illegal Immigrants should return to their countries?
Debate Rounds (3)
My point is that even, if the law is incorrect, we must enforce it because if we do not do that, all the laws will lost their value.
I will be representing the case for not forcing illegal immigrants to return to their countries. As Pro has not provided definitions, I define illegal immigrants as those people currently fleeing domestic crises such as the civil war in Syria.
Only one argument was proposed by Pro. "Even if the law is incorrect, we must enforce it because if we do not do that all the laws will lose their value." [grammar edited] This is a philosophical argument, and it is easily demonstrated to be incorrect.
Firstly, in a humanitarian crises, the government decides on how to approach the situation. The law is a guide that explains how individuals must enter the country. When a massive scale of refugees erupts that no law has been created to deal with, the governments of relevant countries decide on their response themselves. They don't finalise a decision based upon the intentions of existing laws. Each situation gets its own attention, and is dealt with as a discrete case. This way, the fact that there are no laws that dictate how individuals or countries are required to act in a humanitarian crises is resolved by the government making all the decisions on the go. The law is irrelevant to this process.
Secondly, If there is a law that says immigrants must not cross the border, that law does not apply to refugees. All countries are required by international law to accept refugees. Illegal immigrants are currently virtually all refugees, which means all countries must accept illegal immigrants. International law overrides domestic law, therefore Pro does not have a case.
Thirdly, Illegal immigrants cannot return to their countries. Their cities were destroyed during warfare, forcing them to flee. It's impossible to send them back to whence they cannot return without sending them to their deaths.
Individual law is irrelevant to the issue of refugess which currently represents the main body of illegal immigration. As explained, Pro does not have a case since internation law requires countries to accept refugees.
Acording to UNHCR, Refugees are people fleeing conflict or persecution. Often, the situation is so dangerous and intolerable that must cross international borders to seek safety in neighboring countries and then become 'refugees' internationally recognized, with access to assistance.
While, Migrants choose to move not because of a direct threat of persecution or death, but mainly to improve their lives to find work or education, for family reunification or for other reasons. Unlike refugees who can not return home, migrants continue to receive the protection of their government.
With this, we can see that Refugee are no illegals, so any of your three arguments are valid because they refer to another concept.
Since Pro did not define terms, it remains the responsibility of Con to define them if necessary in the spirit of the debate. By reading the intent of Pro's argument, (so called 'necessary evil') it was apparent to me that the relevant discussion on asylum seekers and refugees were all a part of this umbrella term that he used. Indeed, because of the recent crises with immigrants in Europe, I was led to believe that Pro was talking about those illegal immigrants. That's how I've defined it and responded to it. That definition is the oficial definition for this debate as it is clearly reasonable. I will however humour his later complaint and refute his later arguments, however Pro is required to address the R1 negative case. A reading of Pro's R1 will convince the reader that the Con definition is justified.
Firstly, Pro changed his terminology from 'illigral immigrants,' which covers the current crises we hear about in Europe, to 'migrants,' which is not what a reading of his R1 post would indicate. Not only is this confusing for the readers, it's confusing to me, the opponent debater. This is the first time in this debate that economic migrants have been mentioned. If Pro wants a full debate about migrants, he needs to forfeit this one and start a new debate and advertise his intentions correctly. In this debate, Pro has appared to move the motion that "illegal Immigrants should return to their countries." If Pro does not want to argue this, then his debate set up is nothing more than deceptive.
Yes, illegal economic migrants ought to stay in their countries, however illigal immigrants in general are another issue.
As I explained before, the majority of illigal immigrants are asylum seekers. People who can't tolerate life in a war zone elect to leave and travel to another country illegally. Australia is an example of a country that bears the pro mindset when it comes to immigrants. Their viewis that they are illegal and should be turned back. However, since immigrants coming to Australia take boats which can't support the number of passangers they carry, the government of Australia instead sends them to off-shore detention centres, which were recently condemned by the UN as being inhumane.
Pro was not clear with his intentions in this debate, and therefore the definition has been officially set by Con. The definition of illigal immigrants in this debate remains as those who immigrate illegally. Nothing specific like economic migrants, although that is covered as well.
I have effectively demonstrated why the resolution is false. If Pro wishes to debate his own topic, I recommend he forfeits this debate and start a new debate which specificially and unambiguously addresses the topic of 'illegal economic migrants.'
Secondly. Migrant includes, emigrant and immigrant, the difference is only is that the first comes out from a country and the second comes into another country. So, when I referred to Migrants I was including to immigrants.
After, if CON does not have argues against the Migrants, where are included immigrants and still insisting, she should start a debate about refugees.
Also, CON is correct when she argue that was not set any definition, but I repeat, that does not mean that she can give a definition of another concept.
State and National laws define any individual as illegal should they enter without some form of travel authorisation. It is illegal for anyone, including refugees, to cross borders. However, my earlier contention is that there is a conflicting law that applies to refugees. This was my rebuttal to the major type of illigal immigration that occurs. Yes, it's illegal to enter the country no matter what, but your case is overlooked if you cite warfare as your reason for entry.
In Europe, a current contentious issue is that economic migrants have joined refugees and both are citing warfare and intolerable conditions as their primary motive for migration. The topic of this debate covers this scope, despite the fact that Pro later attempted to narrow this definition to exclude 99% of illegal immigrants.
Pro continues to debate the definition of illigal immigrant, so we shall settle this with the most fundamental source of information on the internet: wikipedia.
"Illegal immigration is the migration of people across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country." 
As we see here, the Con definition is correct, the Pro definition is incorrect. With this definition in place, the major argument of the negative case in round 1 continues to be effective:
>Internation laws supercede domestic laws
So yes, while it is illegal for someone to enter a country without permission, internation laws force countries to accept 99% of illegal immigrants as refugees. Therefore 99% of illegal immigrants should not return to their countries.
On economic migrant issues, Con believes that the vast majority of cases of economic migrants ought to be considered from a utility perspective. Often, an economic migrant is an ambitious individual who seeks to work and generate wealth in a country where the infastructure is available to do so. This mentality is far better than those complacent ones held by local populations of developed countries, so we can accurately surmise that economic migrants are in fact, better for our economy than citizens themselves. For the sake of generating wealth for our local economies, allowing economic migrants in on the condition that they work is a economically sound idea.
Humanely, it is also a sound idea as their skills will never be able to be optimised in their home land. Maslow proposed that the most developed intellectuals seek self-actualisation, aka maximising their own abilities. Economic migrants all appear to come at the top of this theoretical heirarchy, which means accepting economic migrants improves the local pool of entreupreneurs and biologically would increase the availabilty of desirable genes within the culture's gene pool by making this trait more common.
I have demonstrated why Pro's definition was not justified in excluding the vast majority of illigal immigrants. I have shown why refugees should not return to their countries, and why economic migrants should be accepted. There is nothing in this debate that has not been systematically addressed and refuted.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 4 months 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||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Removed
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.