Controlled Immigration

Overall, my opponent is saying that the government should decide who gets in to a country and who doesn't. I'm saying that the people should decide. I'm saying that if I want to go and live in Bhutan or the Vatican City, I should be allowed to without having to go through immigration. Contrary to some people's belief, immigration isn't there to help people come in - it is there to keep people out. So while I agree with my opponent that immigration is often one's need, I disagree that some government official sitting in an office (playing Solitaire) will know about this need better than the person with the need. I also agree that the world needs greater cultural exchange - but surely this would happen if we didn't keep more and more people out? I agree that knowledge needs to be spread, but this spread cannot happen when governments have immigration restrictions. Prosperity does come from immigration, like my learned opponent states, but strangely, not from government imposed immigration restrictions. Therefore, to reiterate, I oppose controlled immigration in favor of open immigration. What I'd really like to know is why my opponent thinks that before a person comes to the states, they need to have a green card. Surely all of these great advantages my opponent propounds are not there only because not enough people can get to the United States - lack of green pieces of card is keeping them out. Which brings me, finally, to the first issue my opponent brought up - lack of immigration controls in present-day America. I contend this. According to the Collins Paperback English Dictionary, control is the power to direct something. Does the government of the United States have the power to direct immigration? Yes. They may legally make any law concerning immigration that falls within their jurisdiction. Do they have the ability to exercise these powers? Usually. Far more Mexicans are stopped at the border than run across it. Perhaps they cannot catch them all, but in general, I think it is a fair enough conclusion that there are American immigration controls. If my opponent continues to assert the opposite, maybe he should ask the American immigration service what they do all day? Given that my opponent offers no rebuttal to my constructive case, I will build on my arguments numbers one and two. My first argument was on the fundamental freedom of movement rights we all possess. Once again, the role of the government in a democratic state (which is pretty much every government in the world) is to ensure the rights of the electors, not restrict them. Governments, however, are placing many restrictions on immigration. In ancient times, before modern governmental structure, freedom of movement was a universal right. It can therefore only be detrimental to our development to restrict this movement in any way - we have lost something that we once had. Controls on immigration are a restriction on movement like any other. For this reason Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the U. N. General Assembly, gives all the right to enter their "own country. " But who decides that constitutes a person's own country? Can a government really tell a person "that is YOUR country, thus you are stuck there? " No. That should be a decision for the potential immigrant, not big brother. The really strange thing about this example is that all the nations that signed and ratified this fundamental document now have immigration departments in their governments, controlling human rights like mad. Perhaps it is because of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 12 of which adds a few caveats - national security, public order and so forth. Yet the problem is still the same - these are subjective judgements imposed by bureaucrats in ivory towers. I doubt they often recognise how much is at stake. As is written in U. N. General Comment 27, part one "Liberty of movement is an indispensable condition for the free development of a person. " I believe the U. S. Constitution provides for freedom of movement also, with "reasonable limits" - but how can a test for the reasonableness of a fundamental right be determined? And so we move on to my second argument. The system is broke. Let's fix it. In round one, I gave you a clear model of how the system could be fixed right now. The system is not working when Africans starve and people invite me to lavish banquets. The system is not working when people from central Asia need medical care but cannot get it, while my doctor tells me off if I don't see him often enough. The system is not working when people are stuck in war torn or politically unstable countries and are left with no future despite their numerous qualifications, while I enjoy peace and security with a bright future despite only being a college student. These are the times when immigration is most needed . .. and, unfortunately, the most restricted. Africa, more than any other continent, has more travel restrictions by foreign countries than any other country. Why? Commercial interest, famine, resulting desease, resulting poverty. That is what happens when the power is not with the people - the system becomes vulnerable to exploitation. Look at the so-called boat people who come to Australia. They are turned away in their hundreds, despite being more needy than many of the migrants who come in, because they are less skilled. Well, of course they are, but why should your level of skill determine your civil rights? I put it to you that it should not. I put it to you that governments have no right to tell me where I can and cannot live. Therefore they have no right to control immigration. This is how it should be. This will fix the problem. As my third argument is quite a major one, I'll wait until my last round to expand on it. Now I'll hand back to my opponent so we can hear the rest of his case.