THS Free Immigration

Rebuttal Only RoundI thank con for his extension. Throughout this debate, my three contentions have discussed in length the benefits to the countries of origin, the countries being moved to, the individual living in a world with free immigration, as well as the collective as a whole. I have presented the idea that all people should have equal opportunity, the economic benefits the resolution would bring, and last round I made a comparison between the free market and free immigration. Seeing as we can achieve the same results capitalism brings to our economy, to the world and politics. I will firstly refute my oppositions extensions on his points. Then, rebuild my three points. R1. "Ghettos" As con did not give any reason as to why cities would start growing large areas attract poor, and merely asserted it, I assumed he was discussing cultural clusters. I suppose it was wrong of me to assume. Rather, it seems he is trying to make a point grounded in poverty. Unfortunately, my entire second point was about how immigrants will grow the economies of the host countries. Immigrants create jobs, I can't reaffirm this enough. This entire fear-mongering point is an assertion. How are we associating immigrants with everything that's wrong? What is "everything that's wrong? " Is it poverty? Michael Clemens at the Center for Global Development, open borders could lead to a boost in world GDP by about 50-150%. The GDP gains will be felt most by the world’s poorest, and absolute poverty will reduce dramatically. Is it unemployment? The free movement of immigrants between EU members states has actually increased the amount of jobs created in Great Britain. A ratio of 13 jobs created for every single job lost, according to the Migration Advisory Committee. On your point about Israel, Palestine and Israel have been threatening each other forever! This is hardly a fair example. These two nations are in the middle of a WAR. I highly doubt in a world with open boarders, where you are free to live where ever you please, people would be moving to the countries their nations are fighting against. Individuals are far more likely to move to the West. Your point on crime has been hitched to your "ghetto" assertion. HOW are people "shunting" the poor into ghettos? Under this model, you have the choice to live where ever. You have the freedom to pursue your education and the ability to become employed. Of course living on the streets of Vancouver is more advantageous then on the streets of Harare. In the first world, locals have medical care, clean tap water, food stamps, shelters, etc. Why would anyone move if it wasn't? I would also argue that there are so many good people who continuously donate to say, their local food bank. Donations don't go to the third world. Charity is given to everyone in poverty, not just foreigners. R2. "Second-class citizens" I can't believe you continued on with this point. First, this ENTIRE point isn't opposing to the motion, it's opposing the model I presented. It doesn't prove AT ALL why we shouldn't open boarders. Second, let me say that you extending this point shows how little research you've done. PERMANENT RESIDENTS EXIST RIGHT NOW UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM. It's not illegal for them to obtain local passports, actually residents are encouraged to obtain local passports. Please, dear god, wikipedia permanent residency before you extend on this point further. New Zealand even uses this system. Moving on, your solution is not going to solve the issue. To get a work visa you have to become sponsored by a company. You have to have temporary employment set up. Now, what happens to say, a young lady in a developing nation who has been denied education her entire life? Will a company offer her a job? Obviously not, she has no way of meeting the criteria. She is lucky if she isn't one of the fifth of the population who can't even write their own names. Equal OpportunityIt's fantastic that you agree world poverty sucks and the inequality is unjust, but who in the world has the trillions of dollars in their back pocket needed give the third world all the schools and hospitals they need? The resolution is actually doing something. It's solving the problem. It's creating a better world for so many men, women and children. More than 2.3 trillion dollars has been given to the third world already, how much more would we need to give? "Bringing education to all the ghettos, including their country, does. " So how is anyone supposed to do that? How are we going to suddenly stop inequality? My solution is practical, yours is imaginary. EconomicsRemittances: Sorry I just didn't really see a counter point there at all. You talked about how vital remittances are to receiving countries. Under the resolution, remittances back home increase. Diasporas and remittances are immensely beneficial. They do more than send money, they send technology, skills and resources. They fuel business. There are hardly any restrictions, at least not enough to stop $45 billion getting remit to India and 34 billion getting remit to China in 2008. It's not bosses sending money back, it's mainly between families. They do it because they care about their loved ones. Migrants Moving Home: Con has yet to argue this point. This, coupled with diasporas is what truly develops the third world and industrializes it. Receiving educated, skilled workers can do nothing but good. Why do they move back? Because it's their home. The place they grew up. Where their relatives are. Remember the statistics I have presented: The CEO of the Overseas Indian Facilitation Centre has stated that over 100,000 Indian immigration are said to have gone home last year from Canada alone, and the number is growing. Filling The "Baby Boomer" Gap: The only counter argument from the last round was as follows: "Why Japan needs to stabilise its population is beyond me. It is overpopulated as is. " It's because they do not have enough younger workers to support the elderly, retiring generation. The problem is the population spikes and then falls. This is seen throughout the world. The problem is we have the baby boomers retiring and needing health care as they get older, but not enough tax-paying younger workers to afford it. Job Creation: Will wages fall? Not when other things change at the same time. Those immigrants who increase the supply of labor also demand goods and services, causing the demand for labor to increase. Second, immigrants don’t simply shift the supply of labor. Labor is heterogeneous. When the immigrants have different skills than the native-born population, they complement the native-born labor rather than substitute for them. Many of the immigrants to the United States are either extremely highly-skilled or very low-skilled. Yet most native-born labor falls somewhere in between. To the extent that immigrants are complementing U. S. labor, they can increase, rather than decrease, the wages of the native-born. "In fact there's all too much unemployment. " I agree! Good thing free migration creates jobs! "(although it's pretty clear that some people do emigrate just to leech off another country's education or health care, then go right back home, and pro seems to support this)" Because they don't "leech", they earn. Immigrants pay taxes like every other person in the country and have just as much right to social services as first world natives. All poor people don't pay as much in tax, it doesn't mean they don't deserve services. Free Market ComparisonThe idea is competition fuels progress. It's not foreign deals. You obviously don't get this point either. Let me clarify, under open boarders, governments will loose citizens if they aren't happy. Governments want people to govern over. They will improve to get a bigger population. It's a metaphor. The governments are the product and the citizens are the consumers. If they aren't happy with the product, they'll switch. :)