BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Delegitimises religious

Currently, bombings and attacks in the name of religion are a big problem. These are mostly caused by people feeling that their religion is being discriminated against.[1] For example Dr Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury believes that "There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law." He believes this would help maintain social cohesion because Muslims would not need to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".[2] If the government is seen to be supporting all religions then these attacks will lose their credibility and will inevitably be reduced in both severity and frequency. [1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.  [2] BBC News, ‘Sharia law in UK is ‘unavoidable’’, 7 February 2008.
Sets a standard for religion as it being above the law.

This legislation essentially indicates that anything to do with religion is not subject to the same laws as everyone else and removes the state from his position as ultimate authority over its subjects. The limits will be very difficult to draw – there are some things that everyone would agree is based upon religious belief such as the Sikhs carry knives but there may be other cases where a minority of the religion believes that something is required by their religion, should this still be allowed? Similarly would this apply to every single religion and sect or would the state have to define what it counts as a religion and limit it only to major religions? By extension, this legitimises actions like honour killings, which are killings done in the name of religion. Although they would not be directly allowed by this legislation, they would be implicitly encouraged and those carrying it out would try to claim that it was carrying out a religious belief in order to get protection from the law. Already 1 in 10 young British Asians back honour killings, they do not need any encouragement from changes to the law like this.[1] [1] BBC News, ‘One in 10 ‘backs honour killings’’, 4 September 2006.
Makes the affected laws effectively inoperable in their totality.

If people wish to carry knives in public or smoke marijuana, the rational thing for them to do under this legislation is to falsely claim to be Sikh or Rastafarian respectively so that they are not subject to these laws. This logic applies to all laws affected by this legislation. The government would first have to work out what religions count for this legislation, the government would likely want to exclude at least some extremist cults and would not want to allow individuals or small to make up their own religions. Equally problematic would be that the government would need to regulate what all these beliefs are so as to prevent new beliefs from springing up to get around laws. The government would then have to work out ways of working out if someone is legitimately part of a religion or not, this would be practically impossible. The ultimate effect would be that all laws affected by this legislation would be so easy to get around that they may as well not exist. Instead the government should look to accommodate religious values within British law by making the necessary changes in specific instances rather that introducing a carte blanche to override the laws of the land.[1] [1] Petre, Jonathan et al, ‘Bishop: Impossible to have sharia law in UK’, The Telegraph, 8 February 2008,
Causes divisions in society.

One of the most fundamental things in any democracy is equality between those in that society. Many minorities have been struggling for this equality for decades. This includes religious minorities for example between the reformation in the 16th Century and 1829 Catholics were second class citizens.[1] This demand that religious beliefs should override government laws switches things around and once again means that not everyone is equal before the law.  Moreover making it law that certain groups of people are allowed to behave in a way that other groups of people are not inevitably leads to social divisions. This means people who are unaffected by this legislation will see religious people as getting special treatment, feel side-lined by the government and see religious people as their enemy in this. This will promote tension between religious and non-religious communities and will thus create divisions in society as well as deepening pre-existing ones. [1] Living Heritage, ‘Religion and Belief’, parliament.uk.
People have a right to freedom of religion.

Rights only exist so long as they do not harm others. Like all rights, the right to practise your religion to its fullest extent, regardless of the consequences for other people and the laws of your state is only a right in as far as it does not affect other people. The opposition believes that laws are in place to stop people from causing harm to one another and allowing religious people to break these laws is putting the rights of the religious people ahead of the rights of everyone else in society. The government has a responsibility to respect the rights and standard of life of all people, not just religious people.
Relationship between state and religious population

Ignoring the law some of the time undermines the state. The opposition believe that this legislation goes much further than showing solidarity between the government and religion, and is actually the government showing submission to religion. This legislation sets religion as a higher authority than the government and, as such, undermines the government’s power as the ultimate authority. The likely effect is that religious groups will begin to see themselves as above the law and will begin to disregard to government to an ever greater extent.
Relationship between state and organised religion.

Undermines the state. Similarly to the point above, the opposition believe that this legislation will actually be seen by organised religion as a sign of submission from the government. It shows organised religious groups that they hold power over the government whenever they choose to use it. In terms of international diplomacy, it shows theocratic states and the like that we are moving to become more like them. This legitimises their position, which the opposition thinks is an inherently harmful one as the voice of the people is not heard in non-democratic countries.
Delegitimises religious

Religious extremism is not currently considered ‘legitimate’. The community at large have a great disdain for terrorism and similar activity and mainstream religions desperately try to disassociate themselves from extremism, all the while condemning it.[1] The opposition believes that this good will be so barely perceptible that it does next to nothing to outweigh all the harms that this legislation will bring. [1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.
Sets a standard for religion as it being above the law.

This is a weak slippery slope argument. The proposition does not accept that this legislation puts religion above the law. Religious people and movements do not see the potential to practise their religion to its fullest degree as a way to get one over on the state but a right that they deserve as a human being. This legislation will not be seen as weakness but as tolerance. As for honour killings, they are not religious but cultural and are denounced by leaders of all the world’s major faiths[1] as such they have nothing to do with this legislation and would not be perceived as having anything to do with this legislation. [1] “Honour Crimes.” BBC Ethics Guide. 2011.
Protections of migrants will hurt the economies of receiving countries by overcrowding them and taking away jobs from citizens.

Increasing protections of migrant rights has the general effect of increasing migration. Indeed, one policy goal of many migrant rights activists is for open borders and free and unrestricted migration across them. A right to family reunification would also increase migration. This can be problematic in many countries. It may worsen overpopulation problems, increase tensions between ethnic and/or religious groups, and raise unemployment rates. The economies of many receiving countries are barely managing to fight unemployment in the status quo. If migrants receive further protection, they will take more jobs, making it harder for citizens to find employment. Everybody should have the opportunity to work in his home country, but the economic protection of migrants overcrowds receiving countries, driving up unemployment. In America, for example, between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled workers is caused by immigration, and around 1,880,000 American workers lose their jobs every year because of immigration.[1] In addition to unemployment problems, overcrowding can have a variety of negative consequences affecting air pollution, traffic, sanitation, and quality of life. So, why are migrants deserving of "protection"? It should be the other way around: the national workers of a state deserve protection from migrant workers and the jobs they are taking. [1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, “Economic Costs.” http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html.
Migrants ought to have a right to family reunification.

The proposed right of family reunification is too much of a burden on receiving countries, making it an obstacle to a migrant rights treaty. Indeed, states have levelled as an argument against the Migrant Workers Convention, and against other possible international migrant treaties, concerns about a robust right of family reunification to all migrant workers present in migrant-receiving countries. This could offer family members a right to migrate into the state in question, resulting in large increases in population size. And, there is no doubt that the text of the Migrant Workers Convention aims to create a "right" to family reunification. Even if it provides flexibility on how a nation attempts to facilitate reunification, it still requires that states reunite families in some way. Under this treaty, therefore, any migrant could sue the state for not allowing his family (and perhaps extended family) to immigrate as well. In overpopulated and strained migrant-receiving countries, particularly in Western Europe, such a proposition is untenable, which is why so many migrant-receiving nations oppose the treaty.
Protections would benefit the economies of receiving as well as source countries.

Migration puts too heavy a burden on receiving countries, and it essentially means giving up on source countries. It is not a mechanism of the market, but rather an unfair system of taking money from taxpayers in certain countries and giving it to people other countries, this money is then sent abroad and spend abroad resulting in a net loss to the economy. Not all migration is bad, but legislation that would protect the right of immigrants to send money home would solidify this unfair system. Remittances are a short-term fix. If migrants are not allowed to send home remittances, it is possible that the most skilled workers would stay in their home country and work to rebuild the economy for the long-term. The supposed intangible benefit to receiving countries of “innovation and invention” is much less important than the real cost that these countries feel as a result from the unemployment and increased cost of health, education, and welfare systems that migrants cause.
Universal migrant “protections” are an affront to state sovereignty.

There is plenty of international law on the books, and it is legitimate when it protects rights that ought to be universal for the individual, no matter what country you are in. The right to have a family is not a Chilean right, or a German right, or a Malaysian right; it is a human right. As is the right to work without being harassed. The huge increase in migration over the past two decades shows that individual well-being has developed into a more important concern in the world today than state sovereignty. Migrant protections are moral because they reflect this change.
Receiving countries should not and cannot afford to further protect migrants because they often free ride on health, education, and welfare systems.

The receiving countries to which most migrants move are the richest countries in the world so are able to afford increased protection. While migrants may sometimes cost these countries money in services like healthcare they are in countries that can afford to pay this cost. It should also not be assumed that migrants just take from the public purse. As most migrants are legal they also pay taxes. Even those who are illegal will still pay some taxes such as VAT or duties on cigarettes and alcohol. The UK government estimates that “in 1999/2000, ﬁrst generation migrants in the UK contributed £31.2 billion in taxes and consumed £28.8 billion in beneﬁts and public services – a net ﬁscal contribution of £2.5 billion”.[1] This will obviously vary from country to country but stories that immigrants are costing huge amounts and putting nothing into the collective pot are plain wrong. [1] Home Office, The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Immigration, A Cross-Departmental Submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, October 2007, p.8, http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm72/7237/7237.pdf
Protection of migrants causes “brain drain,” which further damages the economies of source countries.

 Those who are being ‘drained’ from the source countries are those who are more highly skilled and so in less need of protections in the first place as these people are leaving to find much more highly skilled and therefore highly paid jobs. The ‘brain drain’ may not be a drain at all, either on the source countries or the receiving country. In fact the ‘brain drain’ might be better considered as a ‘brain gain’. This is because the lure of migration means that individuals are much more likely to increase their education or learn skills with the intention of migrating. This decision to increase their human capital is a decision that would not have been made if the possibility of migration was not present. Of course in the short term much of this gain will migrate abroad as intended some will not and others will return home later. The result is therefore that both the source country and the receiving country have more highly skilled workforces.[1] [1] Stark, Oded, ‘The New Economics of the Brain Drain’, World Economics, Vol 6, No. 2, April – June 2005, pp.137-140, p.137/8, http://ostark.uni-klu.ac.at/publications/2005/THE%20NEW%20ECONOMICS%20OF%20THE%20BRAIN%20DRAIN%20World%20Economics%20Vol.%206%20No.%202%20April-June%202005_neu.pdf
Migrants ought to have a right to family reunification.

The right to family is widely recognized as an essential human right. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that the family is the fundamental unit of society. Within the right to family is the right to family reunification for migrants who are separated from their loved ones. The Human Rights Education Associates argue, “states are obliged to facilitate contacts and deal with requests to enter or leave a state party for the purpose of reunification in a humane and expeditious manner.”[1]  This right is especially important for refugees, who have often been torn from their families by force, and although they have not been separated by force economic migrants are also separated from their families and at the very least should be able to visit their families, and it is not granted by many countries. [1] Asmita Naik, “The Right to Family,” Human Rights Education Associates,” Accessed June 30, 2011, http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=425.
Universal migrant “protections” are an affront to state sovereignty.

International law, like the U.N. Migrant Rights Convention, and any international regulatory body that requires the nations of the world to increase protections for migrants would be a violation of state sovereignty. Not all international law is necessarily bad, but these protections go too far, because they force a huge burden on certain nations, and not others. It is fair for an international body to say that all nations should treat their citizens with equality and respect, but it is not fair to say that certain countries should have to provide for many citizens from less-well-off ones.
Receiving countries should not and cannot afford to further protect migrants because they often free ride on health, education, and welfare systems.

Because immigrants are frequently less well off financially, and they sometimes come to a new country illegally, they cost a lot for receiving countries, and so they should not be further protected. Immigrants make heavy use of social welfare, and often overload public education systems, while frequently not pulling their weight in taxes. Illegal immigrants alone have already cost the United States “billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services. Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, have been forced to close” because they are required by law to provide free emergency room services to illegal immigrants. In addition, half a billion dollars each year are spent to keep illegal immigrant criminals in American prisons.[1] The money spent to build and maintain schools for immigrant children, and to teach them, takes away from the education of current schools, existing students, and taxpayers. This is unfair. Increasing social and economic protections and rights for migrants means increasing migration and increasing benefits that migrants receive from societies. This could be a burden that a state's welfare system is not capable of handling. [1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, "Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration," accessed June 30, 2011, http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html.
Further protections are required to grant migrants full human rights.

Migrant rights are already protected under human rights law. If a nation violates existing international human rights law against a migrant, perhaps with exploitative working conditions, wrongful imprisonment, seizure of property, discrimination, or violence, existing international law already adequately protects them. There is no need to expand human rights law to create a separate category and separate protections for migrants. Even if the international community decided it wanted to better protect the human rights of migrants, an international treaty will not necessarily advance that cause, as international law has proven to be very difficult to enforce. This will continue to be a problem into the foreseeable future.
Protection of migrants causes “brain drain,” which further damages the economies of source countries.

The countries from which workers emigrate often struggle from failing economies, and through migration they can lose their most skilled workers, who are needed at home to turn their economy around. Strengthened protections of migrants would further incentivize migration, and so brain drain would become more of a problem. India for example has seen more than 300,000 people migrate to the United States and more than 75% of these migrants had a tertiary education[1] meaning the vast majority of these migrants were among the most educated from a country where only 7% of the population is able to goes to university.[2] [1] Carrington, William J., and Detragiache, Enrica, ‘How Extensive is the Brain Drain?’, Finance and Development, Volume 36, No. 2, June 1999, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/1999/06/carringt.htm [2] ‘When More Is Worse’, Newsweek, 8 August 2008, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/08/09/when-more-is-worse.html
An international regulatory body should exist for global migration.

The receiving countries would not accept a regulatory body. The current international regulatory bodies such as the WTO and World Bank are essentially run by the rich countries for the benefit of the rich countries and so they accept it. Any body regulating migrants’ rights would, however, be doing the opposite--  benefiting the poorest -- meaning the rich countries would try to prevent the creation of such an organisation. In the unlikely event that the regulatory body could be created it would face a gargantuan task. How could global migration be monitored and regulated by an international body when even national bodies in rich countries are not able to keep track of all migrants in their nations? Yet the international body would also have to monitor the conditions of migrants in many much poorer countries where the infrastructure currently does not exist.
Economic and social protections prevent the exploitation of migrants.

In most democratic, developed countries—which are those that receive the most immigrants—people share equal rights in the workplace, as long as they immigrated legally. People who broke the law to come to the country do not deserve these rights. Because they usually come to work, the workplace is even the ideal place to discover illegal immigrants. Not only are they not allowed to unionize, but they are not allowed to get paid. Workplace rights do not need to be strengthened for legal migrants, and they should not be for illegal migrants. Similarly it is impossible for the conditions for illegal migrants to be improved; if they are found they will be deported and so there is no need to improve their conditions, although of course they should be well treated while in the process of deportation. Moreover improving minimum conditions would be counterproductive as they would attract more migrants to immigrate illegally knowing that they will get minimum living conditions that may well be considerably better than those that they had in their home country.
Protections of migrants will hurt the economies of receiving countries by overcrowding them and taking away jobs from citizens.

The effect of migration on unemployment is actually positive: it provides cheap labor for receiving countries, and lowers the supply of labor in source countries where employers can often not afford to pay sufficient wages to their workers. The claim that immigrants take jobs away from native citizens is unfounded. In the United States, for example, visa applications for skilled foreign workers are extremely difficult to receive and are limited to a small number of people. Foreign students at U.S. universities even need special authorization to work a summer job. Immigrants cannot undercut U.S. workers wages, taking their job away for less money, because foreign workers must be paid a minimum salary, mandated by law.[1] Even illegal immigrants who do not follow these regulations tend to take very-low-paying jobs that are unwanted by U.S. citizens and that would not otherwise exist. [1] Farhad Sethna, “Immigrants Don’t Take Away U.S. Jobs!” Immigration Law Blog, July 9, 2009, accessed June 30, 2011, http://blog.immigration-america.com/archives/131.