Immigration is changing rural England life

For purposes of clarification, let it be noted that the resolution is not exactly worded properly according to Pro's stance in the debate. It is my understanding (after reading Round One) that the resolution should read: We should "put our foot down" against illegal immigrants overpopulating England... which is, after all, the only part of Round One that my opponent herself actually wrote (this is obvious from the improper grammar, punctuation, capitalization, etc.). In fact the entire round was written by journalist Ben Leapman, but I digress. That being said, "putting our foot down" shall refer to England taking immediate legal action against illegal aliens. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ IMMIGRATION & HUMAN CAPITAL ] Generally speaking, there are two types of immigrants that affect the UK today: refugees, and economic migrants. Refugees are those fleeing from their home countries out of fear of persecution, to avoid the turmoil of war, or to seek a better and safer life for themselves and their families. Economic migrants are those who travel to England in search of better financial opportunities and economic security. So I ask Pro - Why shouldn't these individuals be allowed to seek greater opportunities for themselves and their well being? Surely Pro would respond that this would only be acceptable through legal means. However, consider the philosophical / political ideology of natural rights, supported by many of the greatest political thinkers (John Locke - who greatly influenced English politics and whose theories still apply to policies there today, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Hobbes, etc.). Natural rights are those which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Hobbes notes, "It is the essential, natural human right for man to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own judgment, and Reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto." In other words, people have the right to pursue their own rational self-interests. If laws do not comply with these interests, they should be changed. Many political thinkers in England today agree, and there is a huge following of people who suggest that amnesty should, in fact, be granted to many of England's illegal immigrants... But why? In this debate, I shall explore various reasons as to why England should not make "putting their foot down" on illegal immigrants a top priority, at least at this point in time. In addition to economic and political citation, I would like to note the issue of HUMAN CAPITAL that said immigrants bring to the UK. Human capital is defined as the skills, knowledge, and ability that people acquire through formal and informal learning, which are important for economic growth. For instance, if an Italian immigrated to England and brought with them the idea to market Italian cuisine (as well as introduce the concept and food preparation to others, so that they may also market Italian cuisine... enhancing market competition, by the way), that would be an example of human capital via immigration enhancing England's economy. It is important to note that foreign human capital is often of great use, as it introduces dramatically different ideologies, ideas, plans, goals, etc. Diversification is typically always good for economic advancement and growth. In order to combat these points, Pro would have to explain (1) Why people don't have the right to seek asylum outside of their dangerous home countries where their lives and livelihoods might be threatened, (2) Why people can't exercise free will to move as they please so long as they do not pose any major harm or threat to society, (3) Why law takes precedence over human rights (good luck!), (4) Why human capital via immigrants is not useful (haha - again, good luck!). [ THE REALITY ] The IPPR claims that tracking down and deporting huge numbers of people would cost ï¿½4.7billion, and take more than 30 years. Moreover, it would take more than a century to clear the backlog, meaning that most illegal immigrants are likely to live out their lives in the UK without interference from the authorities. How is that productive? Shadow home secretary David Davis said, "Our economy would shrink, and we would notice it straightaway in uncleaned offices, dirty streets and unstaffed pubs and clubs. So we have a choice: make people live in the shadows, exploited and fearful for the future; or bring them into the mainstream, to pay taxes and live an honest life" [1]. Pro must explain how (1) It is in England's best moral/fiscal interest to spend ï¿½4.7billion over 30 years in the current economic conditions to focus on deporting immigrants, and since that is non-sensical, then (2) Why xenophobia is okay. [ ECONOMIC PROSPERITY ] Given the fact that it would take 30 years to remove all of Britain's illegal workers at the current rates of deportations, plus the fact that people continue to immigrate illegally into the UK, it is reasonable to assume that England will not be getting rid of its immigrants any time soon. As a result, illegal immigrants are working "off the books" and are therefore occupying professions without paying taxes to the State. In other words, they are reaping public benefits without contributing to the costs. Most immigrants are not exploiting the system purposefully; they are just unable to extend their visas or achieve legal status. However, if they are allowed to become legal citizens (and therefore be forced to pay taxes) it is estimated by The Institute for Public Policy Research that the extra fiscal regularization of illegal workers would bring the Exchequer between ï¿½500m and ï¿½1bn in extra tax revenues [2]. Pro's very own source (the site she plagiarized from) says: If asylum-seekers were given permission to remain in Britain and find work, they would go from being a burden on the economy to being an asset, paying taxes instead of claiming benefits. Thus, clearly it is in England's best interest to recognize these migrant workers and have them contribute revenue to the State. To argue this, the author of "Pro's" argument would note (taken from his article): MigrationWatch calculates that the extra burden the regularized migrants would place on the Welfare State would outweigh the taxes they paid. I can combat this false premise in several ways. First, the statistics regarding illegal immigration in the UK are shaky, at best. There is no way to prove this for certain. Second, I've pointed out that immigrants in England are there to stay, and they're already receiving welfare-like benefits, making this a moot point. Third, in noting that "the farmers and hoteliers who employ them (immigrants) at minimum-wage rates" are amongst the 'winners' in this scenario, Ben Leapman ignores the obvious economic reality that diminishing production costs reduces consumer costs. Plus, the competitive job market will --> capitalistic innovation. Brilliant! To argue these points regarding the economy, Pro would have to detail (1) An analysis of how keeping immigrants in England illegally for the next 30 years is cost-beneficial to the State, which receives no revenue from them despite them utilizing public funding regardless of their status, (2) Why England should not receive taxes for the work that immigrants do in that country, (3) Why England would be better off without an extra ï¿½500m - ï¿½1bn in tax revenue, (4) Why competition is bad. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I'm out of characters for now! Sources: [1] http://www.thisislondon.co.uk... [2] http://www.independent.co.uk...