The world would be a better place if people could live and work in any country they wanted.
Debate Rounds (3)
Amended resolution: Total relaxation of immigration laws would lead to a better world.
Immigration: the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country
World: the earth, together with all of its countries and peoples
Better: more desirable, satisfactory, or effective.
The first issue is exploitation of poor people in a rich country. Far more people will be exploited if we allow total immigration. The desperately poor often invest all their money in a one way ticket and are therefore trapped with no means of bargaining. Their willingness to accept below minimum wage will undercut the whole system and impoverish Western workers. Foreign workers are often unaware of their rights and the regulations about their work whether they are legal or illegal immigrants. These are the grounds on which the Trades Unions movement explicitly opposes this case.
The second issue is that rich countries may be dealing with a burden of supporting more old people but raising the population is not the answer. more developed countries are already under huge environmental pressure because of their large populations and we cannot suddenly have a huge increase in the already pressured housing pool and road system without huge damage. Further, the welfare system that supports the elderly is one of the great attractions for immigrants who will certainly not all be young and may well not choose to be workers. How can you prove that ‘welfare scrounging’ won’t make the situation worse.
Thirdy, importing labour is an ineffective way to stop the problems. There is still unemployment in all rich countries and retraining and education are the way to improve the supply of skilled labour. Why should companies sponsor students if they can import their labour cheaper? As well as brain draining poor countries the proposal will allow governments to ignore the marginalised in their own country. Labour shortage is temporary and a bust may well cause all those immigrants to return to their own countries of origin which have not grown economically because of the absence of workers and are now structurally dependent on remittances.
The overpopulation would mean that resources can't be spread out, people would die of starvation.
Thank you for responding to the debate. However, I do think you should write your own arguments instead of pasting them from another debate site.
You did have a sources section in your post, so you should probably have put this link in there too.
The debatewise topic is a different one to the one I posted. It is "Should governments in rich countries relax the laws controlling immigration?" so it is looking at the issue from the perspective of rich countries, the UK in particular. These arguments are a bit silly from a global perspective. If they were your own arguments, I would be happy to debate them.
But they aren't.
RationalMadman, you can do better than this! Please use your own arguments in the next round, or at the very least reference copied arguments properly and make sure they're relevant.
All three arguments are my original content and additionally are all relevant. I copied nothing from that site. Read my three paragraphs and realise I worded them totally differently form any on that site and related all to the resolution. Thank you very much.
Let's see. Man caught cheating. Confronted with evidence. Denies, denies, denies.
Regardless of methodolog of retaining arguments:
Aguments for pro = 0
Arguments for con = 3
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: actually argued, unlike pro
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.