The Instigator
katycanavan
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcb
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should the process of immigration be more selective?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 1/23/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 314 times Debate No: 44465
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

katycanavan

Pro

In my opinion, I think immigration should be more selective. I don"t think that it should be really, really limited but I think that the people who are immigrating here should either need to come here or benefit society. Like Australia who won't accept people until they're sure they will get a job because it's only fair that they are contributing to the economy, not just taking money that other people have worked for when they aren't contributing themselves. For example, in my opinion, asylum seekers should always be allowed in, even just for a short amount of time until they"re safe. If they are in danger and will be safe here then I think they should definitely be allowed to immigrate here. This leads me onto another reason I think immigration should be limited. Some people move here to take advantage of things like free healthcare. In my opinion, coming over here for the free healthcare is fine to do as long as you are also working and contributing to the community as well. I don"t think it is fair if they stay here just for free things and are taking advantage of our facilities without contributing themselves. In conclusion, I think it should be more limited but not in a dramatic/harsh way.
zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcb

Con

The entire opening of Pro is a re-iteration of their side of the debate. It provides nothing for the justification of their opinion. Following this, they vaguely address Australia's immigration laws stating that it ensures the people migrating to it are al there to get a job but never explains how it does so better than any other nation. Additionally, the resolution doe snot state which nation it is referring to and thus could potentially be referring to Australia.

The next point raised by Pro is that asylum seekers should always be allowed into a nation until they are safe but does not explain how to avoid overcrowding. Additionally, this contradicts the philosophy on which their side of the debate is founded, which is that immigration ought to be more selective.

Then Pro goes on to state that they consider it unfair if immigrants come over 'here' (wherever that may be) and take advantage of free healthcare but then states that it is fine to do so as long as you are working.

I am very confused at why Pro is constantly contradicting their own argument and would like them to elaborate on how the law would be made more prudent than it already is.
Debate Round No. 1
katycanavan

Pro

katycanavan forfeited this round.
zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcb

Con

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcb forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
katycanavan

Pro

katycanavan forfeited this round.
zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcb

Con

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcb forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.