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

Migrated workers and their rights

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  
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 223 times Debate No: 90760
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Many migrated workers are beat,spit on,hit. They are the same as us,so why be mean to them.


Hello, I would like to accept this challenge. My only rule is that there are no new points brought up in the last round. Thank you.

First, I would like to ask Pro where they got their information from about migrated workers being beat, spit on, and hit. Is this assumption or a fairytale? Possibly both? We may never know. Likewise, Pro has given no evidence on how we are being mean to migrant workers, so we can disregard all of their two points.

My first piece of evidence stating that the migrant workers do have rights, is the 1990 Convention. "The Convention on Migrant Workers, while reaffirming and complementing existing human rights instruments, has forged new grounds and placed human rights in the specific context of migrant rights. As its salient feature, the Convention protects all migrant workers and members of their families, irrespective of their legal status. "

Below is a brief list of these rights:

I. Human Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of their Families:

Basic Freedoms:

Right to freedom of movement to and from their countries of origin (article 8);
Right to life (article 9);
Right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (article 10);
Right to freedom from slavery, servitude or forced compulsory labor (article 11);
Right to freedom of thought, expression, conscience and religion (articles 12 and 13);
Right to privacy (article 14);
Right to property (article 15);
Due process:

Right to a fair and public hearing with all the guarantees of a due process (articles 16-20);
Right to be provided with necessary legal assistance, interpreters and information in an understood language (article 16);
Right to liberty and security and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (article 16);
Right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty (article 19);
Prohibition to be subject to measures of collective expulsion (article 22);
Right to have recourse to diplomatic or consular assistance and protection (article 23);
Right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law (article 24);
Right to equality with nationals before the courts and tribunals (article 18);

Right of equal treatment with nationals in respect to remuneration and other conditions of work such as overtime, holidays, etc. (article 25);
Right to join freely any trade union (article 26);
Right to enjoy the same treatment as nationals regarding social security benefits in so far as they fulfill the legislation requirements (articles 27);
Right to emergency medical care (article 28);
Family and Children of Migrant Workers:

Right to a name, registration of birth and nationality (article 29);
Right of access to education (article 30);
Cultural and Economic Rights:

Right to preserve a cultural identity (article 31);
Right to transfer earnings and savings upon the termination of their stay in the State of employment (article 32);

Right to information by the State of origin, State of employment, or the State of transit of their rights arising from the present Convention, the conditions of their admission, and their rights and obligations in those States (article 33):
II. Other Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of their Families Who Are Documented or in a Regular Situation:

Migrant workers and members of their families who are documented or in a regular situation shall enjoy the rights set forth below in addition to those already mentioned. In such a way, the Convention seeks to discourage illegal migration.

Temporary Absences:

Right to be temporarily absent, for reasons of family needs and obligations, without effect on their authorization to stay or work (article 38);

Freedom of Movement:

Right to liberty of movement in the territory of the State of employment (article 39);


Right to form associations and trade unions in the State of employment (article 40);
The right to equality of treatment with nationals in respect of protection against dismissal, unemployment benefits and access to alternative employment (article 54);
In case of violations of work contracts by the employer, the right to address his/her case to the competent authorities of the State of employment.
Political Rights:

Right to participate in the public affairs of the State of origin, in accordance with its legislation (article 41);
Right to vote and to be elected in the State of origin, in accordance with its legislation (article 41);
Cultural and Economic Rights:

Right to enjoy from export and import taxes (article 46).
The right to equality of treatment with nationals of the State of employment, including access to educational, vocational and social services (article 43);

Right to information, including all conditions concerning their stay and their remunerated activities (article 37);

Pro has not stated where we are talking about migrated workers. The Middle East? United States? Antarctica? Without further information, it is impossible to gather more information about how we (whoever we are) are treating migrated workers so terribly.

Debate Round No. 1


I believe that any people, no matter,their beliefs or their backgrounds,should have any rights.


Pro has no evidence, thus his argument is worthless. I would also like to point out his grammar is not correct. However, let's get back to this topic.

Pro is saying that people, no matter their beliefs, should have rights. However, I would like to ask him how this relates to the topic? He is not showing that worker's don't have rights, which should be his main objective. Workers do have rights today. Yes, in every occupation we are working toward the better, but worker's are not suffering.

The Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez, announced in February that workers would be paid while on their sick leave. The order requires employers that contract with the federal government to provide their employees with up to seven days of paid sick leave annually, including family care and absences resulting from domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

Since there isn't much to say, this is all I have for this round.

Pro, mind you that you cannot bring up any new points in the next round.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2


well I'm 13 and so my grammar is going to be bad and I started this debate for my school project,to get peoples open idea on the subject.
thank u very much


Ok. Well, if you want to get people's ideas on this topic, try making a poll. That way, people can vote and you'll get a lot more feedback.

Again, migrated workers do have rights and are treated fairly.

Please take time to vote on this argument.


Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
>Reported vote: lord_megatron// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued that migrated workers should get more rights. Con gave a list of rights of the workers and argued that workers have many rights. Pro didn't rebut. Con had better spelling and grammar than pro, especially when pro said "peoples".

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments aren't sufficiently explained. The voter only states points made by both sides, states that one side didn't rebut, and then assumes that that clarifies the outcome. That may, indeed, play a substantial role, but the voter still has to compare points and not just state them. Analysis goes further than just re-stating arguments. (2) S&G is insufficiently explained. This point can only be awarded in instances where one side has errors substantial enough that the voter has difficulty reading their arguments. The use of the word "peoples" is not that substantial of a problem.
Posted by bluetree653 5 months ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 4 months ago
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: The resolution is unclear, but none the less pro fails to make any argument. I deem the burden of proof to be on his side, particularly in a situation where there is no clear resolution, he is instigater and he is pro. This enough is for me to award arguments to con. Pro mentions he is 13 as an excuse for his poor debating and grammar. Though it may be an excuse for his grammar, it is not an excuse for the debating. Debating is as simple as providing premises for your conclusion, defending and elaborating on those premises and attacki g your opponent's premises. At the beginning pro says migrant workers are abused, but con counters that by pointing out he had no evidence of this, just a bare assertion. So pro's entire case was negated.Con lists the rughts of people which applies to migrants in the U.S. constitution. This affirms that they have rights, pro never makes any counter argument and drops that argument. Leaving con with the only argument standing. Pro please make more effort