THS Free Immigration

In the last round I explained why migration within a country is bad enough, citing the precedents of Mexico and China. I'm all for social mobility, but physical mobility does not achieve that. I'll focus on that in this round by extending my points and rebuttals.1. GhettosBeing poor is part of nobody's culture. It's true that sometimes ghettos are strongly associated with particular religious or ethnic groups, but these are generalisations usually made by people not in the ghetto. The ghetto attracts all the poor because it's the only place where they can afford property prices. It isn't part of anybody's culture to be uneducated or sick either. I'm for other cultures, but ghettos destroy them by associating them with everything that's wrong with our society. The most obvious contemporary example of this is Israel, which has seen very steady and strong migration. Due to land competition, the poorer Palestinians have been forced into ghettos like Gaza. So much "peace and friendship" exists between these great ethnicities that they've launched all out wars against each other more times than anybody cares to count. It's true that concentrations of inequality create crime - NOT immigration by itself. At no point in this debate have I opposed immigration. That's why Tim Wadsworth's study (although his least-square statistical model DID show a correlation between more immigrant communities and more crime) showed that reduction in violent crime. Maybe that's because they didn't just let everybody in and shunt them into ghettos. Most migrants don't go to live poorer lives, for sure. Not all of those shunted into the ghettos are migrants. It's not migrants who go into ghettos, it's the poor. Their influx drives up the price of local education and healthcare as well, these largely being fixed government-controlled assets. It's the ghettos that end up the worst. Pro thinks even the ghetto is better than third-world countries. This depends on the ghetto in question, but it's not a fair comparison. The biggest difference is the stigma. When I give microloans, I want to help people in Angola or Zambia - giving to somebody in the USA is just sad. After all, the USA is a wealthy nation. But there are people in the USA who are just as poor as those in Zambia, and it's because they live in the ghetto that nobody want's to help them.2. Second-class citizensThe best way to make it harder to go back to your home country is to make it harder to prove your identity. Pro's model is clearly not in the interests of moving back because she makes it illegal for her so-called "permanent residents" to obtain local passports. This means all the migrants need to go their consulates regularly, forcing them to live in cities with consulates (which grow ghettos). Under the status quo we have visas. These allow you to temporarily visit a country so you can work and take what you will back home. Most countries put almost no restrictions on how many people can get a visa, and when they do they are largely political (ie many Arab countries restrict visas to those who have been to Israel). So the problem that pro is trying to solve by creating second-class citizens doesn't even do a good job of solving the problem, and moreover it has already been solved. The fact that pro says her second-class citizens can become first-class citizens does not change the fact that there are second-class citizens. Even if only 10% of a ghetto is second-class, that still changes the entire perception of that place in the eyes of everybody else. It reinforces the perception that the people there are lesser, which creates incentives to deny citizenship. R1. EQUAL OPPERTUNITYThe kind of society we should create is one where education is given to the poor. It's not location that denies them education. Consider Congo, where most of the population hasn't even been to primary school. That's mostly because there just aren't that many schools there. Coupled with the fact that Christians and Muslims in that country have been at each other's throats since forever, it's easy to see how foreign multinationals can just drop by and casually take their oil, precious stones and other amazing resources. The same thing is true of healthcare etc. The people in countries like Congo should be helped. Moving them from ghetto to ghetto does not help them. Bringing education to all the ghettos, including their country, does. Pro ignored this material from last round. R2. ECONOMICSA. RemittancesPro dropped this point. I'll extend my rebuttal though. It's not as though the only restrictions on movement are political. Consider economics. If your boss runs away to a first-world country, why on earth would she shut down your factory? You need to stay or lose your job. But all the money your boss makes is being spent in a first-world country. Why would she send any back when the status quo is doing her well? It's a passive income anyway. Similarly, there are social restrictions. Religious restrictions (for example, Muslim women). Plane tickets themselves are massively expensive by third world standards. B. HostsPro ignored my points, but anyway. What job creation requires is investment. Some immigrants can provide this. But by doing so, they are forfeiting investment into the nation that they emigrated from, reducing their fortunes still further. Poor countries are those that need jobs. That investment takes time, and usually happens outside of the ghetto. Economists call them switching costs. They increase the faster the growth rate of the city is as there is more infrastructure to make and less infrastructure to make it with. Rich nations do not gladly give jobs to whoever can take them. Rich nations reluctantly give jobs to those willing to earn the lowest wages. There's a lot of those people around, so rich nations don't NEED more. In fact there's all too much unemployment. Why Japan needs to stabilise its population is beyond me. It is overpopulated as is. I agree immigrants are not necessarily leeches on society (although it's pretty clear that some people do emigrate just to leech off another country's education or healthcare, then go right back home, and pro seems to support this). I'm saying that the poor - those from the ghetto - can't pay so much tax, and if they did it would be unjust. R3. COMPARING FREE IMMIGRATION TO THE FREE MARKETI don't accept this premise that free markets are entirely great, but has anybody else noticed that free markets do not tend towards perfect competition? The goal here is equality, but since when was the free market equal? Free markets are all about choice, but in a perfect world you shouldn't have to choose because all nations have decent education, a decent economy, and decent healthcare. In fact government pressures to accept sudden foreign deals to provide infastructureas a result of sudden emigration is bad. That's what pretty much happened when Bolivia outsourced their everything, leaving all the poor to die to dehydration because the free market wouldn't even provide water to those unable to pay. I'd be mighty scared if Coca-Cola ran the schools in Bangladesh. But that's the only way poor nations can compete. It's not like Bangladesh's government just decided to be poor and told its people to live with it. People have no absolute natural right to soverignty. Governments are perfectly OK to require, say, seatbelts to be worn in cars. Pro should justify their claim for individual citizens. As for this idea that dictators will just say "oh, my bad", that's crazy. The vast majority of Zimbabwe has already dashed off, mostly illegally, and that country is no better state for it. Nor does the political system dictate social or economic fortunes, China being a good example. But even if it did, protests and revolutions will still happen. The American Civil War happened in a democracy in protest by the southern states. I look forward to the final round.