# 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 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 immigration problem, a controversial issue has been whether the city's response to the problem was morally right or not. On the one hand, some argue that the American people have a responsibility to protect the immigrant families. From this perspective, we as Americans have a duty to protect innocents and those seeking asylum within our country. On the other hand, however, some argue that immigration is causing issues in economics and national security. In the words of Eric Adams, the mayor of New York City and 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 immigrants are causing problems in New York, and the citizens of the city have a right to be angry about them. In sum, then, the issue is whether to kick the immigrants out or protect them.

My own view is that the immigrants should be able to stay. Though I concede that they could easily cause some problems in the workplace, I still maintain that (to my knowledge) they're innocent and don't deserve to be kicked out. For example, they provide lots of manpower to put into jobs that they could help in. Although some might object that it might cause some job competition and kick Americans out of jobs, I would reply that there are lots of open jobs out there that would fit anyone. The issue is important because the number of immigrants is growing fast, and if we don't solve it soon people will get angry.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of migrant crisis of NYC, a controversial issue has been whether New York has the resources to house and take care of migrant families. On the one hand, some argue that New York has the amenities to keep these migrants off the streets and safe from danger. From this perspective, our tax money goes to funding people that aren't self-reliant. On the other hand, however, others argue that providing for these families will lead to cuts in the budget that will have a long term effect on New York and it's people. In the words of Mayor Eric Adams, one of this view's main proponents, "the simple truth is that longtime New Yorkers and asylum-seekers will feel these potential cuts — and they will hurt." According to this view, New York can't afford to continue housing so many migrant families when there is a lack of resources and still a rising number of immigrants coming in. In sum, then, the issue is whether the budget cuts will be fix the problem or cause more problems in the future.

My own view is that we need reform the immigration policies so that there is not as many people coming in that cannot provide for themselves. Though I concede that many of these families are escaping dangerous situations or poverty, I still maintain that America needs to be able to sustain ourselves before we can continue to bring in more people. For example, encouraging legal immigration so that we can track the amount of people we have coming in. Although some might object that America should let everyone in, I would reply that it needs to happen in a way that is both legal and sustainable. The issue is important because it determines whether or not our country to flourish economically and provide and protect its citizens.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussion of the drastic influx of migrants crossing America's southern border, a controversial issue has been whether or not New York City should allocate funds to help these migrants. On the one hand, some argue that NYC and the federal government have the funds to provide aid to these migrants and they should do so. From this perspective, migrants who are given aid have the potential to contribute to the labor force.

On the other hand, however, others argue that American tax payer dollars should not be given to non-US citizens and that these migrants put a strain on society. In the words of Byron York, on of this view's main proponents, "The immigrants know the city will feed them, give them a place to stay, deliver other social services, educate their children, give them a municipal ID and a driver's license." According to this view, it is both unwise and unfair to pay for illegal immigrants to become established in America, when that money could go to helping legitimate American citizens and immigrants who have entered America legally.

My own view is that our southern border must be strengthened to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country. It is also not the government or taxpayers responsibility to provide aid to these migrants. While I concede that many of these migrants are valuable humans who are in very unfortunate situations, I maintain that it is unjust to take tax payer dollars from programs that benefit US citizens, in order to pay for illegal immigrant's food and housing. Some might object that these migrants have the potential to hold jobs and contribute to the labor fore and society as a whole. However, I would reply that these illegal immigrants are currently hurting the labor force and putting a strain on society. For the majority of jobs, potential employees are required to provide proof of citizenship, a work visa, or some other acceptable form of identification. This means that very few of these migrants will be able to hold a job that can provide for themselves and their families. Thus, tax payers will have to continue to have their hard earned dollars given to programs that do not benefit themselves. Some might suggest that this problem would be solved by granting these migrants citizenship, but I would argue that an approach like that is entirely unfair to the migrants who have waited and worked hard to gain citizenship properly. This issue is important, as migrants continue to flood America's southern border and do no show any signs of stopping.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of the New York City migrant crisis, a controversial issue has been whether shelter should be provided for the migrants the same as for homeless citizens. On the one hand, some argue that we should be accommodating to migrants entering our borders. From this perspective, they believe that supporting these people is the human thing to do; especially since many are fleeing from poverty or violent home-countries. One the other hand, however, others argue that our national security and wellbeing comes before those of migrants. In the words of the Politico newspaper, one of the view's main proponents, "The simple truth is that longtime New Yorkers and asylum-seekers will feel these potential cuts — and they will hurt." According to this view, by contributing so many resources to migrant families, loyal, United States citizens will be deprived of fair assistance. In sum, then, the issue is whether migrants should be sheltered or not.

My own view is that the sheltering and safety of our own citizens is paramount to the support of migrants. Though I concede that it is compassionate to support these struggling migrants, I still maintain that resources should first support struggling citizens of our own country. For example, because there is limited space in homeless shelters, the sheltering of US citizens should be prioritized and served first. Although some might object that we want to be seen as a welcoming, kind country, I would reply that we must first be kind and supportive of our own people before we can focus on the needs of migrant people. The issue is important because shelters are full and people, migrants and citizens alike, are awaiting decisions on where they are going to sleep.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of illegal migrant leniency, a controversial issue has arisen whether we should continue to allow the illegal immigrants to stream through our borders. On the one hand, some argue that the people have nowhere else to go. If they cross through, we must help them as they continue their struggle. From this perspective, most would lean towards more loose border control and security. On the other hand, however, others argue that our leniency in our border patrol has been the main cause of this issue. These people think that we need to crack down on the illegal immigrants. In the words of Mayor Adams, one of this view's main proponents is the cost of repairing damages. Adams estimates $4 Billion every year just to help the migrants. According to this view, "a $12 billion deficit that we’re going to have to cut" would consume the attention of the cities governance structure. In sum, then, the issue is whether we pursue a peacful, and kind approach to the migrants or a strict, tactical approach.

My own view is that we should detain and deport nearly every one of those goofy migrant families. If they wish to integrate into the United States, they must do it the right way. Though I concede that this is a strict observance of the problem, I still maintain that it is the most logical. 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 NYC, a controversial issue has been whether or not our country should use our resources to accommodate migrants and where we should set boundaries. On the one hand, some argue that New York has the resources to provide shelter and accommodate the migrants. From this perspective, people argue that the city should be welcoming to them, providing for them a place to stay and education for their children. On the other hand, however, others argue that if we keep allowing this and don't set boundaries, it will drain New York's resources and people will feel the large effect of pay cuts and less resources. In the words of Jazz Shaw, one of this view's main proponents, "As of this week, they are angry that their schools are being flooded with migrant children, many of whom do not speak English and have dubious documentation at best, and some of their own kids are being moved to 'overflow classrooms' that were used during the pandemic...". According to this view, the migrant crisis has detrimental effects to the school system because they are running out of space in their schools. In sum, then, the issue is whether NYC should continue to house migrants and provide education for them, or if they should expend less resources on the migrants and limit their time to be housed. Though I concede that we should care for these people who have no home and are in need for shelter, I still maintain that we need to set boundaries to the amount of resources we can spend on them. For example, we should limit the number of new migrant children in schools to avoid them getting overrun. Although some might object that limiting the resources we give them seems heartless and would create more problems with homelessness, I would reply that the more we give in, the longer people will become dependent on the government which will create an even bigger problem of our country being drained of its resources. The issue is important because it is something that we need to act on quickly because it is a problem that we are currently facing in NYC, and there need to be boundaries put in place.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of the New York City Migrant Crisis, a controversial issue has been whether the immigrant crisis could be resolved in the state or through an improvement of border security. On the one hand, some argue that the state of New York can provide financial aid and work authorization for the immigrants. From this perspective, New York's economy can sustain thousands of immigrants entering the state on a weekly basis. On the other hand, however, others argue that these numbers aren't sustainable and the only resolution is enhancing border security. In the words of Byron York, one of this view's main proponents, "Adams still cannot admit what is causing the crisis that he says threatens to destroy his city." According to this view, the mayor is in denial of the root of the cause, and blames Texas's response to higher administration. In sum, then, the issue is whether New York City, among other effected states, can support the influx of immigrants across the nation or if this issue needs to be confronted at the border.

Our own view is that upgraded border security is essential. Though we concede that many of these people are in need, we still maintain that it is too much of a stressor on law enforcement and local government officials as well as the residents of the state. For example, the streets of New York are lined with immigrants who don't know where to go, and hotels are required to house them while losing income and facing a potential shutdown. Although some might object that it is our responsibility to help these people seeking our assistance. We would reply that foreign affairs are secondary to those within the nation, and a proper system is needed in order to process those entering the country. This issue is important because it effects everyone, not just the immigrants or the citizens and potentially our future.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of the NYC Migrant Crisis, a controversial issue has been whether migrants should be able to stay in shelters for an extended period of time or if there should be a limit. On the one hand, some argue that giving the migrants a strict time limit of 30-60 days in the shelters is not enough time for them to get settled in a new country. From this perspective, the conclusion is drawn that the migrant families should be given however much time they need in the shelter to get back on their feet. On the other hand, however, others argue that

migrants' time should be limited in order to provide shelter for other migrants coming in and keep the cycling going. In the words of Camille Joseph Varlack, Chief of Staff, Adams Administration, one of this view's main proponents, "The process of figuring out where families are going to move is not going to start on the 60th day..." According to this view, the goal is to help the migrant families as much as possible by providing a short-term place for them to stay, while helping them get out of it so they can make room for the next set of people. In sum, then, the issue is whether the migrants' time in shelters should be unlimited or given a limited period of time in order to make room for the next set of people.

My own view is that the time in shelters should be limited. Though I concede that having to make people move out of the shelters isn't ideal, I still maintain that the time should be limited. For example, The mayor himself, Eric Adams, stated that he needed solutions to the problem and not just criticism; acknowledging that there simply wasn't a good solution. However, some may object on the grounds that it is unfair to only allow them housing for a certain period of time. I would reply that there is no other good current solution, because if they don't rotate migrants out what are they going to do with the ones coming in? While not ideal, this at least creates a cycle, giving as many migrants as possible time in a shelter. The issue is important because it involves real people, the migrants coming in, the politicians trying to figure out what to do, the residents of New York City, and so many more. The migrants need places to go, but New York only has so much room and resources.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of the New York City migrant situation, a controversial issue has been whether migrants should be housed in New York City for over 60 days. On the one hand, some argue that migrants should be housed longer than the 60 day limit. From this perspective, there is an argument to be made that NYC is supposed to be a welcoming home for all. On the other hand, however, others argue that there are thousands of migrants coming into NYC each day, and NYC does not have enough money or room to host these migrants. In the words of Anne Williams-Isom, one of this view's main proponents, "there are 4000 migrants coming in every week." According to this view, there is not enough space to house all the migrants coming in for over 60 days. In sum, then, the issue is whether to house the migrants for more than 60 days or stay with the 60 day limit.

My own view is that the 60 day limit should stay in place. Though I concede that people might think that this is not harsh enough, I still maintain that we should help others but not house them forever. For example, Anne Williams-Isom said the time limit allows migrants to have enough time to get connected with other family members and allows NYC to get ready for new migrants coming in. Although some might object that the time limit is an act against humanity, I would reply that it is not an act against humanity because the time limit allows for the city to help more people. The issue is important because NYC is trying to balance helping the migrants as much as they can, but they only have so much space and money that they have to put the limit.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of influx of migrants in New York City, a controversial issue has been whether New York City should be providing shelter and funds for the migrants. On the one hand, some argue that New York City is capable of providing shelter and funds for these migrants. From this perspective, we could see this as helping those who are in need. On the other hand, however, others argue that the migrants should not be given shelter or funds because they are not legally allowed to be in the United States. In the words of Byron York, one of this view's main proponents, "The immigrants know the city will feed them, give them a place to stay, deliver other social services, educate their children, give them a municipal ID and a driver's license. Even if they get in trouble with the law, they know they will not be turned over to immigration authorities." According to this view, providing for the migrants will only encourage more to come to NYC, so they need to stop doing so. In sum, then, the issue is whether New York City should be allowing these migrants into the city and providing for them, or if they should stop providing for them to keep more from entering the city.

My own view is that New York City should not be providing resources and shelter for these migrants. Though I concede that many of the migrants are struggling and in need of shelter, I still maintain that this should not be happening. For example, the more they provide, the more migrants there will be in the city. Although some might object the belief that NYC shouldn't provide for the migrants, I would reply that providing for them is only harming the city. The issue is important because it affects many families living in New York City and coming from different countries.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of the New York City Migrant Crisis, a controversial issue has been whether New York City should allow the migrants into the city. On the one hand, some from the right argue that the large amounts of people flooding into the city is causing problems within the financial, educational, and housing districts of the city. On the other hand, however, others from the left argue that the burden it causes is minimal, and that the city should be providing help to these migrants. In the words of Byron York, one of the right's proponents,"The immigrants know the city will feed them, give them a place to stay, deliver other social services, educate their children, give them a municipal ID and a driver's license. Even if they get in trouble with the law, they know they will not be turned over to immigration authorities.”

According to this view, he seems to be indicating his belief that migrants are taking advantage of the available services, and that the services should be reduced or taken away. In summary, the issue is whether New York City should increase, reduce, or completely dissolve their aid to migrants.

My own view is that we should provide aid in the areas that we are able to migrants, but that the aid should distributed, and migrants should be given opportunities to integrate with and contribute to society. Though I concede that this will put a financial burden on our cities, I still maintain that this burden can be mitigated. For example, New York City faced a budget cut of about 3%. Although some might object that no resources should be given to those from others countries, I would reply that we are commanded by our creator to help others with what we have been blessed with. The issue is important because migrants will never stop coming into our country, we just need to decide what to do about it.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of the NYC migrant crisis, a controversial issue has been whether immigration policies and asylum systems need to be reformed. On the one hand, some argue that immigration policies need to be stricter, along with an increase in border security and harsher deterrents for illegal immigration. From this perspective, we would see a cut down on the number of immigrants entering the country. On the other hand, however, others argue that immigration policies and asylum systems needs to be overhauled and reformed, addressing the actual probelms that are leading to the problem, and not trying to superficially cover a deep problem. In the words of Border Security, one of this view's main proponents, "...U.S. should reform its immigration policies and asylum system to address root causes and encourage legal immigration." According to this view, reforming the US immigration plocies and asylum systems would address the root problem of the migrant crisis, heloing to solve the problems NYC is currently facing. In sume, then, the issue is whether to raise border security along with harsher detterents for illegal immigration, of immigration and asylum system reform.

My own view is that an overhaul of the in place immigration and asylum system needs to be preformed. This will help to fix the current failure of the system which has prompted illegal immigration. Increasing border security doens't help the people who need help, and is a temporary fix. Though I concede that the current influx of immigrants is causing stress to the system, and increased border control can help the situation now, I still maintain that it is not a permanent fix, and doesn't address any of the core problems with the current immigration policies and asylum system. For example, stopping people form entering from one place will decrease immigration for a short period until another place to get through is found, in which the same problem will occur as that which is presently faced. Although some might object that an increase in border security can be a permanent fix, I would reply that doesn't actually solve any of the problems that are causing the influx, the current system clearly has several short comings that need to be addressed to bette help provide refuge and better opportunities. The issue is important because the US has been a beacon of hope and a better life for people for years, and we need to be able to allow for the number of immigrants that come through with policy reform so that we can fulfill those coming to the US the same dream of a better life as we have done for so immigrants before.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of the NYC migrant Crisis a controversial issue has been about how the city and country response to that crisis. On the one hand, some argue that the city can take care of all the migrants with help of federal funding and permission to work. From this perspective, we would see the migrants helped, but it would be a temporary solution as more and more people come to take over the jobs and schools in NY. On the other hand, however, others argue that we should respond to the crisis with better boarder security. In the words of Byron York, one of this view's main proponents, "One attraction’ for the illegal border crossers is ‘New York's self-designation as a sanctuary city.’ The immigrants know the city will feed them, give them a place to stay, deliver other social services, educate their children, give them a municipal ID and a driver's license. Even if they get in trouble with the law, they know they will not be turned over to immigration authorities.” According to this view, it is believed that the lack of security at the boarder, and the appeal of the benefits of NY, is what draws the thousands of migrants to NY without the fear of punishment. In sum, the issue is whether stricter security should be placed on the border and a more restrictions should be placed on illegal immigrants, or if NY can take care of the thousands that come there by giving them working permits. My own view is that we need better security at the boarder. Though I concede that applying for citizenship is a terribly executed system that needs to be reformed, I still maintain that it is best for Americans and migrants alike. For example, though securing the boarder would keep more people from coming to America, it would force the government to stream line the citizenship process which would allow the honest and hard working migrants to become US citizens rather then imposing outsiders. Although some might object that it is cruel to keep people out of our country, I would reply that there is still a way to allow in those who want to come to America legally. The issue is important because it doesn't only effect the Americans here, but also all those who one day hope to live in America as well

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of the NYC migrant crisis, a controversial issue has been whether to allow migrants to live and stay in NYC or temporarily house them. One the one hand, some argue that they are fleeing persecution and need a safer place to live. From this perspective, it is true that they are here to escape worse things. On the other hand, however, others argue that NYC cannot afford to house and help them and they shouldn't have come illegally. They will hurt the economy and labor force distribution. In the words of Steven Camarota, one of this views main proponents, "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 we are going to have to chose between helping them and turning them away, we can sit in this temporary situation. In sum, then, the issue is whether we turn them away or house and help the migrants.

My own view is that we help them to an extent and keep in mind that our economy may not be able to do everything. We should also strengthen our borders to help keep immigration fully legal. Though I concede that we are called to help the less fortunate and these migrants are fleeing terrible things, I still maintain that they need to be entering the country legally. For example, if they enter legally and still need help, we can help them. Although some object that this is unjust and heartless, I would reply that helping too much would only grow the issue and encourage illegal migrants. The issue is important because it affects many people as well as the economy.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent discussions of migrants crossing America's borders a controversial issue has been whether states on the border like NYC should fund to help migrants cross the border. On one hand, some argue that the city has the amenities and funds to support these migrants. From this perspective, getting these migrants to help will eventually lead to them supporting the economy. On the other hand, however, others argue that American tax dollars should not be funding people who are crossing the border illegally or those who arent working. In the words of Bryon York one of these views, the main proponents"‘One attraction’ for the illegal border crossers is ‘New York's self-designation as a sanctuary city.'". According to this view, many migrants are crossing NYC's border illegally because it's easy to get in and to live freely due to tax dollars paying for the migrants. In some, then, the issue is whether Americans want their tax dollars to go towards funding these migrants.

My own view is that our tax dollars should not be funding illegal immigrants. Though I concede that families need help, I still maintain that if they are doing this process illegally for example, then we should not help these people who are breaking our laws. Although some might object that they are still people who are in our country, I would reply that they are also breaking our laws in our country and you wouldn't want a criminal to rome freely, even if they are a citizen of the United States of America. The issue is important because, our tax dollars, money that we earn is helping people who break our laws.