The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Foreign labour brings more good than bad

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2014 Category: News
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,529 times Debate No: 48764
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I welcome the challenger first. Firstly i would like to establish my points.
Firstly foreign workers help establish job opportunities. An immigrant will take a job within a 3-dimensional sector. Thus providing jobs for native born locals such as being promoted to supervisors. Since there are more workers to do the dirty jobs. Job opportunities can be opened. More workers (locals) are already losing their job to machines so what's there to lose.

please present your arguement


My case is on how foreign labour helps ease the burden on the working population of countries with low replacement rates.

Developed countries nowadays are marking a trend whereby their death rate is higher than its birth rate, showing that they have an unsustainable population. As a result, the country has an ageing population it has to take care of, and the burden is thrust upon the working generation to care for them. The government then asks for more taxes from the working locals, which is a heavier burden on them. By having more foreign labour, the government no longer requires to take more taxes from the working population and can instead take it from the foreign workers, lessening the burden on the working locals. The value of these foreign workers are high since they usually fill in the blue-collar jobs, allowing the locals to work in the white-collared jobs. Also, with more human resources available, more industries will be opened, and more job openings are created as a result, which is a benefit for the locals.
Debate Round No. 1


Although your argument is quite acceptable in a modern day society, but there are still flaws in your case. Allow me to first point those flaws.
Though your idea of the government charging the working immigrants is acceptable, you must still remember that it is required for a pay of at least RM 3,000 to be charged taxes. Statistics show that an average pay for a labourer is RM 1,200 to RM 1,500, if the worker is very skilled. Thus this idea cannot be executed as a common labourer is not even legit-able to be charged tax onto.
Moving onto my second point, that will be human trafficking.
Human trafficking is a crime against the person because of the violation of the victim's rights of movement through coercion and commercial exploitation. Statistics show that 32 billion dollars of international trade is raked in per year. And illegal trade is estimated at 650 billion dollars per annum. All this is caused by one act. That would be Foreign labouring. If we were to abolish foreign labouring, human trafficking parties will even cease to exist. So i end my 2nd round based on opposing the motion that would be "Foreign labouring would do more good han harm"

I await your argument.


The opposition clearly is cherry-picking examples, using the examples of taxes from Malaysia. However, if one was to look in countries such as Australia or America where minimum wage systems exist, that is not the case as the government is able to regulate the taxes.

My point of contention is on the idea of human trafficking. We concede that human trafficking does exist, and that there is the propensity of it. However, the opposition stated, and I quote, "If we were to abolish foreign labouring, human trafficking parties will even cease to exist." Let's go a bit off track. If you ban organ sales, there will be a black market that thrives even more due to the increased demand. By legalising foreign labour, in fact, the government would be clamping down on the black market. Technically legal foreign labour is good. Also, since the opposition never defined the definition of "foreign labour", the proposition would like to define it as legal work done by migrants who went to a country for a new job legally, and voluntarily. But back on track, the opposition is pinning the blame on foreign labours for them undergoing human trafficking when he ought to be blaming the traffickers. Not only that, human trafficking is not primarily due to foreign labour.

So on to my case on the economic and social benefits of having foreign labour.

Let's use the example of Singapore, where human resources are their main resource, and they do the brunt of the work to ensure the economy remains stable and growing. Singapore is a country which is suffering from a replacement rate below that of what is necessary and has relaxed migration laws in order to allow more foreign workers to work there. Singapore uses them to attract big companies to come and set up base in Singapore, as this is how their economy thrives. Findings from surveys done in Singapore show that foreign labour has contributed significantly to Singapore's GDP. To countries such as Singapore, foreign labour is an important factor in sustaining high economic growth when they do not have as much human resources to support it's economy or elderly population. Other similar countries facing such problems are the US, UK, China, etc. For some of the countries mentioned, they are facing a brain drain, but still have a huge ageing population to support, which is why they require foreign labour to step in and help them with their economic growth. The opposition has to remember that foreign labour does not just pertain to blue-collared workers, but it can also refer to talented individuals who can help contribute to that society in terms of their economic development. That wraps up my case on economic benefits.

Onto social benefits. Countries with more foreign labour are like a huge pot of soup, with a lot of ingredients. This mix of cultures is delicious and it ensures a unique and vibrant culture for the country. The proposition believes that with the integration of more foreign workers, they are able to also contribute to the culture of the country, by introducing their own culture. For example, in San Francisco, you see Chinatown. There, you can find many elements reflecting the Chinese culture, many Chinese restaurants, etc. The reason why San Francisco is so appealing and attractive to tourists is not just because of their interesting attractions such as Alcatraz or the steep slopes. It's also because it is a cosmopolitan city that embraces the variety of cultures and makes it their own at the same time. In that sense, foreign labour has also contributed to economic growth by helping the tourism industry.

With the above points on the benefits of foreign labour, I have proved to you why foreign labour is in fact a good, and hence, I am proud to propose.
Debate Round No. 2


Reversi_Black8007 forfeited this round.


The opponent has basically forfeited the last round, which shows that he actually agrees with what I said.
So what have I told you so far?

Firstly, foreign labour is essential in easing the burden on the working population of countries with low replacement rates by supporting the ageing population.
Secondly, foreign labour brings about societal benefits such as the integration of different cultures into society.
Thirdly, on the economic benefits of foreign labour, and how they contribute to the economic growth and GDP of the country.

We have also explained that foreign labour is not the main cause of human trafficking and that is a separate crime on its own.

Unlike the opposition, we have not cherry-picked examples, and have substantiated the arguments with various examples such as Australia and Singapore, etc.

With that, please walk on the side of the proposition.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited. Points to Pro.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.