The Instigator
Komiakb
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Crevaux
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Repatriation programs are beneficial not only for moving people, but also for country itself.

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: 4/23/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 931 times Debate No: 32804
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Komiakb

Pro

It is not beneficial for country, because government spend big amount of money on resettlement programs. OR
It is beneficial for country, because returners help to overcome demogrhical problems.
Crevaux

Con

As it was pointed out in the comment section of the debate, Komiakb is not very clear in his Round 1 introduction. But from what I took out of the title, my opponent supports repatriation programs and calls them "beneficial" for both the repatriated groups and the people staying in the country they had immigrated to in the first place.

But before beginning, I would like to inform the reader as to what a repatriation program is. A repatriation program is hardly voluntary. It is the use of the State's ultimate power of coercion to rid a geographical area off immigrant groups. It is called a "repatriation program" because the immigrants are sent back to the nation they came from.

There have been a few examples of repatriation programs throughout history. One of the most famous one was the Mexican Repatriation of 1929-1939, during which President Roosevelt forcefully sent half a million Mexican immigrants to their native homeland.

Of course, there are such things as voluntary repatriation programs, which work the other way around. These plans create financial and immigrating incentives for people who have left the country to come back and regain their previously-lost nationality. Many countries with large diasporas and facing large population losses (such as the Caucasus and Russia) are currently enacting similar policies.

And I assume Pro is talking about the latter.

But whether we are talking about forceful or "voluntary" repatriation programs, the idea is simply wrong. Both ideas stem from the idea of nationalism and fail to do one thing: fighting the root of the problem, instead of the never-ending branches.

But I will rest my case for now and let Pro start his side of the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Komiakb

Pro

Komiakb forfeited this round.
Crevaux

Con

Crevaux forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Komiakb

Pro

Komiakb forfeited this round.
Crevaux

Con

Unfortunately, Pro forfeited his different rounds. This was not a serious debate, but it is a very serious question.

Repatriation programs harm a lot of people. Governments use taxpayers' money to send people away from a certain area without anyone's consent. The fact that immigration exists to begin with is that there is a demand for it. Expatriating people is contradicting the free market and society's demand for more labors and consumers.

It goes around to the other repatriation programs, the voluntary ones. The reason why those countries with such programs have seen large diasporas in the recent years is that those governments acted in a way to harm the people. Repatriation favors bringing only one group of people, contradicting the good principle of diversity.

If countries want to see more immigration, they should create a free society based on free markets, not hand out cheap incentives that ignore the problem to begin with.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by jinxtedium 4 years ago
jinxtedium
Your proposition is very unclear to me because of your OR in your first round. Should con argue against repatriation? Are you referring to the country that does the expatriation?, or the country that receives the returning expatriates?
No votes have been placed for this debate.