The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Should immigration be more selective?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 1/22/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,084 times Debate No: 44408
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I believe that immigration is not being properly controlled as it has started to have a negative effect on the UK’s economy. For example, many immigrants are taking advantage of government funded benefits, and coming to the UK for free health care like the NHS. Therefore, I believe that immigration should be more selective and certain precautions should be put in place to ensure that the people being let into the UK will benefit our economy. For example, we could introduce the same system as Australia, so that immigrants who are not refugees or asylum seekers would only be accepted into Britain if they were qualified to do certain jobs, which the UK are currently struggling to fill. Also, we could check people’s background to make sure they do not have a criminal record, so that there is less likely to be an increase in crime rates due to immigration.


My opponent suggests that immigration has had negative effects on the UK economy, this is the point I will be rebutting as well as making a few other relevant arguments. First of all the claim that immigration is having a negative effect on the UK economy is absolutely false, migrants contribute much more than they put into the system and I have multiple sources to back up this claim, all of which are posted at the end of my argument.

My next statement will be that migrant workers come to the UK in overwhelming majority to contribute to the UK economy. Particularly in the NHS where 1 in 5 nurses are foreign born. Foreigners often take jobs in factories or fields which most UK citizens would not take because they lack the motivation and initiative of foreign workers. It is also ridiculous to suggest we use Australia's immigration policy because Australia does not have a similar economic model to the UK.
Debate Round No. 1


In agreement to you, I do believe that some immigrants have a positive impact on our economy. However, I would like requirements and a selection process to be introduced as it would mean that we only accept immigrants which would enrich the UK's economy. To oppose your argument, 1 in 5 nurses are foreign born, but this is mainly because the nurses that are trained here in the UK often then move on to work in other countries, as they earn more there than in our country, and have less working hours. Furthermore, many immigrants do do jobs that UK citizens would not want to, but this does not mean that they do not have the motivation. On the contrary, it may be because immigrants often rent a house between more people as they come over to work and send money back to their families, making their living costs cheaper than a UK citizens. Thus, as the jobs you have described often only pay minimum wage they are not sufficient enough to provide for some UK families. In addition, I do believe that some of Australia's eligibility requirements would benefit our economy, such as having to have certain skills and occupations (which would be decided by the UK government), and a good English ability. On the other hand, I do not believe that there should be an age limit (the link below explains the different requirements Australia has).


I would refute the claim that it is just 'some' of the immigrants who have a positive contribution to our economy, it is actually a huge majority. In fact immigrants are less likely to claim benefits than their UK born counterparts, and if one is in employment they are in fact having a positive contribution to the UK economy.

Secondly you argument that the only reason foreign nurses are needed is because of UK nurses leaving is a redundant one. The fact of the matter is that we do not have enough nurses and the number of people training to be nurses is falling, we therefore require less immigration control and in fact need to encourage qualified foreign born nationals to come to our country to provide us with satisfactory healthcare.

Your point about immigrants only taking minimum wage and living in bad conditions to provide or their families is a legitimate grievance. But rather than blaming people who come to the country through perfectly legal means and becoming a part of the system, you should be blaming the politicians who have failed to increase minimum wage in line with increases in the cost of living, so EVERYONE on the minimum wage can live in a comfortable manner. Your argument for similar controls to that of Australia is still one which does not seem realistic for the UK because of the completely different economies, while I would concede that a basic level of English would be needed to become integrated into society you act as if this is not already the case. The controls for these cases have already been put in place.
Debate Round No. 2


By 'some' I didn't mean little, I only meant not all. In addition, I agree they can have a very positive, and the immigrants that did have that impact would in fact be allowed into the UK as they would meet the requirements I suggest should be put in place. And contrary to what you think, I believe that rather than encouraging immigrants to enter the UK we should first try to encourage the people already living here to take that career path. Furthermore, I am not blaming the immigrants for living in bad conditions but explaining that even though they may be willing to live that way to provide for their families, people living in the UK with their families permanently may not want to do so. Finally, like I said previously, I was only suggesting controls that would suit our economy, not ones which are exactly the same as Australia's, that was just an example.


BlackUforia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 6 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: pro starts out strong, but then fizzles in the end. Con did an excellent job of providing resources for the benefits of immigration but the "selective" part of the resolution was dropped. I blame the instigator for not addressing it in his arguments. conduct for no pro FF.

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