THS Free Immigration

First of all, I'd like to warmly welcome my opponent to this website! This is a topic I actually care quite a bit about, so I'd also like to thank her for giving me the oppertunity to argue a case against it. In this round I'll outline my position, why I feel that way, and why pro is wrong.1. THE GHETTORight now in New Zealand, immigrants almost wholly settle in Auckland, because that's where the biggest international airport is. New Zealand is a pretty attractive place; lots of people want to live there. The most obvious immediate impact of this is that demand for land in Auckland soars. Some of those moving will be wealthy, so the wealthy start bidding up property prices. This becomes a particularly big problem when you've got immigrants from countries like China, whose government issues interest-free loans for buying foreign property to all its citizens.A second impact is that all the people are now in immigration-friendly cities. The economy works on supply and demand. If you're a business, you need to move your supply to where the demand is. As a result, all the businesses move to operating in immigration-friendly cities, and they take all their precious little jobs with them.The result of this is that on the outskirts of the city, all the poor have to squabble for property, because they can't go elsewhere, because their job is in the city. I like to call the places where these poor are gradually driven into "ghettos". These also gradually attract those without work, who literally have no means to move. These places are instant hotspots for crime because the people are desperate, their concentration makes it hard to catch them, their forced style of living makes them shunned by the rest of society anyway, and public services are difficult to provide. South Auckland is now a developing Ghetto.Historically this has always proven true when a city has grown too big, too fast. It happened in Beijing, so before their Olympics they literally bulldozed them as the best means to solve the problem. As a result, the poor lost everything. China has now strongly limited internal migration. It happened in London after the industrial revolution. The ghetto there was called Whitechapel, and it allowed the infamous Whitechapel murders to happen. After the EU was made, massive ghettos sprung up in all the big cities. Berlin's future is the reason why Germany didn't want Turkey to join. Now Berlin has Turkish ghettos. Go figure.In addition, the poor begin to hate the rich. From the mid-1800s until world war 2 in Europe, the rich were often Jewish. There was strong anti-semitism in Whitechapel, leading to a suspected Ripper message that was clearly anti-semitic. Hitler was able to capitalise on the widespread German fear of Jews forcing them into camps, which led to a certain infamous historical event. In America, the rich are often white, and the poor are often black. Racial conflict permeates American history, but we forget that it's really associated with ghettos - the Bronx, Oakland, the "west side", the "east side" etc.An alternative model available in a select few places where land is plentiful and non-valuable, notably Mexico City (with sprawled as the result of urbanisation via internal migration), is to build a lot more houses. As anybody who is familiar with the crime rate in Mexico City will tell you, that didn't work out very well for Mexico either.If you want to increase the rich-poor divide, the best way is to force the poor into ghettos.2. SECOND-CLASS CITIZENSPro's model gives "permanent residents" exactly the same rights as black people had in South Africa until Nelson Mandela challenged the Apartheid and changed things. The best way to stop politicians caring about people is to take away their vote. Politicians didn't care about black people in the USA either until Martin Luther King changed things. The model is bad because it creates a second class of citizen. Since they can't vote, I'm sure nobody will mind if their rights are abridged further. Since they can't vote, why not just take from them as the rich, voting class will?Even if many of them can vote (ie because they're simply poor driven off their land), that's not the perception, because for all intents and purposes they are no different from anybody else living in the ghetto, apart from their right to vote, so they get ignored too. Why should the government build nice schools in the ghetto? They'll never pay the cost back via taxes because their income is too low. It will immediately be vandalised and probably robbed. Or good healthcare? What's the point when gangs and drugs run rampant? It's a losing battle!The way to have an equal society is with equal rights. There's no escaping that simple fact.This is a nice segway into my rebuttal points. Due to character limits I'll keep these brief and expand in the next round.R1. EQUAL OPPERTUNITYI broadly agree with the premise, but the way to achieve this is to make nations more equal. Stop the exploitation of the third world. Actually, let's end this whole idea of a third world altogether. It's not like some countries are destined to be poor. Look at Africa. Oil, precious minerals available nowhere else on Earth, on which the whole first world relies on all the time - and this is the poorest continent in the world!? Asia used to be the poorest, and they proved that no nation is destined for poverty. If inequality is the problem, the solution is not opening immigration to move the poor from one ghetto to another, but stopping inequality.R2. ECONOMICSA. RemittancesThe most remittant countries in the world are Tajikistan, Moldova, and Honduras, Haiti not far behind. This is not a recent trend - these are the kinds of countries that have whole economies based around remittances. And these are failures, because they are so poor that the remittances are spent on necessities. When disaster struck Haiti the inflow of aid and remittances did nothing to change their fortunes. By contrast, India's remittances are only 3% of their GDP, and indeed, India does have their own working industry - and had it long before mass Indian emigration began. China's is less than 1%. The transfer of skills argument only works if they have any incentive to actually go back. For India and China they do, because those are rich countries. For, say, Nigeria or Tajikistan, that argument absolutely fails.Once again, this should not be required. Remittances are a form of exploitation of the third world by the first, making them increasingly dependant on the income as the money doesn't generate any real value for the local economy, because all the production is actually happening offshore.B. HostsAt the same time as the population is aging, unemployment is paradoxically increasing - especially in the first world. America recently set records for unemployment, as did Europe. And it wasn't among the old - it is the youth who are crying out for jobs and can't wait for the older generation to retire so that they too might have a secure future.You can't have both remittances and local investment (jobs etc). It's zero sum because immigrants don't magically create money - either they send what they earn away, or they invest in their host, or some combination, but as they send more away the host country loses money, and as they invest more locally the host country loses benefit.Creating investment in host countries by foreigners, and by extension creating jobs, means that jobs are not created where they are needed, which is in poor countries.Moreover, these are not created until after the immigrants have earned some money, so the assumption is that they can find jobs. Demand for labour is not the impact of immigration, but supply. Labour isn't very mobile even with open borders - if you've been a train mechanic all your life, and now those jobs have gone to Korea, it's tough to be forced to go to Korea. Worse yet is if Korea is full of ghettos.The resolution is negated