Northern High School hosted a debate in Mr. Galligan’s room on Thursday, December 10th. Here’s what went down:
By Alex Gallagher
Web Master
DISCLAIMER: Young Democrat president Boris Nusinzon is also Editor In Chief of the Patriot Press, though he had no editorial input on the contents of this story.
Respective presidents of Northern’s Democrat and Republican clubs, Seniors Boris Nusinzon and Luke Grover were the main speakers of the Democrat vs. Republican debate, representing the voices behind the clubs. The two controversial topics that were addressed during the debate were the morality of abortion, and immigration laws. The presidents of both clubs chose one topic each, and they were given about two weeks to prepare their sides.
Boris Nusinzon, the representative of the Young Democrats, was given the opportunity to speak first on his chosen topic of immigration policy. He began by contrasting the deportation policies of the current United States president, Republican Donald Trump and former United States president, Democrat Barack Obama, stating that the difference in policy was rooted in each president’s approach. According to Nusinzon, Trump, though expressing his intentions to solely target illegal immigrants who had a criminal record beforehand, put a deportation policy in place, such that all illegal immigrants would be deported regardless of their circumstances. On the other hand, Nusinzon stated that Obama had a multi-tiered deportation system that did acknowledge the circumstances of immigrants and treated deportation on a case-by-case basis. He then stated, “I am not denying that it is not a good thing to come into this country illegally,” and that it is a matter of the circumstances that the immigrants face, such as unsafe conditions in their home countries. His next point was that the detained migrants are treated with very little respect and human decency and frequently being deported to countries not of their origin, such as the case with Kilmar Abrego Garcia being deported to El Salvador, and then again to Eswatini according to CBS News.
Luke Grover, on the other side of the issue, countered Nusinzon’s key point by explaining that, “if [immigrants] are immigrating illegally, they are committing a crime in doing that.” Additionally, Grover stated that the Trump administration’s approach does incorporate the acknowledgement of circumstances, meaning the immigrants are given the opportunity to qualify for asylum, which means the person was fleeing from unsafe circumstances. With regard to the lesser punishment for self-deportation offer that the Trump administration promoted, “now [the illegal immigrants] are leaving because they knew they cheated the system,” continuing on to state that, “there are a ton of wonderful immigrants in our country, and our country was founded on them,” but according to Grover, only legal migration is acceptable. He also claimed that ICE, in its current years, are targeting immigrants with a prior criminal record and those who have a final deportation notice through an expired visa or a missed court hearing. In his words, 90% of the immigrants who declared asylum during the Biden administration and faced a court hearing during Trump’s four years in office were not eligible for asylum, according to the judge. In the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, as mentioned by Nusinzon, Grover states that Abrego Garcia committed human trafficking and was proven to have gang affiliations, which led to his initial deportation to El Salvador. After being brought back to the United States because of a Senate decision, Abrego Garcia was tried in court and the verdict was that he would be deported to Africa – Eswatini in particular – because, as Grover says, “he chose the country in Africa to get deported to.”
After Grover’s counterclaim to Nusinzon’s argument on the chosen topic, he was then given time to explain his take on his chosen topic: abortion abolition. He began his argument by claiming that Planned Parenthood, America’s leading provider of reproductive health services including abortion, was founded on white supremacy. Grover went on to explain how the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, had ties to the KKK and was a eugenicist: someone who believes in selective breeding for the purpose of getting rid of the “unfit”. A PBS article on the same issue referenced this quote from Sanger, touching upon these eugenicist views brought up by Grover: “birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit [and] of preventing the birth of defectives.” According to Grover, Sanger intentionally placed many Planned Parenthood clinics in impoverished areas and black communities with the implication that she found people of color to be undesirable, as mentioned earlier, due to the color of their skin. “[Abortion] is, absolutely, propagated white supremacy through targeting minority communities and keeping them down,” stated Grover. Continuing to address the ethicality behind the issue, he claimed that the nature of abortion is that of murder; Grover described an embryo as a human being at the instant that conception occurs. He addressed the common argument that every American is given the right to choose by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution by proclaiming that Americans are given the right to live before anything, and that he supports “the child’s right to life more than the mother’s right to choose.” He then acknowledged the nuance of the issue, stating that under the circumstances of rape, incest, and cases where the life of the mother is in danger, an exception could be made to abortion being morally wrong, in his opinion. However, he claimed that these exceptions only made up a very miniscule amount of the abortions that occur in the United States are due to the cases he described. He wrapped up his argument by stating that despite some exceptions, “these are actual human beings, not fetuses, and they should be protected under the full extent of the law with the natural rights we are all inherently given, under God, in our Constitution.”
Nusinzon began his counterargument by acknowledging Grover’s viewpoint on Margaret Sanger by stating, “I think it is a disingenuous argument to paint abortion as inherently white supremacist,” explaining how there are other issues occurring in impoverished black communities that are leading to such a considerable rate of abortion in this demographic. According to Nusinzon, some of these issues are a lack of available sex education courses, a lack of access to contraceptives, and major issues with rape and incest. Due to these issues, he claims that abortion is seen as the only option because of the circumstances that these communities face. Moreover, Nusinzon argued that abortion is not rooted in white supremacy due to the controversy of Margaret Sanger brought up by Grover, as abortion did not originate in the United States. On the topic of morality, Nusinzon agreed that abortion cannot simply be navigated; however, his argument contradicted Grover’s because he believes that “it is not a religious question, it is a moral question,” as many religious groups in this country have different views on abortion, even down to specific branches of Christianity. Nusinzon’s personal belief is that abortion should always be an option if needed, but contraceptives should be the preferred option, along with an increase of sex education throughout the United States.
The debate, garnering the attention of many, was moderated by Mr. Galligan in his classroom, meaning the event ended up being exclusive — only a small number of people who arrived quickly were able to catch it live. Both Grover and Nusinzon made solid points on each issue, each staying respectful throughout along with the audience, despite their passion for each topic. Each speaker’s overall thoughts on the debate were that of appreciation, both stating how respectful the audience was during the debate. “I think it was very well run. It was cordial,” explains Grover, “I just wish we had more time to go more in depth on such complex issues with such nuance.” Similarly, Nusinzon stated his appreciation of the respect shown throughout the debate: “Everyone was quiet, everyone was respectful.” Nusinzon continued, “It felt, frankly, more respectful than any presidential debate since 2012.” Both speakers also cited their enthusiasm to engage in another debate — preferably in a larger venue, like the auditorium in the Mary Harrison Center. While the next debate is not yet planned, both parties agree that they have more that they are looking forward to discussing in the coming months. For more information from the December 10th debate, the full recording can be seen on the WNHS YouTube channel.