The Instigator
ishallannoyyo
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
royalpaladin
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Free Immigration

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
royalpaladin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,098 times Debate No: 29676
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (3)

 

ishallannoyyo

Con

If you wish to accept this debate, please ensure that your ELO ranking is higher than mine when you accept this debate. If your ELO is lower than mine and you still accept, then it will be considered a full foreit on your part.

This debate is on whether or not the United States should adopt a free immigration policy, meaning that there are no restrictions on who may be allowed into the United States (unless of course they are criminals or terrorists). Specifically, only a census and basic background check will be made on those attempting to immigrate to the United States.

Definitions:

Free Immigration - unchecked immigration
Immigration - permanently leaving ones country of residence to live in another country permanently (not including vacations etc.)


R1 is for acceptance
R2 - 3 is for arguments and rebuttals
R4 - is for conclusions, no new arguments may be brought up through rebuttals are allowed

I look forward to an excellent debate!
royalpaladin

Pro

I accept, but offer one different definition.

Immigration is the movement of people into a country or region to which they are not native in order to settle there. Prefer this to my opponent's claims of permanent residency, but his definition is not applicable to the real world. If I move to Denmark, stay there for a few years (and intend to settle there), and then move to Japan with the intent of settling there, according to him, I never immigrated to Denmark at all. That is logically absurd.

Keep in mind that my opponent explicitly stated that we would not allow terrorists and criminals into the country and that we would have background checks to stop them. Any arguments about terrorism and criminality are entirely irrelevant at that point.
Debate Round No. 1
ishallannoyyo

Con

I accept my opponent’s definitional change. Currently, the United States employs a system that limits the amount of immigrants in certain sections (e.g. immigrating to reunite with family) to a certain number. For example, if you want to reunite with family there is a cap of 480 000 visas [1]. Effectively, immigrants without a visa may not immigrate to the United States. [2]

C1: HARMS THE COUNTRY THE IMMIGRANTS MOVE FROM

P1 (Premise 1): With free immigration, an unlimited number of people can immigrate to the United States (excluding criminals etc.)

P2: People desire to immigrate to the United States, but can be denied because of the cap on visas or other circumstances [3]

P3: Because of P1 and P2, if we adopt free immigration, the United States will receive thousands of extra immigrants, leading to a brain drain

Brain drain is the term used to refer to the mass migration of the skilled work force of one country to another. Third world countries such as Mexico have lost up to 10% of their skilled work force (university graduates). [4] Because of P3, the brain drain effect will kill the developing country because their skilled work force, the people that are needed to develop the country are all leaving. Furthermore, even the low-skilled workers would leave the country. Obviously, a choice between living in the US and Mexico is not a hard choice to make, it is indisputable that the United States simply has a higher quality life. As people migrate away from their country of origin, the developing country will be crippled through the lack of workers. The United States current immigration policy does not present such issues as the immigration is controlled.



The economic benefits of low-skilled workers is negligible in the long run and mass migrations to the United States may lead to racial tensions and a failure to effectively assimilate to the culture. There are zero benefits for the United States in accepting a free immigration policy is it is only harmful to the very countries the United States is sending foreign aid to. The resolution has been countered, because of the negative impact of free immigration on the country the immigrants leave, free immigration cannot be allowed. Over to Pro.

SOURCES:

  1. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org...
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
  3. http://travel.state.gov...
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org...

royalpaladin

Pro

In order to determine what the US government ought to do, we must set a standard through which we can evaluate the round. The reason that we ought to do this is that a standard provides a cohesive filter for us to evaluate our arguments and the debate. This means that the use of the standard promotes education, which is the goal of the debate, and also makes the debate more meaningful and powerful for the participants.

The standard I offer is Justice, defined as giving each her due. Justice is the best standard because the actor in the resolution is the US government, a representative of the people. The function of the government is to ensure that all members of society receive what they deserve on the basis of a social contract. This is why the government establishes a justice system to punish criminals, a fire fighting force to protect the homes of citizens, and schools to provide all citizens with the opportunity to become autonomous beings who are capable of pursuing their own ends.

I would like to offer one argument before I present my case. Since justice promotes the primacy of the individual, benefits to society at the cost of the individual are deemed unjust because an action can never be justified on the grounds of its consequences if the means through which the consequences are obtained do not provide each party what he is due. As Harvard philosopher John Rawls explains, “ A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many” [1] This will be a key attack on my opponent’s case.

There are three reasons that the state must keep its borders open in accordance with the principles of justice.
.
1. Borders and accidental citizenship are morally arbitrary. At the most basic level, individuals ought to be accorded benefits in proportion to their merit, and not in accordance with morally arbitrary characteristics such as race as sex. Birth into a specific nation is not a result of merit; rather, it is a result of winning a “lottery of births”-it is entirely accidental. I choose neither my parents nor the piece of land on which I was born. Insofar as this is true, there is no morally significant difference between an individual born in the United States and an individual born in India.Because there is no morally significant difference between individuals who are born in different nations, they ought to be able to travel as they please so long as they do not promote an active danger (such a as a terrorist threat) to the lives of others through explicit acts of violence. Immigration restrictions would distribute rights and citizenship benefits on the basis of morally arbitrary characteristics and are therefore unjust.

2. Immigration restrictions are a violation of autonomy. Autonomy is the capacity to rationally pursue choices for oneself and to set one’s own ends. The right to autonomy is a negative right, meaning that it can never be violated by another unless the individual whose autonomy one is violating has presented an active, direct threat to one’s own autonomy. Immigration restrictions restrict autonomy by restricting the life choices that individuals would have the freedom to pursue in the absence of immigration restrictions. Carens outlines a few of the ends that require open borders when he explains, “one might want a job; one might fall in love with someone from another country; one might belong to a religion that has few adherents in one’s native state and many in another; one may wish to pursue cultural opportunities that are only available in another land . . .” [2] Since justice is centered on giving each her due, and each individual is due the ability to pursue her own ends, restrictions on this ability cannot be pursued by the state via immigration restrictions. The state has a prima facie duty to keep borders open.

3. Immigration restrictions violate property rights. Philosopher Robert Nozick contends that in the state of nature, which predates society, individuals have the negative rights of life, liberty, a property. It is important to note that these are not collective rights; they belong to individuals and not to groups of individuals unless the groups consist of individuals who unanimously choose to exercise their rights in such a manner through consent. A state is formed on the basis of protecting these rights, which all people possess, from foreign states. The right to property includes the right to make voluntary transactions with any individual, regardless of morally arbitrary characteristics such as country of origin. The state cannot interfere with these rights, even if they have a negative utilitarian impact, as long as they do not violate the rights of others. So, for example, if a landowner in New Mexico has a diamond mine that employs everybody in the hypothetical town of Ashford, if the owner decides to sell the mine to a Chinese national who plans to hire all Chinese workers and fire everybody in Ashford, the state cannot interfere in the transaction since the mine belongs to the owner and the sale, while it has negative utility, does not violate rights. If people wish to purchase land and homes in the United States through voluntary transaction and immigrate, the state has no justification for preventing people from doing so.
Opponent’s Case
My opponent claims that open immigration causes a brain drain in the country that individuals emigrate from. I will concede that this is true but note that this is unimportant for a few reasons.

1. Extend the Rawls card from the bottom of the framework. Rawls explains that justice centers on preserving individual autonomy, meaning that utilitarian impacts are not grounds for violating autonomy. If people would like to leave the other nation for a better life, that is their choice. They are not beholden to the people in that country; they have no obligation to remain and suffer simply so that the economy does not suffer. This means that his case is entirely irrelevant.

2. Turn this arguments because he admits that open immigration would cause an influx of talented individuals from other nations into the United States through voluntary transactions. This would be enormously beneficial for the United States economy because it would allow for intelligent people to contribute to the innovation that the US promotes.

3. This is actually beneficial for the Mexican economy in the long run. The US and Mexico engage in free trade through NAFTA, so any innovations that result from the influx of innovative minds would ultimately improve the lives of Mexican citizens because it would grant them access to new materials that previously did not exist. Even if the Mexican citizens who remain are unable to secure these resources at first, over time, increased innovation will allow the resources to trickle down to them and improve their lot in life. Second, open immigration would give nations like Mexico an incentive to correct their destructive economic practices and invest in innovation. The reason that people would leave Mexico is that it does not promote an environment that is friendly to innovation and success. If Mexico wants these people to remain, it will now have an incentive to invest money in innovation and cease poor economic practices. This will aid the Mexican economy in the long run far more than trapping talent in a nation that will not use it.

Sources
1. A Theory of Justice by John Rawls
2. Migration and Morality by Joseph Carens
3. http://www.mrrena.com...

Debate Round No. 2
ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank my opponent for her comments. I will now take this time to refute the arguments brought forth by my opponent. Please note I am not a xenophobic, however I support the US adopting different immigration policies, and this is a result of that.


THE QUOTES IN GENERAL

My opponent has done some quote mining. For example, his quote from Carens about people desiring to move for jobs, family members etc. was talking about movement within a country. “More generally, one has only to ask whether the right to migrate freely within a given society is an important liberty.” This quote was not about migrating from one society to another, but within a society. Furthermore, because these people have said these things does not make them true or arguments.



The Standard of Justice

MOST IMPORTANTLY, the definition of justice will vary from person to person, country to country. Justice in one country may be the death penalty, while in the other it may be letting the criminal walk free. Just because John Rawls said that justice means the rights of an individual over the rights of many does not make it so. When justice is deliberated in our society today, different people will tell you different things based on the case. For example, will we allow the right to autonomy in one individual, but in the process violate the right to life, liberty, and happiness of a million individuals? What John Rawls has said cannot be taken as the definition of justice as justice is nearly impossible to define.

While justice is important, the United States is not the decider of what is justice for other countries. We cannot prosecute criminals who commit a crime in Bosnia. Though global issues such as genocides require global attention, the United States has no responsibility and does not extend its rights to non-citizens who do not reside within the United States. This concept of us fighting for those people and extending them rights that apply to US citizens is non-sensible. The state’s duty first and foremost is to its own people.



Arbitrary borders and accidental citizenship

The idea and right of self-government does not apply without borders. For example, people will come and go as they please, leaving it impossible for people to effectively vote and decide on a government for a nation without borders. Though it is arbitrary, citizens of any country have stayed there and contributed to that country enough to earn a citizenship and the right to vote and self-governance. If you’re unhappy with the country that you currently live in, you may still immigrate or leave that country. Thousands of people travelling as they please within a country will undermine the concept of self-governance.



Right to Autonomy

As I have shown, the country the immigrants leave will be damaged, thus harming the rights of everyone still living within that country, thus this right does not apply anymore as it is harming others. Freedom of movement is not an international right, rather a right that is accepted by many states, included the United States. [1] However, this right does not apply to everybody on Earth, only United States citizens.



Right to Property

Regarding the example my opponent has brought forth, I fail to see why the relevance in this debate. I never stated that people cannot lawfully purchase land within the US and immigrate, merely that we should not implement free immigration, we should not allow people without high school degrees and no job experience to immigrate to the US. Now if this person bought land, that would different. I fail to see the relevance.

REFUTATION


Right to Autonomy

My opponent has once again brought up the point of autonomy, however this right fails if the person is not capable of making adequate decisions by themselves or if it harms others. My opponent has conceded that the brain drain is a negative effect on a country and has conceded that it essentially harms the state and everybody within it, thus the right to autonomy in this case does not apply.



Talented Individuals

True, some talented individuals will arrive in the US. However, the economy is terrible in the United States and US citizens themselves cannot get jobs. Now, an influx of talented immigrants with law degrees arrives and competes with US citizens who also have law degrees. Clearly, someone will not have a job, and this may even spark racial hatred. However, the US will also receive millions of untrained, low-skilled workers. Only 28% of people in Mexico have college degrees [2], and many of these people will come to the United States.



Beneficial to the Mexican Economy

Firstly, my opponent has provided no source to his claim that people immigrate away from a country because of a lack of innovation. I think a far more appropriate reason would be because the country is a third world country completely lacking in education and standards of living. Open immigration would not give Mexico an incentive to improve because the vast majority of the citizens would have left for first world America. Finally, this focus on Mexico isn’t part of this debate. The resolution is free immigration, that means not only Mexicans may immigrate to the United States, but anybody from around the world, so really this entire refutation is small and irrelevant.



CONCLUSION

My opponent has attempted to argue the resolution through rights, however she has admitted that the brain drain effect is real and harming the country and its citizens, thus the rights to autonomy and property are irrelevant as the rights of the individual are harming the rights and freedoms of others within that country. Some of my opponent’s refutation has also not relevant and the definition of justice varies from individual to individual. Back to PRO.

SOURCES:

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
  2. http://chronicle.com...





royalpaladin

Pro

Aff Case
At the top of the aff framework, I offered two reasons that we need to have a standard in this debate: education, and a drive to make the debate more meaningful. Con did not attack this at all, so extend this through. Since we need a standard for this round, and he never offers one, you still have to adopt Justice because there is literally no alternative. Note that since my opponent dropped this justification and offered no alternative in the previous round, so he may not do so in the next round-that would be considered cheating.

At this point, you can automatically extend Justice, but let’s examine his attacks on it.

He also that Justice varies from country to country. Please note that in the first round, he said that this debate is about the United States, so that obviously means we are discussing the United State’s conception of Justice. John Rawls is the preeminent American philosopher and the idea of the primacy of the individual is derived from our founding documents, so there is no reason to not adopt this standard in the debate.

Second, I would posit that he has an unwarranted assumption. He seems to think that just because people disagree about things that both are wrong. This is nonsense. If a toddler says that 1+1 is 3, that doesn’t mean that 1+1 does not equal 2; it means that the toddler is wrong. Similarly, just because some people have false beliefs about justice does not mean justice is subjective. It means that some people are wrong.

He also claims that the US should not be protecting other citizens. I never made this claim. I simply said that they should not violate the property and autonomy rights of other citizens. He says that we have to protect our rights, but the very reason that we have to do this is that citizens have inalienable rights outside of society. If they didn’t, the social contract wouldn’t matter in the first place; there would be nothing wrong with breaking agreements. Since he says that the state has to uphold agreements, his assumption is that inalienable rights exist outside of society, and since these rights exist, we have an obligation to respect them. The state cannot kill random people in India, for example; it has to respect their right to life.

You can thus extend Rawls and the primacy of individual rights. Individual rights can only be curtailed if rights are being violated, not just if there is a net negative harm that results from not violating them.

In response to the claim that borders are morally arbitrary, he says that the right to self-government does not apply if borders are open. This actually is not the case-we can still restrict voting rights to citizens and make a path to citizenship based on merit instead of accidental birth. In addition to this, even if we do not do this, there is no reason that we cannot hold elections if borders are open. The elections would simply consist of the people who are currently living in the society at the time. It’s not impossible.Immigration exists right now, and we still have elections.

He also says that people contributed and worked hard to be citizens. That is not the case. My opponent and I did not work to be US citizens-we were born here. We never chose our parents; we won a lottery of births.The homeless citizens who contribute little to society were born here by accident. In addition to this, just because some people work to contribute to society does not mean that they have the right to prevent others from working and making contributions. He never gives any warrant for this assertion.

In response to autonomy, he insists that this harms others. First, he hasn’t given any proof at all that it will harm others, and second, it doesn’t matter if it harms others as long as it does not violate their rights. Harming someone and violating her rights are not necessarily the same thing. If I buy Toys R Us and fire all of the workers, I have harmed all of them, but I have not violated their rights. He is falsely conflating harms with rights violations. There is no justification for restricting autonomy on the grounds that it harms another.

His point about freedom of movement is false. It is actually considered a human right according to the Declaration of Human Rights. Moreover, this debate is about whether or not it should be a right, and not about whether it is. He cannot claim that it should not be a right because it is not one right now. That is the is/ought logical fallacy. Just because something is a certain way does not mean it ought to be that way, and my claim is that freedom of movement is a part of the right to liberty, a negative right that precedes any sort of society (and the US gov. was founded on the principle of negative, inalienable rights for all people according to the Declaration of Independence).

In response to my property point, he says that he agrees that people should be able to come if they purchase land. Ok, that’s great. This flows to me. It doesn’t make sense that he thinks we should stop people with no education to come, however, if they can purchase land or if someone is willing to share her property with those people, since the right to property allows anybody to sell property to any person at any price and also to allow people to share property to anyone. In addition to this, if uneducated people cannot purchase any property, they would automatically be screened out even in a society with open immigration because there would be no place for them to stay.

Neg Case
I agree that brain drain exists. He again brings up the point that it is harmful to other people and thus you don’t have a right to do it. This is nonsense. The people in those countries have no obligations to the other people in their countries. It may harm them, but it does not violate their rights, so there is no justification for restricting their autonomy. You don’t have obligations to help other people. If someone needs gasoline, I don’t have any obligation to give it to them even if they are being harmed by my inaction. Similarly, the educated people who want to leave have no obligation to help the other people even if the brain drain harms them.

He claims that people in the US will have to compete for jobs. First of all, there are plenty of vacancies in areas that need talent, like healthcare and computer systems, and having people willing to take these jobs would be beneficial. Also, you do not have a right to not face competition for jobs. If someone wants to spend her money hiring someone in another country, that’s your problem. Your rights are not being violated because neither the property nor the jobs belong to you. This was very clear in the hypothetical Ashford example I gave with the diamond mine that was cold dropped, so extend that. He also says that this will spark racial hatred. Just because someone will be degrading to someone who succeeds does not mean that we should stop that person from succeeding. This is like saying that women shouldn’t be allowed to work because some men don’t like that they can work. Turn this whole jobs thing because this will force US citizens to actually take their college education seriously and become more competitive in order to out compete foreigners. That competition is good for the US economy.

He says that Mexico would have no incentive to improve because everyone would want to leave. Um, no, that’s exactly why they would have an incentive to improve-to make sure that people want to stay. If they want to retain people, they have to improve the job opportunities for people living in their country. He also says that the focus on Mexico is not part of the debate. Good. Turn this against him, because that means his whole case is irrelevant because it was only about Mexico. I agree that it was wrong of him to focus on one country. My refutation is not irrelevant becuase that’s what his case was about. He can’t restrict his case and say my rebuttal to his restricted case is irrelevant.
Debate Round No. 3
ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank my opponent for her comments and a great debate. I didn’t know that I needed to propose a standard, nor that I was supposed to clash with it. If my opponent wanted me to, I fail to understand why she didn’t request that I propose a standard in R1. I ask that readers not hold this against me when voting. I also retract my comment about quote-mining, it appears I misinterpreted the quote, and I hope I did not offend my opponent.

HARM vs. RIGHTS

When I stated “harm” in my previous round, I was referring to harming a country and the rights of everybody in that country, not “harm” as in physical or psychological harm. My opponent has admitted that brain drain exists and that it kills a developing country. Thus, everyone attempting to leave is violating the right to autonomy, life, liberty, freedom, almost every right that exists for those people still within the country and the country itself. For example, I cannot exercise my right to autonomy if it will harm the interests United States. Thus, the arguments regarding rights are invalid.

He said that Justice varies from country to country.

It varies within the United States. It is very clear that justice is not like a math question, justice unlike math will not always have a certain outcome. In every case, justice will be different. Thus, John Rawls ideas will not apply to every single case as they must be looked at individually. Thus, this standard really is an unknown variable.

He also claims that the US should not be protecting other citizens.

True the United States must uphold these people’s rights, but as I have shown, those people’s rights are harming the rights and lives of others, thus the United States has no responsibility to those people.

There is no reason that we cannot hold elections if borders are open.

Of course we cannot hold elections if borders are open. If we open our borders, people who are voting one day may not be here the next, thus they are essentially voting for other citizens as they will not even be part of our democratic process. Immigrants may enter the US, vote, then leave, creating a government that does not represent the population. Current immigration does not present this issue, so you cannot compare current immigration and free immigration.

If I buy Toys R Us and fire all the workers, I have harmed all of them, but I have not violated their rights.

Unless you had a valid reason for firing an entire companies worth of workers, you would be violating their rights (to be free of discrimination etc.). However, I have shown in the beginning of my speech how these harms violate people’s rights.

His point about freedom of movement is false.

I never made a point about freedom of movement, I only pointed out that it was a right acknowledged in the United States, it is not an international right.

If uneducated people cannot purchase property, they would be automatically screened out even in a society with open immigration

This does not follow with my definition of free immigration which I laid out in R1. Under free immigration, we are obligated to let these people in, something I am against.

There are plenty of vacancies in areas that need talent, like healthcare and computer systems.

However, as I pointed out in the previous round these people do not have the skills to do these jobs, precisely why some of them failed to enter the United States currently. These people will not fill high skilled jobs and will only fill low-skilled jobs. This competition will only allow employers to abuse wages because there is such a large pool to choose workers from.

This is like saying that women shouldn’t be allowed to work because some men don’t like that they can work.

I never said this. I merely said that it creates racism, not that we should ban immigrants because of the fact that it creates racism. Somebody loses their job to an immigrant’s family. Will that person be happy to live beside that immigrant? Of course not, this will obviously create racism and hatred within the United States and failure to assimilate.

Mexico will have no incentive to improve because everyone would want to leave.

My opponent believes a third-world country will somehow find billions of dollars to fix their country and attract people to go to Mexico and not the United States. Clearly, they may have an incentive to improve, but it will be impossible to do so.

Turn this against him, because that means his whole case is irrelevant because it was only about Mexico.

I never stated ANYWHERE that this debate was about Mexico. I only used Mexico as an EXAMPLE, people from other countries will obviously be allowed to come in as well.

CONCLUSION

This was a wonderful debate, thank you PRO! I have shown how the brain drain effect will harm the country and the rights of the people within the country, effectively negating the PRO case. Thus, I urge voters to vote CON!

royalpaladin

Pro

Aff Case
Last round I extended my theory arg that explained that we needed a standard I also noted that my opponent offered no alternative to Justice,. His response to this is that he does not know how to use standards and that I should have told this to him in Round 1. However, it is not my fault that my opponent was unable to respond to the theory shell I provided in favor of the standard, so there is no reason to allow him to get away with this. In general, I am not under any obligation to give him my arguments before the debate starts. So, extend the conception of Justice I provide.

A key point that I have discussed in this debate is the difference between harming an individual and violating her rights. I gave several examples to prove that there is nothing wrong with harming a person as long as her rights are not violated. My opponent continues to exist that if people exercise their right to autonomy and leave the country, the rights of others are being violated. However, this is not the case because the people who are leaving do not owe anything to the other people. The others are not owed the use of their talents or skills, and if they desire to leave, there is nothing wrong with leaving even if it harms them. The harm in this case is irrelevant because as Rawls noted, the individual, and not society, is of primacy.

Against Justice, he claimed it was subjected. I pointed out that just because people believe different things does not mean it is subjective; it simply means one person is wrong. I gave the math example to prove this. My opponent claims that justice will not always have a certain outcome. This is just an assumption-there is no warrant behind this claim. If justice is objective, then it should always have a certain outcome, and if different trials in the United States lead to different results, that means one judge has acted unjustly, not that justice changes. My opponent has not proven that there is anything inherent to justice that makes it subjective; he only has proven that people believe different things about justice. As the math example noted, however, different beliefs do not translate into subjectivity.

In response to his claim that we only have an obligation to not violate our own citizens’ rights, I pointed out that this belief rests on the notion of inalienable rights; without inalienable rights, the notion of a social contract is self-defeating. He responds to this by again asserting that free immigration violates the rights of the people in other countries when other people leave. Once again, since the people who are leaving do not owe anything to those other people and their talents belong to themselves, even if it harms them, it is not violating their rights. Second, this argument is nonresponsive to the claim about the social contract being self-defeating if natural rights do not exist, so extend that. Finally, this argument is just absurd because it could be used to justify any sort of tyranny. It harms rural populations in the US while intelligent individuals leave rural states to get good jobs in the city. If I get married to someone outside of my immediate family, my parents are harmed because I cannot not help out with chores around the house. Clearly we would never say that these things violate rights within families and countries, so there is no basis for extending these outside of the country.

I had two counters to his elections arg. The first one, which said that citizenship should be on merit and not on accident of birth, was dropped, so extend that. The second was that elections could be held anyways just like they are now. He says that this is unjust because the gov. would no longer be representative. This is entirely nonunique. With every passing moment, the composition of the population of the US right now changes. People die, people are born, people become of voting age, people immigrate, and people emigrate. So, if his theory is true, the US government right now is not representative. It is ludicrous to vote on a new gov. every time the population changes, so we hold elections on cycles. There is no reason this cannot be done if immigration is open.

He drops the arg about how people benefitting from the system right now did not work to be a part of it, so extend that. This means that there is no basis for rejecting other people who did not work hard. He also drops the arg that says that just because you buy into the system does not mean you get to pick who else buys in.

In response to the Toys example, he says that their right to be free from discrimination is harmed. There is no right to be free from discrimination based on private property. The company belongs to me. If his arg is true, every time a parent pays for her child’s clothes and not someone else’s child, the other child is being discriminated against and this is wrong. Clearly, it is not, however, since the person who owns the property can do as he or she pleases.

I pointed out that free immigration is a right, and that some people would be willing to share or rent property at low costs to uneducated people. I also pointed out that they would be screened out on the basis of not being able to purchase private property. He says this is against his definition and we have to let them stay here. No, it is not against his definition because I am giving everybody the opportunity to come in and stay. If someone has no place to stay, however, they would be unable, without any gov. force being used, to stay, because there is no place for them to stay. His definition excludes people de jure; my claim is that even with free immigration, people will be screened out de facto. Since this would not occur as a result of gov. force and law, and rather would be natural, it fulfills his definition.

Neg Case

I brought up the point about obligations and autonomy last round, and that was totally dropped, so extend that cleanly across the flow. That is a clear reason to affirm because it takes out the entirely of the neg case, which is based on a harm but not on a violation of rights.

Against his unskilled labor point, I noted that there are vacancies in skilled fields like healthcare. He says that immigrants won’t have the skills to have those jobs. That’s not necessarily true. There are plenty of immigrants right now who do have those skills, and there is no reason to assume that immigrants won’t have those skills. For some reason, he’s trying to restrict this debate to unskilled laborers after he posted his R1. He should have made this more clear at that time. You can’t let him make this restriction now. He then reasserts that this harms US citizens because it makes them compete for jobs. Extend the dropped argument that noted that you don’t have a right to be free from job competition because neither the job nor the money belongs to you. The owners can pay anybody they want, and you have no say.

I pointed out that racism is not a reason to not let people work just as sexism is not a reason to not let people work. He then says that he agrees that it’s not a reason to stop them from working but also says it causes racism. Ok, that’s fine-if he agrees it’s not a reason to stop them, then this argument automatically falls because he conceded it was wrong.

In response to the economy of Mexico argument, I noted that Mexico has an incentive to improve. He says that this is unfeasible. No, it isn’t. If Mexico stops spending money on gov. corruption on and spends more on improving working conditions, it can turn its situation around. Compromises will have to be made, and politicians will have to steal a little less, but they will be forced to do it because, ultimately, they lose their source of income (the people) if they do not fix themselves.

I then pointed out that his whole case focused on one country. He says that it was just an example and that other people would come. Ok, that doesn’t matter. My arguments apply to the economies of other countries too.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
This was a pretty clear victory for Pro, and a perfect example of why you need to know your enemy in a debate. Con tried to center the debate around the practical effects of free-immigration, which is a reasonable standard but Pro argues instead that we need to focus on individual rights. Instead of arguing against this (like util. ,or states not being moral actors, or free immigration harming property rights *cough* welfare state) he makes no response so I have to flow through Pros framework and vote based on that. I also buy the argument that we need to have some standard to judge by or the debate is essentially useless. This made the debate come down to a values debate which is, I suspect, what royal wanted to begin with. Shes in her element here.

So under the rights framework theres basically no reason to vote Con. Pro points out, and rightfully so, how Con assumes harms mean rights violations, when they just dont. Con even argues that there is no objective morality, so in that case why should I value any of his impacts, let alone the absurd idea that all harms are rights violations. But I digress, Pro is clearly superior in this regard. I do sort of buy the argument that Pro doesn't explain why the rights she lists are rights, but I'll accept them since we do have to have some kind of standard and those rights are recognized in the US (so even under Con's moral relativism I can look to these) I can clearly vote Pro on Autonomy and Property, and the moral arbitrarility of borders shows that these rights arent specific to US citizens.

Since harms are not rights violations, I can negate.
Posted by ZakYoungTheLibertarian 4 years ago
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
economics benefits of low skilled immigrants are massive
Posted by Buddamoose 4 years ago
Buddamoose
CONTINUED RFD:

... is irrelevant.

Inability to hold elections: Aff perfectly rebuts this. Indeed our current governmental representation in the U.S. is not, even such a short time after the general elections, isnt actually perfectly representative. We still have them though.

I could go on for quite awhile about this but suffice to say, this debate goes to the affirmative.

Arguments to AFF

Spelling and Grammar: Both sides had equally well grammar and spelling from what I can see, so this is an obvious tie.

Conduct: Again, both sided were equal in proper conduct, in the sense that they both remained amicable, and this didnt de-evovle into useless flaming. Tie for conduct

Sourcing: Both sides used some good sources, but the slight edge in this goes to the Affirmative because of Con's use of wikipedia sources. I know its tempting, but wikipedia isnt a 100% valid source for a reason. If i may suggest digging into the sources that were used for the wikipedia pages and pulling information from those in the future, rather than straight from wikipedia.
Posted by Buddamoose 4 years ago
Buddamoose
I'll start with explaining some of my thoughts as I was reading this. Con's argumentation that a brain drain was harmful to the country people were immigrating "from" is true.

However what Con failed to realize in the very beginning and was that Aff had "turned" his disadvantage into an advantage.

Con chose to, rather than address the fact that it was now an advantage, continue to say that his argument had been dropped. No, it was not dropped, it was turned.

There were other key components of cases that were not properly addressed. Such as:

Harms V Rights- Con attempts to address this, but does not adequately do so. He states that when people immigrate from a country it will effect the rights of others. But as Con stated in Round 2, " individuals have the negative rights of life, liberty, a property. It is important to note that these are not collective rights; they belong to individuals and not to groups of individuals unless the groups consist of individuals who unanimously choose to exercise their rights in such a manner through consen."

This was never, from what I can see addressed, and suits as a rebuttal to even con's round 3 and 4 arguments that immigration harms the rights of those that remain in the country.

The individuals that chose to immigrate, have no obligation to stay if they choose not to. They are not taking away anything from others, that doesnt already belong to them. To force them to stay, would though, be taking something away from the individual who wishes to immigrate. Their right to freedom of movement.

And con attempts to say freedom of movement is not an international right. Well actually, aff says that it is considered an "international right" and indeed it is via the U.N.'s declaration of human rights I do believe.

But even if it were not, the debate was within the context of the specific country of the United States. Where IT IS, considered a natural right/freedom. So to say its not an "international right"
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
I'm cool with that.
Posted by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
"States", as in "nation-states" is a term that refers to governments in general.

I will not demand conduct points if you agree to remove your assertion that I quote-mined in the next round. Does that sound fair?
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
I'm sorry if I'm coming off as mean, I do not take insults to my character lightly either. I don't live in the US, I thought by states he meant states.
Posted by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
I'm sorry if I'm coming off as mean, but I do not take any insults to my character lightly. Don't accuse me of cheating and lying in the future.
Posted by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
I'm sorry, but explain to me how a paragraph that literally talks about moving between countries is talking about moving within a society. Could you explain that to me? I'm not sure I'm getting it.

You obviously didn't read the next sentence: "The same sorts of considerations make migration across state boundaries important."

The same sorts of considerations as what? Oh, that's right: the previous sentence: "More generally, one has only to ask whether the right to migrate freely within a given society is an important liberty."

Yes, you are straight up lying. You took one quote of context and accused me of quote mining. That accusation was false. Since it was false, it was a lie.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
"More generally, one has only to ask whether the right to migrate freely within a given society is an important liberty. The same sorts of considerations make migration across state boundaries important"

Fine, you can ignore my quote mine thing, but that's completely unfair for you to get conduct for this. I think he's talking about movement within a society, as shown by the next sentance when he talks about the movement within a society. WHAT THE CRAP IS THIS LIE THING???? I wasn't freaking lying.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Noumena 4 years ago
Noumena
ishallannoyyoroyalpaladinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Any politically natured debate will need some standard upon which to base arguments. This much should be uncontroversial and Con shot himself in the foot by not attempting to argue with Pro's. The standards of Justice (Rawls) and negative liberty (Nozick) seem slightly contradicting on my own view but Pro presented them in a more or less coherent manner. Con, was burdened with either refuting Pro's standard or provding a more coherent standard of his own. He failed to do so, instead relegating a just standard to an "unknown variable" which turned against his own case rather than refuting Pro's. Con therefore had no way of justifying his quasi-nationalist-utilitarian standard and no way or refuting Pro's standard of justice. Therefore the debate goes to Pro almost by default. Con also focused too much on minor points, rather than on the overarching nature of the debate which further hurt his case.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
ishallannoyyoroyalpaladinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Buddamoose 4 years ago
Buddamoose
ishallannoyyoroyalpaladinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments