The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
11 Points

Immigration is mostly a good thing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 538 times Debate No: 70938
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)




I don't see what's wrong with immigration. maybe it's because white people are scared of people of colour? racism should die, and so should people's phobias. the old ways are false and change is beautiful. prove me wrong!


I will assume that the first round is for acceptance. I await my opponent's opening round of arguments to affirm the resolution.
Debate Round No. 1


BubbleBee forfeited this round.


Despite my opponent not constructing an affirmative case, I can still make arguments to show that immigration is not a good thing.

Negative Case

Premise: What is immigration?

The definition I will be using for immigration is: the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country [1]. Implicit within the idea of immigration is that:

1) People of different cultures are usually immigrating
2) People of different race are usually immigrating

A1: People prefer other people of the same culture; having different cultural identities creates disunity


In his novel, On genetic interests: family, ethny, and humanity in an age of mass migration, Frank Salter argues that “Relatively homogeneous societies invest more in public goods, indicating a higher level of public altruism” [2]. Whilst the novel is not solely based upon culture creating a homogenous community (other things, such as race, are of influence), the argument is there which shows cultural factors to be of relevance in regards to a stable/loving/caring community.

As an example, further on in the novel, specifically on page 123, “…it follows that adaptive ethic nepotism not only selects for ethnic altruism, but for all gene-based characteristics distinctive to the group. This applies not only to traits with high heritability, such as cognitive profile… but to cultural traits passed on through socialization within the family…such as political culture [3].

In English, what this means is that people are more likely to get along, be nice to each other and be more charitable if the other people are of the same culture.


To further support this conclusion, Professor J.P. Rushton, in his research paper, Ethnic nationalism, evolutionary psychology and Genetic Similarity Theory, found that spouse and best friend relationships were influenced by ‘opinions and attitudes’ with a correlation of 0.5, with other factors like ‘physical appearance’ only at 0.2. Only ‘age, ethnicity and education’ scored higher (0.6) [4]. This means that for relationships of value, people are definitely basing relationships on cultural factors (i.e. opinions and attitudes).


Implicit Egotism is the way in which people gravitate towards places, people and situations that reflect themselves [5]. Implicit Egotism, as explored in a multi-academic circle by John T. Jones (United States Military Academy), Brett W. Pelham and Mauricio Carvallo (State University of New York at Buffalo) and Matthew C. Mirenberg (Columbia University), shows “…[the research paper’s] evidence suggests that implicit egotism is a valid and replicable phenomenon that influences people’s choice of a lifelong romantic partner in much the same way that it influences their evaluations of a stranger on a semantic differential” [5]. As also indicated in J.P Rushton’s work, people will treat strangers (effectively other members of the community) differently based on their culture.

Therefore, on average, the absence of cultural similarity creates more disunity than the presence of it, and this will generally make people less happy, friendly, altruistic and trusting of each other than would be found in a culturally homogenous community.

A2: Language barriers

Overall, having multiple languages in a country hurts it. I am going to show you the damaging result of differing languages in a community.


According to Psychology Today, as a generous estimate, 20% of Americans are at least bilingual (which includes children under 5 years) [12]. That means at least 80% are monolingual. Clearly, what this means is that the vast majority of Americans will not understand you if begin talking in a different language. Furthermore, nearly one in 10 working-age U.S. adults—19.2 million persons aged 16 to 64—is considered limited English proficient [14]. This means that these ~10% will not understand you or understand little if you begin speaking in a language other than the one they know.


Even with the 20% of Americans that are bilingual, there is still a problem. According to, most native English adult speakers know 20,000-35,000 +/- 10% words, whilst most foreign learners of English know 2,500-9000 +/- 10%, which is significantly lower [10][11]. What this means is that bilingual people will have at most half ~45% the vocabulary of native English speakers, at worst an appalling ~5%. Remember that these are the bilingual immigrants. As you can see, bilingual people sacrifice greater competency in the languages they know.

Obviously, preservation of these non-English mono-linguistic languages hurts the community because of the language barrier. Furthermore, as relating to my first argument, the differing (cultural) language creates a disunity.


CA1: Racism is natural and can have serious consequences

"racism should die, and so should people's phobias"

With this statement, my opponent assumes that racism is something that can disappear in the immediate future. This is far from the case.
Immigration does not allow for people to work past this natural impulse. Racism is natural.

In a 1997 study, performed on African people, it was found that, “high ethnic diversity is closely associated with low schooling, underdeveloped financial systems, distorted foreign exchange markets, and insufficient infrastructure” [13].

In a 2003 study which also evaluated past study findings, this study found that despite “there [being] often multiple plausible ways of partitioning the “ethnic groups” of a country… It is interesting to learn, then, that despite sharply different formulations of “ethnic group,” the aggregate measure of ethnic fractionalization based on the Atlas Narodov Mira (a previous study that this new one looked a) data and the data presented here are moderately well correlated, at .75” [15].

Furthermore, Very similar correlations obtain between the Soviet ELF [Soviet Atlas study data], and the “ethnic” and “linguistic” fractionalization measures produced by Alesina et al. (2002). Roeder’s (2002) several measures correlate at around .81 with my measure F and at about .88 with the Soviet ELF. So as a measure of aggregate ethnic diversity across countries, fractionalization appears to be fairly robust to the looseness of the concept of “ethnic group”" [15]. In other words, there is a super strong correlation between people dividing based on ethnic and/or linguistic differences.

Now, the impact of natural racism is twofold: I. that a nation can be divided based on race, and II. that race wars can erupt.


In 2002, 58% of Mexicans thought that the U.S.A belonged to Mexico [16].

Another example? In 2005, 72% of American Blacks were in favour of Affirmative Action for minority groups, whilst 49% of American whites opposed [17].

For monetary compensation for slavery, “67% of Blacks support it whilst 4% of Whites did, too.” [18]

In Korea, “according to the Ministry of Health and Welfare… 1.72 children per every 1,000 from multicultural families are exposed to such violence. The rate is about three times higher than that of children born to Korean parents - 0.55 per 1,000” [19].

This conflict of interest clearly divides people of a nation, which weakens the nation.


An example of a race war was the systematic extermination of Jews living in Nazi Germany. It is estimated that 6 million Jews or 2/3 European Jews living in Nazi Germany [20].

For the Israel-Palestine conflict, which is basically two racial groups competing for land, there have been over 100,000 deaths and 150,000 injuries recorded [21].

Unless you think that genocide is a good thing, it is clear that different races living together can risk extremely serious consequences.









[10] (Average adult vocabulary)

[11] (+/- 10%)









Debate Round No. 2


BubbleBee forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


BubbleBee forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Yeah, I'm completely nuts.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Why the fvck do you put that much effort into your noob snipes?

Nevermind, I understand why but you have got to be nuts to have the focus and energy for that.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
does this include illegal immigration?
Posted by Cinnamon 1 year ago
Same as Lee, I would love to argue
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Fix your restriction's, then I'll accept.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided valid sources to back up her argument. This made her argument stronger overall. Con gets points for conduct, because Pro forfeited.
Vote Placed by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit