Tier Tournament 2 [Top], R2: Let Anyone Work Anywhere

BoP Conceded Dropped arguments I hope the judges grant that it was virtually impossible to respond to two rounds in one. Pro’s case Justice I would not consider immigrants job thieves and would have nothing at all against them. I simply find it unwise to give unrestricted labor access to foreigners, and don’t think a country is obligated to help foreigners at great expense to its own citizens. This does not resemble xenophobia in any way. I don’t know why Pro would deny the term “altruism” given his argument focuses solely on giving people their ‘fundamental rights’ and nothing about self-benefit. It still stands that self-interest is an inherent part of individuals’ moral obligations which is why no one is obligated to make everyone else as well off as she is. Justice does not require us to forgo national security and a sound labor force, just as justice does not require individuals to open their homes to the homeless. It also stands that governments are primarily obligated to their own citizens. Slippert slope fallacy doesn't make any sense as I’m not arguing what would happen down the road. I'm just exposing the infeasibility of the axiom “those aspects that are innate to who we are should never be used as a source of discrimination”. It would follow necessarily that we are obligated to open borders completely, not only in the labor force. Some people are better suited in their pursuit of their own well-being. It’s a fact of life that those aspects innate to us will be used against us. If Pro’s moral principle is detatched from reality, it can’t be used as a basis for his case. Human decency Pro's saying it’s the decent thing to do is to let them have this opportunity, but he never made the connection last round and stating only that its obvious is not an argument as it oversimplifies a complicated matter. In regards to what I’ve conceded, I have conceded that a large number of people would benefit from coming here, which is why we let many people immigrate. It’s decency to not completely close our borders. But there is no obligation to completely open our work borders and doing so would itself lessen the value of coming here due to after-effects. Pro never justifies his claim that billions of people would gain access to a reasonable conditions. He would have to demonstrate billions of job offers that would open up, which seems very doubtful. Why would countries have this massive number of jobs waiting to be filled? True, billions of people would enter into the labor force, but only a small portion would get jobs. If billions did get jobs then those at home would suffer greatly. Diversity I never stated diversity was just about gender. I was simply stating that a big part of the article is about gender which has no relevance to this debate. I didn’t say diversity is only beneficial to companies in certain skill jobs or executives. I stated this only applies to jobs with a good deal of collaboration, which is not your average job. Pro ignores this. Translation, diplomatic, and foreign relations work are forms of specialized labor and are some of the best examples of what controlled borders should aim for. There’s no reason we need open borders to gain access to these people. Groupthink just seems like a rather weak argument, especially given the fact that diversity only helps a select portion of jobs and the U. S. is already growing substantially in racial and ethnic diversity, in part because of immigration. [1] In fact "by the end of this decade, according to Census Bureau projections. .. no single racial or ethnic group will constitute a majority of children under 18. And in about three decades, no single group will constitute a majority of the country as a whole. "[2] We're already getting much more diverse, but either way it’s a weak point. Con’s case Job market and wage All I have to do to prove this contention is take the basic economic principle that increased competition for wage in the same levels of the market lower wages, and prove that this competition would exist. If immigrants start competing for wages with natives, then wages (and benefits) will go down. The only reason they wouldn’t is if the immigrants are complimenting wages. But this wouldn’t happen. Pro’s statement is false that the lowest GDP estimate is 50%. The quote clearly states estimates are only “often in the range”, meaning other estimates are lower. Pro doesn’t seem to understand what I’m arguing. I’m agreeing that GDP and the job market would likely increase. I’m merely mitigating the claims on account of Clemens--Pro’s main source--stating that studies in this area are rare and obscure, that traditional studies suffer from a flawed agenda, and that the four points that he uses to set a new agenda "need much more evidence than we have". Also, GDP is an incomplete picture. “When we think about well-being, we can't just think about wealth. That's one of the things we've learned from the Gallup World Poll -- how important many other elements are to a person's satisfaction with his life. ”[3] The labor graph is not oversimplified as Pro says. It’s not meant to cover the entire market but only competitive markets. In competitive markets, increased labor drives down wage and upsets the equilibrium. We’re not only talking about low skilled workers as well. “There are also tens of millions of potentially highly educated workers in the developing world who are willing to work for much lower pay than their counterparts in the United States. For example, while the average doctor in the United States gets close to $250,000 a year, there would be no shortage of doctors in India, Mexico, China and elsewhere who would be happy to train to U. S. standards and work for half this wage. The same would be true of lawyers, dentists, economists and all the other highly paid professions. "[4] In Britain mass immigration has driven down wages of the low paid. [9] Governments' obligations to their citizens Pro never really contends this. All he says is that we have international obligations as well, which I admitted. Governments, mayors, and presidents have duties primarily to their constituents. You wouldn’t see a governor using funds to build up cities in other states and you don’t see governments prioritizing foreigners on the same level as its own citizens. The U. S. makes up less than 5 percent of the global population yet about 20 percent of all international migrants live here[5] We let in a million immigrants each year. Germany comes closest with only 600,000. [6] Since the U. S. lets in many immigrants in comparison to other countries and since my stance is pro immigration, I find it radical to call it protectionist. Since it would harm citizens, governments have a duty not to implement open work borders. Rights Dropped to conserve space Who would benefit Income inequality (even in rich countries) can dangerously influence, innovation, well-being, GDP, and the influence of money in politics. Angus Deaton says that inequality in the U. S. can be attributed partially to globalization and technological growth, which has made manufacturing workers in the U. S. have to compete with cheaper labor elsewhere. [7] “The simple story is that we have hundreds of millions of people in developing countries who are prepared to work for a fraction of the wages of our manufacturing workers. This has caused us to lose millions of manufacturing jobs, depressing the wages of both the remaining workers in the sector and the workers in other sectors who must compete with displaced manufacturing workers. ”[8] A report on the effects of mass immigration in Britain stated “The impacts of migrants on average wages. . tended to be positive at the top of the wage distribution and negative at the bottom. ”[9] Easier to live here illegally Pro's answer to this problem is quite unsatisfactory. All he says is that it's better than the status quo, which is false. If a foreigner doesn't have work, it would be illegal for him to live here, so once they get laid off, they would be legally bound to leave the country. Should we just expect them to oblige? It would be extremely easy to just slip out of sight once they lost their job. Moreover, the efforts in making sure those without a job go back to their country would be too costly and complicated. They could disappear before the government even realized they had to go back. Pro doesn’t even give us a picture on how this would work. National security Pro’s answer is again unsatisfactory. If terrorists can already board planes to the U. S. as with 9/11, it would be alarmingly easy to do so now. All that’s necessary would be an employer sympathetic to their cause on this side. National security couldn’t deal with this. All Pro says is that we can look at their records, but this wrongly assumes that all potential threats have records that would expose them as potential threats. Conclusion Open working borders would be unwise to implement. Controlled borders allow us to more prudently open up parts of the labor force that are most in need of workers and to not flood the market and drive wages down. Government is obligated first and foremost to its own citizens meaning it has a duty to not open work borders. Immigration currently is beneficial but only because its effects on wages are complimentary. Wage competition would not be complimentary with open work borders as we would have an enormous amount of competition for wage and excess labor. I implore a Con vote. Sources [1] . http://fas.org... [2] . http://www.nytimes.com... [3] . http://businessjournal.gallup.com... [4] . http://goo.gl... [5] . http://goo.gl... [6] . http://goo.gl... [7] . http://businessjournal.gallup.com... [8] . http://goo.gl... [9] . http://goo.gl...