The Instigator
bartol
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
minddrag
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Immigrant crisis in Europe

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 417 times Debate No: 86677
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

bartol

Pro

I would allow all immigrants permanent shelter in EU, however, since they came all borders for economic immigrants have been closed. I personally feel that these immigrants need help and we should give it to them, but I would also consider bringing in certain quotas as to how much immigrants can come inside a certain country every month. What do you think? Should the European borders for immigrants be closed? Let me know.
Note: please don't use slang, as some users may not understand it. Also, please no discrimination, racism or arguing in the comments. Being polite while debating is also preferable.
minddrag

Con

Before I begin the debate, I think it would be helpful to clarify a few different things. You are side pro that any and all immigrants should be allowed into Europe, within certain quotas as to how many are allowed in. You believe that the borders should be open to everyone, is this correct? You also stated immigrants and not refugees? Do you mean the refugees from Iraq and Syria or other immigrants, as I cannot find reference to anything other then a refugee crisis. I would like you to clarify on the points that I have just listed above. I would need numbers of quota's and the type of immigrants or refugees that would be admitted into Europe before any kind of debate can begin, as there is no argument for either side with such vague statements.
Debate Round No. 1
bartol

Pro

Yes, I believe borders should be open for everyone. I was, of course, referencing to the refugee crisis. I think that these are basic moral and humane rules, but I am also considering quotas of cca 25000 immigrants per country per month, as the crisis may or may not destroy Shengen. Despite being pro in this argument, I am considering quotas because after Shengen comes the European Union and so on.
minddrag

Con

I don't have any time to debate today, so I will make this very brief. Canada, the third largest country in the world with a great economy, is struggling to bring in 25000 Syrian refugees in a year! How can you expect other countries to do it in a month, and 12 times in a year! This is simply not economically feasible. Also you have to think about the job market that these immigrants are coming into and the dangers that some immigrants pose to society. Some immigrant groups also, will not conform and do not follow the values of our societies so how can we let them live in our countries. These are my points in brief, and I will go more in depth on them later.
Debate Round No. 2
bartol

Pro

Yes, I should definitely consider the factors of immigrants getting jobs and different values of life in foreign countries. For someone making it brief, I have to hand it to you, you make some convincing arguments. Yet again, you cannot say that these immigrants pose a threat to our nations' securities. Sure, some will definitely rebel and thus pose an insecurity, but I got the impression that you're saying they are terrorists. Some may be, and with ISIL around, we have all the rights to feel insecure. But are we truly so paranoid that we cannot accept starving, poor immigrants who currently live in unsanitary and unsafe enveironments, just because we irrationally feel they're terrorists? Isn't humankind better than that? Haven't we evolved to help those in need? I know morale, which is currently speaking, is irrational as well, but have we really decreased to this?
minddrag

Con

Allowing millions of Syrians and others from the Muslim Middle East into Europe will end up as a catastrophe for Europe, and therefore for the West. This may be the most difficult sentence I have ever written. Little seems more moral than to allow these Syrians, Iraqis, and others to flee from hell into heaven. Therefore, arguing against allowing large numbers of them into Europe seems to be advocating for something that is just morally wrong.

Many Muslim immigrants in the U.K., France, and Sweden live in Muslim ghettoes, and have not assimilated. Moreover, and of particular importance, children of the immigrants " the ones born and raised in European countries " are usually the most radical and anti-Western. It is worth recalling that the 9/11 terror attack on America was planned by Muslim immigrants living in Germany. Muhammad Atta, the leader, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Ziad Jarrah, Said Bahaji, and Marwan al-Shehhi had each lived in Germany for eight years and Bahaji was born there.

There are three reasons that we cannot allow immigrants into the EU.
First, many of the children of these immigrants will not remember Assad or ISIS and will resent their likely inferior socioeconomic status and lack of full integration into European society. They will then cause havoc in Europe.

Second, the economic growth and unemployment rates of the EU countries including Germany are not robust enough to handle a vast number of newcomers. And as the British writer Janet Daly pointed out in the Telegraph, what about "the pressures on their hospitals and GPs" surgeries, and of shortages of housing and school places"?

Third, it is as certain as night follows day that Islamic State and other terror groups will place terrorists among the refugees coming into Europe.

As a result of the three arguments above, some European countries will be threatened by far-right political movements that will arise in opposition to the the threat to their national identity, values and economy.
Debate Round No. 3
bartol

Pro

First of all, just because the parents didn't doesn't mean the immigrants' children will not assimilate. Of course the opinions of these future kids will be somewhat forged by their families, but I don't think that stops these people from at least trying to assimilate.

Second of all, a lot of people nowadays are going from secondary (industry) to terciary(tourism, banks and such) job sectors. I know it sounds bad, but immigrants could easily replace them in their secondary-sector jobs. Also, I only took Germany as an example. There are hundreds of thousands of job opportunities for immigrants in Balcan countries, which our own people don't want to do. Again, I know it sounds bad, but this hiring model has not been tested yet, and we cannot know if it will be good or bad.

Third and final, some immigrants will definitely be terrorists. But as I said before, can this paranoia stop us from helping these people. Morale issues aside, I agree that our perception in terrorists' power is still pretty vague, and we cannot certainly know how many terrorists will infiltrate this way. But Germany (again, for example) still accepted a lot of immigrants, perfectly knowing the risks involved in doing so. Why? Because it has a strong military and police force, as well as all the prime targets of all these immigrants.

To conclude, most of these immigrants are now living on the borders between two countries, as some countries have closed them. At this point they can either return to their countries, which are in war, or the countries they are trying to get into will allow them to do so. What I'm trying to say, they have nothing to do but to exist right now. They are stuck in a stalemate and they will not return, as it is not in their interest to do so. This is why I offered a solution to this(letting them in), as they are currently blocking any form of borderline action(military, political, economical inter-European immigration).
minddrag

Con

Thank you for this wonderful debate. I would just like to rebut your points before my conclusion. If the parents haven't assimilated then the kids would also become radical as stated above. This is because kids are taught by their parents and wouldn't fully understand what they were fleeing from. All they would understand is their horrible situation in their country, and become radical.

As stated before, economies do not have the strength to create thousands of jobs. The population of a country is constantly cycling and those jobs that are vacated are filled by the childeren of the workers, as a new work force comes in. We know as a result of other immigration crisis that there are never enough jobs and that the economies need to be looked at.

Paranoia can and will stop us from stupidly accepting all immigrants at a breakneck speed. If we move too fast we risk accepting immigrants that have problems and are undercover terrorists.

To conclude these immigrants will pose a security risk, take our jobs and will grow up to be future problems. There is simple not the time nor the money to be accepting thousands of immigrants, and it is not worth the risk. Thank you for this wonderful debate.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Yes. The borders should have been closed a long time ago. It will end like in ex Jugoslavia. A lose-lose situation with millions of dead. My guess...
No votes have been placed for this debate.