The Instigator
Carher165
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Syko
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

illegal Immigrants should return to their countries?

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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 390 times Debate No: 92315
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Carher165

Pro

Illegal immigrants should return to their countries because they are illegals. Ok, there is no person in the world that deserve to be call illegal only because of its existence, but, in our civilization, we had created rules and laws, and these must be followed. We can reform our laws pretending getting closer to our principle of equality, but that comes after, if right now we have a law that is not followed, we have to enforce it.
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.
Syko

Con

Intro
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.


Negative Case
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.


Conclusion
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.
Debate Round No. 1
Carher165

Pro

Ok, I did not give any definition, but that does not mean that you can give any meaning. And you are equaling refugees with illegal immigrants, when they are very different concepts.

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.

http://www.acnur.org...

With this, we can see that Refugee are no illegals, so any of your three arguments are valid because they refer to another concept.
Syko

Con

Intro
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.

Rebuttal
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.

Negative Case
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.

Conclusion
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.'
Debate Round No. 2
Carher165

Pro

Firstly. Refugees are not included in the term "illegal immigrants", they are no illegal, they do not have papers, but that does not mean that they are illegal. Even in the laws that CON referred is specified.
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.
Syko

Con

Intro:
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.

Negative Case
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." [1]

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.

Rebuttal:
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.

Conclusion:
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.

Vote CON.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Syko 11 months ago
Syko
International law trumping local laws is more a matter of fact than preference. Countries are tied to international law the same way citizens are to local laws. Ignoring the law is possible and sometimes practiced, but not without negative consequences.
Posted by Wylted 11 months ago
Wylted
Okay, I will reconsider. I disagree that international law trumps local laws, but the argument was not offered a rebuttal and pro advocated for blind enforcement of the laws in round 1
Posted by Syko 11 months ago
Syko
The definition which I sourced and which I argued under since R1 clearly states that an immigrant is illegal on the basis of the individual laws that pertain to legal entry into that specific country. Internation law is a law that forces countries to accept illegal immigrants who are refugees. That doesn't make them legal, it means countries aren't allowed to turn them away. This is most evidenced by the fact the host country is allowed to punish them in the same way they do to an illegal immigrant. In Australia, the Manus island detention centre holds criminals and refugees alike.
Posted by Wylted 11 months ago
Wylted
How would a legal immigrant such as a refugee be considered illegal? You even stated that international law required countries to accept them. If there is something I am misunderstanding, I have no objection to removing my vote, but only if the misunderstanding is my own fault
Posted by Syko 11 months ago
Syko
The definition is cited Wylted, and it was explained why it was fair -illegal immigrants carries the idea of all illigal immigrants, and that's what I believed Pro was arguing against.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 11 months ago
Wylted
Carher165SykoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Removed