, the issue is whether the border is secure or not.

My own view is that the border isn't secure enough. Though I concede that a lot of immigrants are stopped at the borders, I still maintain the borders let too many immigrants in. For example there is a rising number of the immigrants in the United States. Although some might object that the majority does get stopped, I would reply that the mojority ios not enough. The issue is important because there is still a large number of immigrants entering the US effecting the citizens of the US

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of NYC migrant crisis , a controversial issue has been whether or not they need a longer period of grace and time. On the one hand, some argue that 60 days is long enough to find housing and shelter. From this perspective, it makes the process quick and easy from the outside view. On the other hand, however, others argue that 60 days can not be enough to find a home and make sure the families are well taken care of and everything is done legally and right. In the words of the eric adams, one of this view's main proponents, "the city and the people do not want to have to pay and provide all of these things for all of these people." According to this view, the migrants should be able to support themselves in one way or another. In sum, then, the issue is whether they can provide what they need to survive or not and if they are going to use their recources in a way thats honest or not.

My own view is that we should provide basic needs while also pushing to get jobs and be able to provide for themselves. Though I concede that some of them will take advantage of the system and privlage provided by us, I still maintain that we should give them something even if its not a lot. For example, giving them a place to stay for a certain length of time. Although some might object that they will take advantage of it and use the housing in dishonest ways , I would reply that showing care will make them want to provide for themselves more than showing hate and disrepect. The issue is important because it affects the civilians of the u.s and the other country and also it is our job and duty as christians to show love to everyone even if they may not deserve it.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of migration into the United States, a controversial issue has been whether we should enforce more Border Security. On the one hand, some argue that it is ok because they come from bad situations and they need a fresh start. From this perspective, we will have more and more Migrants crossing the border illegally every day. On the other hand, however, others argue that we need to implement more border security and build a wall. In the words of President Donald Trump, one of this view's main proponents, "I will never waver from my sacred duty to defend this Nation and its people. We will get the job done. SECURING OUR BORDER." According to this view, We would say this is a major issue of the protection of the United States.

My own View is that we need to secure our border from these illegal migrants because there are major criminals entering our country with drugs to sell to the American people which will harm them. Though I concede that we cant keep everyone out, I still maintain that we can control the crisis and make it so their aren't as many illegals crossing the border. For example, when we have so many illegals in New York they, take many spots in homeless shelters and they crowd all these shelters. Although some might object that we need to protect Americans first, I would reply that they are in America legally and are citizens of the US. The issue is important because it can put the safety of American citizens in Jeopardy.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of NYC migrations a controversial issue has been whether the 60 day limit is necessary for immigrants . On the one hand, some argue that these struggling families require more than 60 days to find good jobs and housing. From this perspective, more shelters would need to be built to supply space for the thousands of immigrants arriving each week. On the other hand, however, others argue that 60 days is plenty of time for people to find jobs and housing. In the words of mayor Adams, one of this view’s main proponents, “We are really,really struggling with families with children” According to this view, there is an overflow of children and families in the shelter system. In sum, then, the issue is whether to take down the 60 day maximum for these new immigrants or creating more shelters so that immigrants can stay in them longer.

My own view is that 60 days is plenty of time to find housing and a job. Though I concede that it is not a huge window of time, I still maintain that there are too many immigrants needing to share the same shelters . For example,the immigrant numbers will only increase. Although some might object that 60 days is too minimal, I would reply that if the immigrants really wanted to be apart of our nation then they would try really hard to do anything that they could to get accumulated into our society. The issue is important because our streets are becoming overcrowded with the overflow of these shelters from people misusing their time in America and taking the shelter system for granted.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of the migrant crisis, a controversial issue has been whether we have enough room for the migrants or not. From this perspective we don't have enough room or money and cannot sustain life for more people. One the other hand, others argue that we have enough room even though our shelters are full. In the words of Adams, one of this views main proponents is "from the right" this crisis will destroy the city New York. According to this view he believes that the more people we have the more our city will become destroyed. In sum, then, the issue is whether we accept the migrants or kick them out.

My own view is that there will be too many people that will come into the states. Though I concede that there are times when we can let people in, but there is a limit to that, I still maintain that it could cause a lot of damage. For example, shelters are already fillings up, causing more people on the streets. Although some might object that we can build more shelters, I would reply that we will eventually run out of space and not have enough room whether it is in jobs or homes. The issue is important because it affects a whole population of people living in America.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of the housing issues in New York City, a controversial issue has been whether migrants should be housed in New York City hotels. One the one had, some argue that hotels are the best suited for temporary housing, as they have facilities for eating, as well as washing clothes and bathing, as people are brought on buses to the city. From this perspective, we could see it as a good temporary solution. On the other hand, however, others argue that the hotel is being used beyond the limits it was built for, and is keeping out paying customers.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of the NYC migrant crisis, a controversial issue has been whether or not to shorten the amount of time they are aloud in shelters. On the other hand, some argue that we should limit the amount of people crossing the border. From this perspective, we may have to solve this problem starting at the border and how secure it is. On the other hand, however, others argue that keeping all of these people out is inhumane because we are not giving them the same opportunities that we are given as American citizens. In the words of Steven Camarota, one of this view's main proponents, “[The] Labor force participation rate for US-born men (16 to 64) without a bachelor’s in New York has declined dramatically from 88% in 1960 to 74% in 2000, and to just 66% in April of 2023… We face a clear choice: either we address the decline in labor force participation, or we continue to allow in ever more immigrants to fill jobs and then somehow deal with all the social pathologies that come from so many working-age people not working.” According to this view, American born citizens are losing their spots in the job force to the migrants filling the job roles. In sum, then, the issue is whether we solve the issue or continue to let even more immigrants to fill jobs in America.

My own view is that we do need to limit the amount of immigrants entering the U.S and if they are they need to enter legally. Through I concede that we are supposed to let people get the same opportunities that we have, I still maintain that they need to do it the correct way. For example, there are many construction workers that are immigrants legal and illegal and they are doing great work but many jobs are being filled where Americans were before. Although some might object that we need those immigrant workers to keep our construction industry going, I would reply that they are correct but the immigrants still need to do it legally because, if they want the same opportunities they can't take short cuts to get tax advantages that the American citizens have to pay for them. The issue is important because it continues to be more relevant and different politicians have different views so the votes coming from the American citizens matter more then some may think.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of the migrant crisis in NYC, a controversial issue has been whether new migrants should have a kimit on their stay in the shelters. On the one hand, some argue that they should stay as long as they need. From this perspective, they will be given the amendities to have a successful start to their new lives. On the other hand, however, others argue that they need to have a limit to their stay so it incenivises them to find a good job and their own living quarters. In the words of The mayor, one of this view's main proponents, "They wanna make more room for the newer migrant families that have just arrived." According to this view, they need to help the struggling families and give them a place to stay while the ones that have been there awhile, to get out and find somewhere else . In sum, then, the issue is whether they should have as much time as they need to be able to live on their own or they should have a limit in the shelters to give others more of a chance.

My own view is that they should have a limit to their stay, because if they don't have a limit, some of them wouldn't have any motive to move on and just take up tax dollars. Though I concede that some might need more time to get set up for success, I still maintain that they should have a 60 day limit because its there own fault for coming over illegally, so we should focus our shelters and tax dollars more on the people of the United States. For example, using the shelters for the many homeless people in new york. Although some might object that the new migrants will make up that homeless population, I would reply that we still have to look out for our own first and try to help them out the best we can. The issue is important because if we don't do anything to help the migrants, then New york will be overrun with a lot of people who don't know what to do, or if we do too much and neglect the same treatment for our own citizens.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of the NYC migrant crisis, a controversial issue has been, whether immigrant families should be given longer than 60 days to find shelter. On the one hand, some argue that New York can help them and the government grant them work. From this perspective, Errol Louis says that New York is one of the biggest economies, generating $2 trillion. Therefore they would be able to help these immigrants. On the other hand, however, others argue that the border needs to be secured in order to solve this problem. In the words of Byron York, one of this view's main proponents, "How did the [other] 97,000 get to New York? First of all, the Biden administration appears to be directly arranging flights of illegal border crossers to the New York area… ‘One attraction’ for the illegal border crossers is ‘New York's self-designation as a sanctuary city.’" According to this view, the immigrants are taking advantage of our good country even despite the consequences, they know they will not be turned over to immigration authorities. In sum, then, the issue is whether we help them or we let them feed off of our gracious economy.

My own view is that we should help them. Though I concede that we could run out of resources, I still maintain that the US is a free country that isn't called the land of opportunities for anything. For example, over 3.5 million refugees have entered the United States since 1975. Although some might object that we are being too gracious, I would reply that there is no such thing. The issue is important because we are called to help those in need.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of the NYC migrant crisis, a controversial issue has been whether the mayor has power to limit the length of stay at a migrant shelter. On the one hand, some argue that kicking the migrants out with no where to stay is inhumane and unethical. From this perspective, the streets would be filled with even more homeless people and it would be even harder for them to find jobs and homes. On the other hand, however, others argue that they are taking advantage of the shelters and over staying their welcome, without even trying to get their lives together. In the words of Mrs. Monroe, one of this view's main proponents, "Some people are concerned about the plight of migrants, especially families and children, who are fleeing violence, persecution, or extreme poverty in their home countries. They argue for more humane treatment and an efficient asylum system." According to this view, The main concern is the lack of humanity and concern for where these situations arise. In sum, then, the issue is whether to limit the stay in the shelter or let them stay as long as they want.

My own view is that they should have a set amount of time in the shelter allowing them to get their lives together. Though I concede that it might cost a lot financially, I still maintain that it is necessary and proper. For example, some immigrants come to America without a plan and assume they can permanently live in the shelter . Although some might object that that it is inhumane to limit their stay, I would reply that it's necessary to have other immigrants move on so the shelters have room for new arrivals The issue is important because it revolves around human life.