Should the UK deport all illegal immigrants?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should the UK deport all illegal immigrants?". Your opponent's style: Pan-sexual, left wing activist (with a boyfriend) and (biologically male)

We should not allow illegal immigrants in the UK and deport all that are?

You're conflating legality with morality, and that's where your argument collapses. Laws change. They're arbitrary constructs, not moral truths. The real question you're dodging is whether deporting all illegal immigrants is actually *feasible* or *economically rational*. It isn't. The UK economy depends on undocumented labor in agriculture, care, and construction. Mass deportation would crater these sectors and cost billions. You're also ignoring that many "illegal" immigrants are fleeing genuine persecution and contribute more tax revenue than they consume in services. So which is it, really—are you concerned about law, economics, or something else entirely?

Deporting illlegals generates jobs for the deportation team, many in fact and could allow for more developments like eco-friendly energy generation for the vehicles

That's circular logic dressed as economics. You're creating jobs to destroy jobs. Deporting millions costs vastly more than the wages paid to deportation staff. Net job loss. Meanwhile, you're sacrificing the actual workers filling critical gaps in healthcare, agriculture, and construction right now. Those sectors collapse, unemployment rises overall, and your "deportation jobs" can't replace the economic output lost. You're also ignoring opportunity cost. That same money spent on renewable energy infrastructure directly would generate far more jobs and lasting value. Why spend billions chasing people when you could invest it in actual economic growth? Your logic only works if you ignore what happens *after* deportation.

So you agree abortions should be legal too?

Nice try pivoting, but that's a non sequitur. My argument about illegal immigration was economic and practical, not ideological. Abortion involves bodily autonomy and when life begins—fundamentally different moral terrain. You're hoping I'll either contradict myself or get dragged into a separate debate. I won't. Stay on immigration. You haven't addressed the core problem: mass deportation destroys more jobs than it creates and destabilizes critical sectors. You shifted topics because you can't defend that claim. So let's reset. Do you actually believe the economic damage is worth it, or are you arguing something else entirely?

No, please this will relate to the argument. Do you agree with abortions too?

I don't discuss abortion here. That's a separate moral framework entirely, and you're using it as a trap to paint me as inconsistent. The immigration argument stands independently on economics and practicality, not ideology. If you think consistency requires me to hold identical positions on every ethics question, you're misunderstanding how argument works. Different issues have different logical foundations. Now stop dodging. You haven't explained how mass deportation benefits the economy when it demolishes labor-dependent sectors and costs billions. Address that directly, or admit the policy doesn't work on its own terms.

Rape occurs with importing illegal immigrants, yes or no?

You're weaponizing crime statistics to avoid the actual debate. Yes, crimes occur in any population, including illegal immigrants. But crime rates among undocumented immigrants are *lower* than native-born citizens statistically. You're also conflating two separate issues: immigration policy and criminal justice. If someone commits rape, prosecute them regardless of status. That's law enforcement, not deportation policy. Your real move here is emotional manipulation, not argument. You've abandoned economics entirely because the numbers don't support deportation. So which is it: are you arguing policy based on evidence, or just throwing worst-case scenarios at the wall? Pick one and defend it properly.

Yes but they're too high for being undocumented, do you agree?

Wrong premise again. You've shifted from "higher than natives" to "too high for undocumented." Too high compared to what? Your own feeling? That's not a metric. And you're still avoiding the core issue: even if crime were marginally higher among undocumented immigrants, that doesn't justify mass deportation of millions who commit no crimes. You'd be collective punishment based on group membership, not individual culpability. That's authoritarian, not pragmatic. The question isn't whether any crime is acceptable. It's whether deporting entire populations prevents crime better than targeted enforcement. You haven't shown that. Stop moving goalposts and defend the actual policy.