Tufts Democrats and Republicans Participate in Annual Debate on Collaboration and Innovation in Citizenship

Disclaimer: Estelle Anderson, a debate moderator, is the Daily’s executive news editor. Anderson was not involved in the creation of this article.

On Monday, Tufts Cooperation and Innovation in Citizenship hosted its annual debate between Tufts Democrats and Tufts Republicanswith a focus on the issues of immigration, economics and gun violence. The upcoming general elections take place in just a few weeks.

The debate included three questions on each topic, with each side having the opportunity to refute their opponents’ arguments and make closing comments at the end of each topic.

The first question, on immigration, asked debaters whether the U.S. should make the path to citizenship easier or prioritize implementing stricter policies in response to the current surge in illegal border crossings. First-grader Kieran Doody answered for the Democrats.

“[Democrats] We’re taking a more balanced approach where we want to have a strong border, we want to have the resources that our border officials need and also strong protections against intrusion from drug cartels and illegal human trafficking. At the same time, we are prioritizing implementation of a pathway to citizenship for immigrants, including illegal immigrants, living in the United States and contributing to the economy.Doody said.

Senior Justin Lokere answered for the Tufts Republicans.

“What we saw in the Biden-Harris administration was an absolute disaster,” Lokere said. “The Republican Party supports border security and ensuring we screen everyone who crosses our border.”

During follow-up questions, Doody continued to emphasize the potential of immigrants to contribute to the country and build a life in America, while Lokere emphasized that immigrants can deprive citizens and residents of resources and security.

“If we can allow more people to come… I think we can strengthen our country as a whole,” Doody said, citing the contributions of Jewish immigrants who fled persecution in Europe to America.

The second topic of the debate was the economy, which was the subject of much discussion about inflation in the run-up to the election.

The first question asked participants to consider the increase in tuition fees.

“What role, if any, does the federal government play in making college more affordable and forgiving student debt?asked moderator Remy Bernatavicius.

“If the government were to cancel this debt, it would not be canceling it, it would just be passing the money onto taxpayers.replied senior Ethan Putlack, a member of the Tufts Republicans.

Putlack also argued that student debt cancellation could have negative consequences if students preemptively believe their debt will be canceled.

“It will encourage students to pursue degrees that may not necessarily be the most beneficial for their future… not an attack on women’s studies.” [majors] in the audience,” Putlack said. The comment sparked a significant reaction from the audience.

Sophomore Reece Christian responded on behalf of Democrats that while student loan forgiveness is not a complete solution, a free public education program should be advocated.

Christian acknowledged that this was a burden on the taxpayer, but argued that this could easily be achieved by enforcing current tax laws, stating: “The question we need to ask here is: [which] Taxpayers specifically? …The top 1% in America earns more than $150 billion in taxes each year.”

On these economic issues, the differences between the two parties were less pronounced. Putlack and Christian both advocated for nuclear energy and praised the environmental benefits of green energy, although Putlack explicitly disagreed with the Green New Deal.

Both also found common ground against Trump’s advocacy of aggressive tariffs, noting that they raise prices for local importers rather than other countries.

In his closing statements, Christian argued that Democrats hold the rich accountable and support social mobility, while Putlack argued that Biden’s administration has experienced four of the worst years of inflation and deficit spending.

The final topic of the debate was gun violence. The panelists were first asked what they thought was the cause of the unusually high rate of gun violence in America.

First-grader David Seaton answered first for the Democrats.

“If we truly want to solve this problem, we must implement laws like warning notices, extreme risk protection orders, universal background checks and safe-keeping laws that are proven to keep people safe in their communities.”said Seaton.

Lokere, again speaking for Republicans, described the problem of gun violence as a problem of poor law enforcement.

“Prosecutors are only too willing to allow violent criminals back on the streets,” Lokere said. He added that most weapons used in crimes were not purchased legally, arguing: “The type of people who buy firearms through legal channels are not the type of people who commit gun crimes.””

Lokere later detailed the extensive security process he went through to legally purchase a firearm in Massachusetts as evidence that legal gun owners were responsible, with Seaton countering that every state should have laws like Massachusetts’.

As for the final question about Second Amendment rights, Lokere retains its importance to this day.

“Republicans believe that the Second Amendment is a fundamental part of the Constitution. “It is the only amendment that finalizes the phrase ‘shall not be violated’,” Lokere said.

Seaton responded that unregulated gun ownership harms the safety of Americans and their rights to life and liberty.

After thanksgivings and closing statements were made, “Collaboration and Innovation in Citizenship” followed. Co-President Tessa Moore spoke to the daily about the debate.

“I found that both sides were very respectful, and that was one of the things that worried me the most, and that’s important to any productive discussion.”said Moore.

Moore added that Cooperation and Innovation in Citizenship hosts this event annually with the goal of benefiting from participation compared to regular club meetings.

“It broadly fits with our goal of sparking bipartisan political discussion on the Tufts campus and helping people be open to viewpoints that differ from their own.said Moore.