economic policy society immigration house believes developing nations should

People who move to the cities have chosen to move from their families and dear ones, because they want to create a new and better life for themselves. Armed with great motivation, they enter the cities and are often prepared to undertake work that others do not want to do, hoping to climb the social ladder later on. Interestingly it is often the case that those in slums have a higher rate of employment than those not living in slums. In Uganda for example only 9% of young men are neither in school or employment compared to 16% for those not living in slums. [1] This benefits the development of the city and it is only with this extra workforce that the city can fully develop, thus most big cities have at some point had slums, such as London’s East End in the 19th Century. It might take time, but for the long-term benefits of the cities, rural-urban migration should be promoted. An example of this slow kind of development is the progress that is seen today in Kibera outside of Nairobi where small parts of the shanty-towns are gradually converted into lower middle-class communities.  [1] Mboup, Gora, “Measurement/indicators of youth employment”, Expert Group Meeting on Strategies for Creating Urban Youth Employment Solutions for Urban Youth in Africa, June 2004, www.un.org/esa/socdev/social/presentation/urban_mboup.ppt

The argument is based on the idea that there is a lot of investment that is just waiting to be made in rural areas. In reality, this is not so. Until there are real investors who are prepared to change the conditions of rural areas in developing countries, it is morally bankrupt to force people to remain in an untenable situation as marketing material for hypothetical investment.

The government has a right to make some decisions on behalf of the people, but not any decision. Once the state acts against one group of people to further the interest of an already privileged group of people it loses this right as the state exists to protect everyone in society not just the majority or a privileged group. This is precisely the case in this motion. People who live in rural areas are already disenfranchised and condemned to terrible conditions, and the proposal only serves those who want their comfortable bourgeois life to be even more comfortable.

The principle at the heart of this debate is that of the rights of the individual. While it might be true that a large group of people make uninformed decisions, a ban on any decisions in relation to where people live will keep the individuals from making any decisions, informed and uninformed. The damage to those who actually could improve their lives greatly outweighs the benefits, especially as the resources that would be needed for this policy could be used to educate and inform people in rural areas and thus improve the basis of their decisions.

This kind of argument underestimates the capacity of human potential. People in rural communities devote all their efforts and their creativity towards getting to the cities because they believe it is the best for them and their families. If they do not have this option, they can devote that energy to their community and make it grow to compete with the cities. It is then the duty of the government that imposes this restriction to support such commitments by giving them the right conditions to improve their situation by investing in rural areas as much as urban ones.

Freedom of movement is not an intrinsic human right, but rather a right that can and should be given by the state where it is possible. For example the state puts people into prisons; this infringes their freedom of movement. This is partially as punishment, but the core rationale for this is to protect the people outside of the prison from potentially dangerous people. [1] But for that, there would be significantly cheaper and more efficient ways of punishing criminals. The people whose freedom of movement is restricted are a threat to people living in the cities and to the economy of the nation as a whole. In the better interest of the nation and to protect innocent people whose lives will be damaged by unrestricted migration, these people must accept restricted freedom of movement.  [1] See the debatabase debate ‘ This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation ’

While factually true for developed nations, this point completely disregards the reality of developing nations. Most of the labour that is available is unskilled, whether it is in the rural or urban communities. There is little reason to believe that the poor will automatically be able to gain better education should they move to the city. The harm caused by letting migrants flood the cities to lead a miserable life greatly outweighs that of having one or two too intelligent farmers who miss out on their calling.

No amount of confusion can compare with the nearly anarchical state of places like Nairobi, where there is no law and very little state. [1] In the current situation where there is a menacing trend that threatens the very fabric of society, even if the law would not work to its full effect, it is better for it to work partially than not to have it at all. Corruption is a separate issue that already festers in these regions under the status quo and does not need this extra policy to thrive. This must be dealt with separately, but it is indeed regrettable if a good policy is kept from being put into practice from fear of a phenomenon that is in no manner causally contingent upon the policy.  [1] Maxwell, Daniel., “The Political Economy of Urban Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa.” 11, London : Elsevier Science Ltd., 1999, World Development, Vol. 27, p. 1939±1953. S0305-750X(99)00101-1.