The Instigator
Meganrihanne1992x
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
60 Points

Immigration is changing rural England life

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,777 times Debate No: 7424
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (89)
Votes (10)

 

Meganrihanne1992x

Pro

Britain's face is changing. More than half of all babies born in London last year were the children of foreign-born mothers. Across England and Wales, the figure was approaching a quarter.
Recent polls, including the Ipsos Mori political monitor, last month, have put immigration at number one in the public's list of concerns. This used to be a polite way for people to tell pollsters that they were racists.

Yet race is no longer the issue: not since the arrival of more than 600,000 white Eastern Europeans after the expansion of the European Union in 2004, in what has become the biggest-ever influx of foreigners to our shores.

After a decade of broadly pro-immigration policies, Labour is on the defensive. Jacqui Smith's appointment as Home Secretary in June surprised Westminster, but she knows why Gordon Brown chose her for the job.

When he was chancellor and she was Chief Whip, an MP for a Midlands marginal seat, she submitted political strategy papers to him that singled out immigration, particularly from Eastern Europe, as a top concern of voters, and one that the Government needed to address. Brown admired her political acumen.

Yet, since her arrival in the Home Office, it has been business as usual. The arrival of EU migrant workers has continued apace, while The Sunday Telegraph reveals today that the Home Office is moving towards an amnesty that could allow hundreds of thousands of failed "legacy" asylum-seekers to settle legally in Britain.

Meanwhile, there is little appetite in the Conservative leadership to challenge Labour over the issue. David Cameron has resisted calls from the Tory Right to talk more about immigration, for fear of surrendering the political centre ground.

A poll on the ConservativeHome website, last week, suggested that 39 per cent of party supporters want more focus on immigration, while only 31 per cent were happy with the current stance. But a change of strategy at this stage would bring accusations that the leader was lurching to the Right only to shore up his own position.

The asylum amnesty will apply to some of the backlog of 450,000 cases that were identified last year, while John Reid was home secretary, as the leftovers from a decade of Whitehall incompetence.

These individuals were assessed by officials, often many years ago, and judged to be economic migrants rather than refugees. Instead of being removed from the country, they were left in limbo for years. Many, understandably, have settled, started families and found work in the black economy.

Calls for an amnesty have won the backing of church leaders and more than 80 MPs, led by Jon Cruddas, the former Labour deputy leadership contender.

If asylum-seekers were given permission to remain in Britain and find work, the campaigners say, they would go from being a burden on the economy to being an asset, paying taxes instead of claiming benefits.

This claim is disputed by the pressure group MigrationWatch, which calculates that the extra burden the regularised migrants would place on the Welfare State would outweigh the taxes they paid.

Ministers refuse to call the legacy case review an "amnesty", for fear of the political backlash that the word brings. Yet, for many failed asylum-seekers, it will look and feel like an amnesty.

That brings a disadvantage: the prospect that it will encourage further illegal immigrants to try their luck in Britain in the expectation of another amnesty a few years later.

It is also unfair to low-skilled workers who have sought entry to Britain through legitimate channels and been turned down, only to find that their counterparts who broke the law and entered the country as stowaways are now being granted permission to stay on as legitimate migrant workers.

When Spain declared a three-month amnesty for illegal immigrants in 2005, about 700,000 people took the opportunity to regularise their status. The country's Socialist government claimed that the move raised �1 billion in taxes. The opposition said it incurred one-off costs and sparked far-Right attacks on immigrants.

MigrationWatch has identified three previous "amnesties" in Britain, none on the scale of the current operation. In 1993, the Conservative government granted "exceptional leave to remain" to 32,000 adults.

In 1999, a "backlog clearance exercise" under Labour gave 29,000 people indefinite leave to remain. And in 2003 David Blunkett, as home secretary, launched the "family exercise", under which 70,000 adults and children, all of whom claimed asylum before 2001, have been granted settlement rights.

In 2004, the all-party Commons Home Affairs Committee declared: "Amnesties set up a vicious circle which should be broken by discouragement of unfounded claims, fast and efficient processing of those claims when made, and rapid removals when claims have failed."

Recent reforms to asylum and immigration have mainly amounted to tinkering around the edges, from the New Asylum Model, which has speeded up the handling of some claims, to points-based assessment for skilled migrants, to the rebranding of the Home Office's immigration directorate as the Borders and Immigration Agency.

None of the changes has had much effect: the flow of foreign citizens into Britain via work permits, student visas or other schemes has been largely untouched.

Increased security at Channel ports has had some impact on illegal entrants. Yet, while the Government cannot prevent stowaways from finding their way into Britain and claiming asylum, the bulk of current immigration is the result of a deliberate decision by ministers.

When the EU expanded in May 2004, members including France and Germany banned nationals from the "A8" joining countries, chiefly Poland, from taking up jobs immediately. Britain, Ireland and Sweden were the only countries to open their labour markets overnight.

The result was the biggest wave of immigration this country has ever seen. It is a testament to British tolerance, as well as to the hard-working character of most of the new migrants, that this historic event has sparked no riots or protest movements. Yet its impact on our public services, housing and culture has yet to be fully felt.

Six years ago, the Cantle report on the riots in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley found that in those towns, the white and Pakistani Muslim communities were leading separate lives.

We do not yet know how quickly our newest arrivals will integrate. Research on central and Eastern European migrants, published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation earlier this year, concluded that "the vast majority spent most of their time with recent or settled migrants from their own country and with migrants from other countries".

As our map on page 17 shows, the new migration hotspots are not the multi-ethnic inner cities that absorbed previous waves of immigration, but rural towns and villages where low-paid farm and hotel work is being done by Eastern Europeans.

In Scarborough, North Yorkshire, Polish grocery shops have sprung up. In Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, a policeman has taught himself to speak Lithuanian so he can chat to locals on his beat.

The biggest winners, apart from the migrants themselves, are the farmers and hoteliers who employ them at minimum-wage rates. The losers are the British craftsmen and cleaners, farm labourers and semi-skilled workers whose wages have been forced down as they compete in the labour market.

Overall, immigration increases the size of Britain's total economy, but its impact on what really matters - gross domestic product per head, or average wealth - is very small. Andrew Green, of MigrationWatch, claims that the positive effect is equivalent to 4p a week, or a Mars bar every three months.

should we put our foot down against illegal immigrants overpopulating england?
i think so
Danielle

Con

For purposes of clarification, let it be noted that the resolution is not exactly worded properly according to Pro's stance in the debate. It is my understanding (after reading Round One) that the resolution should read: We should "put our foot down" against illegal immigrants overpopulating England... which is, after all, the only part of Round One that my opponent herself actually wrote (this is obvious from the improper grammar, punctuation, capitalization, etc.). In fact the entire round was written by journalist Ben Leapman, but I digress. That being said, "putting our foot down" shall refer to England taking immediate legal action against illegal aliens.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[ IMMIGRATION & HUMAN CAPITAL ]

Generally speaking, there are two types of immigrants that affect the UK today: refugees, and economic migrants. Refugees are those fleeing from their home countries out of fear of persecution, to avoid the turmoil of war, or to seek a better and safer life for themselves and their families. Economic migrants are those who travel to England in search of better financial opportunities and economic security.

So I ask Pro - Why shouldn't these individuals be allowed to seek greater opportunities for themselves and their well being? Surely Pro would respond that this would only be acceptable through legal means. However, consider the philosophical / political ideology of natural rights, supported by many of the greatest political thinkers (John Locke - who greatly influenced English politics and whose theories still apply to policies there today, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Hobbes, etc.).

Natural rights are those which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Hobbes notes, "It is the essential, natural human right for man to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own judgment, and Reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto." In other words, people have the right to pursue their own rational self-interests. If laws do not comply with these interests, they should be changed. Many political thinkers in England today agree, and there is a huge following of people who suggest that amnesty should, in fact, be granted to many of England's illegal immigrants...

But why? In this debate, I shall explore various reasons as to why England should not make "putting their foot down" on illegal immigrants a top priority, at least at this point in time. In addition to economic and political citation, I would like to note the issue of HUMAN CAPITAL that said immigrants bring to the UK. Human capital is defined as the skills, knowledge, and ability that people acquire through formal and informal learning, which are important for economic growth. For instance, if an Italian immigrated to England and brought with them the idea to market Italian cuisine (as well as introduce the concept and food preparation to others, so that they may also market Italian cuisine... enhancing market competition, by the way), that would be an example of human capital via immigration enhancing England's economy. It is important to note that foreign human capital is often of great use, as it introduces dramatically different ideologies, ideas, plans, goals, etc. Diversification is typically always good for economic advancement and growth.

In order to combat these points, Pro would have to explain (1) Why people don't have the right to seek asylum outside of their dangerous home countries where their lives and livelihoods might be threatened, (2) Why people can't exercise free will to move as they please so long as they do not pose any major harm or threat to society, (3) Why law takes precedence over human rights (good luck!), (4) Why human capital via immigrants is not useful (haha - again, good luck!).

[ THE REALITY ]

The IPPR claims that tracking down and deporting huge numbers of people would cost �4.7billion, and take more than 30 years. Moreover, it would take more than a century to clear the backlog, meaning that most illegal immigrants are likely to live out their lives in the UK without interference from the authorities. How is that productive? Shadow home secretary David Davis said, "Our economy would shrink, and we would notice it straightaway in uncleaned offices, dirty streets and unstaffed pubs and clubs. So we have a choice: make people live in the shadows, exploited and fearful for the future; or bring them into the mainstream, to pay taxes and live an honest life" [1].

Pro must explain how (1) It is in England's best moral/fiscal interest to spend �4.7billion over 30 years in the current economic conditions to focus on deporting immigrants, and since that is non-sensical, then (2) Why xenophobia is okay.

[ ECONOMIC PROSPERITY ]

Given the fact that it would take 30 years to remove all of Britain's illegal workers at the current rates of deportations, plus the fact that people continue to immigrate illegally into the UK, it is reasonable to assume that England will not be getting rid of its immigrants any time soon. As a result, illegal immigrants are working "off the books" and are therefore occupying professions without paying taxes to the State. In other words, they are reaping public benefits without contributing to the costs.

Most immigrants are not exploiting the system purposefully; they are just unable to extend their visas or achieve legal status. However, if they are allowed to become legal citizens (and therefore be forced to pay taxes) it is estimated by The Institute for Public Policy Research that the extra fiscal regularization of illegal workers would bring the Exchequer between �500m and �1bn in extra tax revenues [2]. Pro's very own source (the site she plagiarized from) says: If asylum-seekers were given permission to remain in Britain and find work, they would go from being a burden on the economy to being an asset, paying taxes instead of claiming benefits. Thus, clearly it is in England's best interest to recognize these migrant workers and have them contribute revenue to the State.

To argue this, the author of "Pro's" argument would note (taken from his article): MigrationWatch calculates that the extra burden the regularized migrants would place on the Welfare State would outweigh the taxes they paid. I can combat this false premise in several ways. First, the statistics regarding illegal immigration in the UK are shaky, at best. There is no way to prove this for certain. Second, I've pointed out that immigrants in England are there to stay, and they're already receiving welfare-like benefits, making this a moot point. Third, in noting that "the farmers and hoteliers who employ them (immigrants) at minimum-wage rates" are amongst the 'winners' in this scenario, Ben Leapman ignores the obvious economic reality that diminishing production costs reduces consumer costs. Plus, the competitive job market will --> capitalistic innovation. Brilliant!

To argue these points regarding the economy, Pro would have to detail (1) An analysis of how keeping immigrants in England illegally for the next 30 years is cost-beneficial to the State, which receives no revenue from them despite them utilizing public funding regardless of their status, (2) Why England should not receive taxes for the work that immigrants do in that country, (3) Why England would be better off without an extra �500m - �1bn in tax revenue, (4) Why competition is bad.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'm out of characters for now!

Sources:
[1] http://www.thisislondon.co.uk...
[2] http://www.independent.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
Meganrihanne1992x

Pro

I refute under the circumstances..

That "the l werd" has continued to prolong a debate which has been denied

she has constantly questioned this debate and only when
appearences and personal statements got involved she fought back this arguement .. that i couldnt be bothered
to read...
I refuse debate with the l werd as i find her very contridictive and arrogant, she ridiculed my debate and now wants to challenge me because she is continuosly been fought back at and dosent like it.

she hasnt put into account different opinions.. and as basically wasted her time on an arguement simply because she cant see two sides of a story which is in need to be a good debater.
I withheld this arguement.. and so wish to delete it after so many misunderstandings regarding it.
Danielle

Con

I'll leave the "personal attacks" for the Comments Section.

Insofar as the actual debate (if you can call it that), my opponent has proven to be completely incompetent. Considering the fact that she will probably forfeit the remainder of the rounds, I'd ask voters to consider the fact that (1) I argued against every point that the ACTUAL AUTHOR of this article made, and (2) Pro has failed to adequately (or even inadequately) refute just one of my contentions, let alone all of them. That being said, please extend all of my arguments. I don't feel the need to post any more in support of the Con position at this time. Should my opponent actually attempt to debate me/this in the future, I'll supply even more contentions for the Con. That's all for now.
Debate Round No. 2
Meganrihanne1992x

Pro

THE L WERD.

you havent covered anything in that department?

DEBATES are based on two people who can understand each others "views" yet .... fight for what they believe to be right or wrong

the L WERDs postition in this is she assumes that only things can go one way

completey repetivness behaviour
brought up appearences.. uncompletely irrelevant
stereotyped & contridicted herself numerous times.
I would have liked to debate this debate with someone who wasnt all wrapped up in personal statements and personal
views.
thats why i refuted (:
I DONT DEBATE IDIOTS
Debate Round No. 3
89 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
Thank you puck.
Thank you for that info Skeptic
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
"Personal arguments she left to the comments, warranted or not. It was you who brought it into the debate itself - and to other users who bothered to read the debate and comment."

Amen.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
Haha, congrats by proxy, ournamestoolong.
Posted by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
I'm back!
My sister got 3rd in state for her OP and i'm very happy right now.

I was happy until I heard Megan insulting theLwerd and saying she bought friends. She has never paid me in any way.

When did theLwerd insult you in the debate? I don't see it.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"secondly yesi copy andpasted it and if you read terms and conditions it wasntplagirism"

pla⋅gia⋅rism
noun
1. a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work

That's what not referencing does. I don't have, and I would hazard most here don't, have an issue with you (anyone) using anothers opinion as a basis for a debate - even word for word. What not citing a source does is by default make you claim that 'this is mine' - and that's the issue concerned (not such an issue as a legal side more because of its intellectual dishonesty). Had you gone 'I agree with this person' then copied the article and provided a link - the issue would not be there.

"The L werd.. brought up irrelevant subjects and only debated me because she enjoyed bringing out personal statements"

She argued your one of two possible resolutions, you were unclear as to the resolution after all, one was the title, the other your closing comment. She chose to argue the closing comment.

Personal arguments she left to the comments, warranted or not. It was you who brought it into the debate itself - and to other users who bothered to read the debate and comment.

"i reside"
You live somewhere? Congrats I guess?
Posted by Meganrihanne1992x 8 years ago
Meganrihanne1992x
LMFAO. thats called ASSUMPTIONS My dear.

stop putting alabel onit... the reason i didnt debate the hench lesbian The L werd is because..she started using personal attacks irrelevant to the debate i was not going to debate someone who was not atall intrested in what i had to say.
secondly yesi copy andpasted it and if you read terms and conditions it wasntplagirism.. it was perfectly allowedas long as i backed it up in a later statement...

but i refuted under the circumstances The L werd.. brought up irrelevant subjects and only debated me because she enjoyed bringing out personal statements...
(: i reside , SO maybeyou should of looked into that instead of making idiotic assumptions and sounding like a tit (:
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"And while that isn't the worse offense, you didn't even bother to back it up in the later rounds -"

It's called having your bluff called. In this case the bluff was that she had a thought out opinion and could 'fake' it through the rounds, riding on the initial plagiarised set. Aptly caught out by the Lwerds argument she resorted to umbrage as her defence.
Posted by KadieBobx 8 years ago
KadieBobx
lmfao americans= terrorists . LOl thats funny :)
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
How did Lwerd "buy" her friends? You didn't lose because she was popular, you lost because your argument was all copy-pasted. And while that isn't the worse offense, you didn't even bother to back it up in the later rounds - the hell was copy&paste for?
Posted by Meganrihanne1992x 8 years ago
Meganrihanne1992x
Immigration has been taken different in accordance with the country,

and like i said its unfair english cannot vote thats why i reside to a different site..

Americans dont see different points on this damm site, and its fair to say people are clearly biased.

& Yes L werd your still ONE UGLY BITCH people are only trying to make u feel better You have no personality what so ever , just go kill yourself (: =D

americans = terrorists
: D
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Colucci 8 years ago
Colucci
Meganrihanne1992xDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Meganrihanne1992xDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by trendem 8 years ago
trendem
Meganrihanne1992xDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Meganrihanne1992xDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
Meganrihanne1992xDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
Meganrihanne1992xDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by LaSalle 8 years ago
LaSalle
Meganrihanne1992xDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
Meganrihanne1992xDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by SaintNick 8 years ago
SaintNick
Meganrihanne1992xDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Meganrihanne1992xDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07