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

Thanks for an interesting case Pro. As per the debate structure, this round is for opening arguments. As such, I will not be responding to Pro’s case until next round. For clarification, I think the Pro side in the Intelligence Squared debate on this topic sums up the meaning adequately: The resolution say that “no matter where you're born, it should be legal for you to accept a job offer from a willing employer.” The debate is primarily about the borders between nations in regards to the labor field. Pro is advocating a completely open labor field in that there would be no borders at all to persons wanting to work in other nations. All that’s necessary would be an employer wishing to higher them. I will be advocating, in general, a controlled or regulated labor field--so not open but also not closed. I say “in general” since the issue can depend on the situation; but most nations at least should have controlled/regulated borders, I would argue. BoP I am defending the status quo in so far as I will be defending controlled borders, which are the most common form of borders[2]. But few people would call the system perfect; I included, so I won’t be defending the system completely as it stands and I don’t think Pro would expect me to. So following Pro’s statements in R1, I think we can say that Pro does have the burden of proof in this debate. Given that fact, my presenting a case of my own is nonessential, but given the debate structure, I am compelled to make one. Keeping this in mind, I would like the viewers to note that refuting Pro is my main job, and providing my own case exceeds my bounds this debate. If the cases are equally matched, it would therefore be proper to vote Con, and if both cases fail, it would likewise be correct to vote Con. If I spouted nonsense for my case, but adequately refuted Pro’s, it would be requisite to vote Con. Controlled borders for workers My opponent is only arguing for open working borders not complete open-borders, so he may agree to an extent that borders are a good thing. A world without borders seems attractive but only as an idealized utopia. Working borders--and borders in general--are necessary for national security, public safety, population, practicality, basic obligations of the government to its citizens, and more. I advocate controlled or regulated working borders (the status quo[2]). By this I mean a system that allows foreigners to come work but only after they’ve met certain qualifications. If there’s a need for nuclear physicists we might open work borders for them around the world to close the shortfall and we might let a restricted number of foreigners in who are seeking a better life. This has the advantage of encouraging skilled immigration and bringing only those who deserve to be here or those in special need in, whereas opening borders for all workers would encourage unskilled and cheap labor. Controlled borders also allow governments to prevent unwanted effects from immigrants such as stress on infrastructure and disadvantaging local populations. Detrimental effects on the job market and wage There are over four billion people currently living under the U.S. poverty level [3]. Unfortunately we (U.S. and other applicable countries) can't take care of them all and to try to do so would greatly hurt us. Harvard professor George Borjas estimates that American workers already lose $190 billion a year in wages "caused by the constant flooding of the labor market from newcomers."[3] Imagine if this flooding of the labor market was open to those four billion? The motion would produce a labor market with billions of workers competing globally for jobs. The result would be that the wages of workers would be heavily driven down in America and other nations. If a minimum wage was in place every single worker not in the level of a high skilled labor would make the same lowest basic wage and most higher paid workers would see their wage fall as well. People in the U.S. earning $15 an hour would see their pay immediately drop to minimum wage. Those not willing to work for minimum wage and who couldn’t get a higher level job simply couldn’t work. The supply of cheap labor would simply be so great that the effects on the average worker would be devastating. If 2 billion people suddenly started competing for our jobs, all or most mid to low skilled labor jobs would immediately fall down to minimum wage. This is the same argument used in the IS debate. [1] On mid-skill and especially low skill labor, it’s a very bad idea to allow global competition in the labor market; simply because everyone can do them. We have a special need for nuclear physicists and engineers so that’s why we make the labor market more open in these areas. The same is not true for basic laborers; we don’t have any need to borrow from other nations. If we open our jobs to all foreigners wanting such work, those in our own labor market suffer greatly. 5 million workers willing to work for any wage at all coming to the U.S. (or another country that’s applicable) would benefit those workers but would be detrimental to American workers by a comparable degree. Low wages is not the only problem; workers would quickly lose benefits as well and labor unions could simply not operate. Governments would fail on their basic obligations if they implemented an open labor market The duty of a government is foremost towards the interests of its citizens and the well-being of the nation. That’s one of the main reasons governments exist. Government exist to keep its citizens safe and secure from each other and from others. We help other nations as much as we can so long as its not taking too much away from our citizens. What Pro is proposing suggests that governments should sacrifice the well-being of its own citizens for those of completely foreign nations. That’s contrary to the purpose and goals of government. Rights of the working immigrants Vs. rights of citizens If allowed, we can all imagine that Pro’s motion would produce a massive potential for political interest. In nations like the U.S. a rights would quickly arise. The party that thought they could benefit most from these workers voting--the party that most supported right to work anywhere--would be the first to advocate their right to vote and gain other benefits--”if they’re human beings, never committed a crime, are good enough to live/work on our land, pay taxes, and contribute so much to economic productivity, they cannot be denied the right to vote and get government benefits”. We can easily see such sentiments being issued if Pro’s proposition came to pass and they raise a good point: what do we do about healthcare and the education of those coming over? How could we sustain the costs of taking care of all these immigrants? Who would benefit? With a couple billion workers competing in the labor market, the wages of average workers--the majority of the labor force--would be depressed drastically, or lowered all to the most minimum level laws allow. Who benefits from cheap labor? those at the top. In other words, the wealthy would benefit by far the most while the working class would suffer. No, I’m not saying immigrants wouldn’t benefit from coming to nations like America; they would certainly benefit for the most part. The ordinary citizens of the nation would be the ones to suffer which would counteract the immigrants’ benefit. So the wealthy would primarily benefit from the cheap labor. This just increases the gap between the rich and the poor. In turn, it also means employers control the labor market since they have such an infinite supply of workers. That upsets the labor market equilibrium. Would make it easy for persons to live here illegally What happens when workers lose their job or get laid off? Since the resolution is about people being allowed to work anywhere, they would be obliged to leave the country. Since jobs are terminated everyday, this is problematic. What’s to stop these workers from simply slipping out of sight and finding illegal work? National security risks Pro’s proposition implies that any person can come to a nation to work so long as an employer will hire them.This poses a high national security risk. For example, it would provide an unlimited avenue for terrorists entering the country so long as a sympathiser was in a position to hire on the other side. There are plenty of people nations generally want out of their society but it would be exceedingly difficult to control the influx of unwanted persons if the only criteria was their being offered a job. It’s far better when only the best and most deserving are allowed to work in a new country. Back to Pro. [1] http://intelligencesquaredus.org... [2] http://www.siue.edu... [3] http://www.defendcoloradonow.org...