THS Free Immigration

First of all, let me congratulate pro on a very impressive case. It's been a fun debate.1. GhettosI did not merely assert that cities will start growing ghettos, I gave empirical evidence (such as Auckland) and logical analysis (land value bidding pool diversity - if I wanted to be technical I could have called this point "gentrification") to back it up. Pro ignored this, asking questions like "HOW are people "shunting" the poor into ghettos? " that I answered two rounds ago. She ignores that the choice is not to live wherever, but wherever you can afford, so land values automatically shunt the poor around. It has nothing to do with who has jobs or how much those jobs are worth. Pro's counter has mostly been her economic material, which I deal with in my rebuttals. Even if a nation's economy is thriving, that does not mean everybody is living well though. China is an extremely wealthy country but it has many millions in poverty. Ghettos are the root of poverty, which is the root of crime and exploitation. Palestinians believe Israel is their land, more or less. They'd love to go there if it weren't for the fact that Israel has a brutal separate set of laws applying to them. Such incentives to keep out the undesirable I deal with in my other point. Similarly, Israel is steadily building new houses, called "settlements", in Palestine all the time. Pro does not disagree that there is stigma against poor living in rich places, and indeed makes it sound like Vancouver shouldn't have a population of poor at all (I wonder if the downtown eastside might disagree with her here). Sure, some people are particularly altruistic, but for the poor any reason not to give them money is a problem. What immigrants forget is the long-term consequences of their migration. This is the most important point of the debate as all of pro's points depend on this not accruing.2. Second class citizensMy opponent has failed to present a viable model for the resolution. That's because the resolution doesn't have any good models. My opponent has asserted a particular legal context with second-class citizens that exist already, and declared that the rest of the world must follow this model. I know full well permanent residency exists, and I thought my arguments made it quite clear that it's a mistake. I'm ashamed of the fact that my mother, who happens to be a permanent resident in New Zealand of 30 years, has very different civil rights to me. It's a mistake that must be corrected, and pro has been unable to defend it. If somebody won't find work on a work visa because they can't write their own name, they also won't find work if they become an automatic permanent resident, so pro's just shot down her own economy point. In any event this rebuttal does not negate the fact pro is making a second class of citizens, just distracting from it. R1. Equal OpportunityI never said my alternative would be easy. It will take tens of trillions of dollars, and more importantly, it will take a lot of time. You can't suddenly stop inequality. And the reason why is because even if you had infinite money and willpower, there's a reason why poor countries don't just build their own schools without pay. Usually it's because they're too preoccupied with meeting the demands of oligarchs overseas or because they're at war with somebody, all too often themselves. My opponent does not have a "solution". She wants to move the entire population of Chad into London and watch what happens (that's not what would happen, since only maybe ten people in Chad are wealthy enough to afford the flight to America, but it's nice to dream anyway). Currently countries like Chad are exploited. Unless we end that exploitation, it won't stop just because the exploited have gone from one ghetto to another. R2. EconomicsA. RemittancesI told you how remittant economies were failed economies like Tajikistan, not that remittances were vital. I told you how India and China specifically are not remittant economies. Pro also did not rebut my claim that remittances are a form of exploitation by the first world. Pro adds that remittances are usually within a family in rebuttal to my claim of a lack of incentive when wealthy emigrants have every incentive to create economic barriers to movement. While caring about family is noble when it happens, the best it can do is create family dynasties, as happened when many wealthy indians moved to England while India was a British colony. B. Migrants moving homeI gave significant rebuttal to the transfer of skills argument also. It works for if your home country is doing well enough for you to be able to support yourself there. If there's a war because all those with enough interest to do so have emigrated leaving the land starved of resources, this does not happen. Loads of people from Tonga have been to Australian schools but that's hardly made a dent in Tonga's GDP growth since that began happening. C. Filling the baby boomer gapObviously pro missed the part in both rounds when I told her exactly why there is no gap to fill - young people are already available to fill the gap. If the world had a labor shortage and the third world had a labor surplus then maybe my opponent would have a point. In fact the opposite is true - which is why unemployment is so high in the first world now and why many third world countries rely on programs like VSA to get workers from the first world. Lack of taxation on younger workers is a by-product of a lack of jobs due to widespread unemployment and low taxes. A simple solution, already being implemented in many countries, is to either raise the retirement age or raise taxes. D. Job CreationI told you that jobs are created via investment. If you invest in a rich country, a poor country misses out, so jobs are lost in Tanzania when a Tanzanian invests his money in France instead. That's also why remittances undermine job creation. Some immigrants do attempt to go to a country and never earn a dime, only staying for as long as they don't need to pay tax because they're in a hospital bed or still in school. Perhaps it is arguable all humans deserve services, but it cannot be argued that these people did nothing to contribute to them. I didn't say jobs would be replaced, I said they would move to other cities and countries (otherwise, why not just outsource? ). I agree that there would be more demand for goods, but the idea that companies will pay more just because they earn more is stupid - wages are driven by people's expectations of wages, so if migrants are coming in who don't mind working for practically nothing, they get paid what they want and the company makes more money for shareholders. The concept of labour as hetrogenous (ie that there are special "immigrant jobs") is wrong, discriminatory and counter to pro's points on both the principle of equality and filling the baby boomer gap. As much as Japanese make great sushi chefs, there's nothing stopping me as a non-Japanese making really great sushi instead. R3. Free MarketsCompetition creates winners and losers. That's not equal opportunities for you, that's winners and losers. Governments aren't trying to be poor under the status quo, and poor countries are already doing what they can. If a government is bad, I'd much rather replace that government than try to evacuate everyone and send them away.