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

Thanks again to phantom. I don't think I can spend too much time clarifying this topic. What we're discussing here is a change in policy that essentially erases borders for workers. It puts no new onus on governments. If anything, this resolution favors a reduction in government practices, specifically those that discriminate between those workers who live in the U.S. and those who live without. 1. Justice If the resolution were "Let any woman take a job anywhere," my opponent would likely have found that to be a ridiculously slanted topic. The reason why is because we would then be talking about discriminatory practices against women, where countries might make laws that prevent access to jobs for those of the female sex. The concept of telling someone that, based on their sex, they should have limited access to employment opportunities is abhorrent to many of us, and rightly so. But what is the root of this issue? There are two main reasons. The first is that they're fellow human beings. They matter because all human beings deserve to have access to gainful employment. Any adult human, man or woman, who has the capacity to engage in a certain job to the satisfaction of their employer should have the capacity to apply to engage in that labor. Plain and simple. The reality is that there may not be enough jobs for everyone to obtain employment, but that doesn't change the fact that that employment should be open to both men and women because both are human beings. The second is that those aspects that are innate to who we are should never be used as a source of discrimination. This is the same reason someone with a different skin color should not be discriminated against. These are characteristics that are inherent to the person upon birth. They don't get to choose what sex they are born as, just as they don't get to decide what their skin color is. While their choices may be subject to some scrutiny, it's these characteristics that should not, mainly because they are things that are beyond their control. It is unreasonable to deny someone a basic right such as this based on something out of their control, something essentially accidental, that has no effect on their capacity to engage in the work at hand. Both of these two reasons apply just as strongly to those individuals who are born in any nation. Whether I am born in Haiti or the United States, I am still a human being, deserving of a basic right to earn myself a livelihood. Similarly, in either case, where I was born is outside of my control. I did not have any capacity to affect the decision of my mother to give birth to me in any given location. That decision was entirely outside of my control, as was both of my parents' decisions to acquire any citizenship in any given nation and thereby pass them on to me. One might argue that I can acquire new citizenships through applications, but these are not always possible for everyone, and the process of doing so would, by necessity, lead to a change in my identity. I shouldn't have to change my identity to have access to this fundamental right, no more than a woman would have to get transgender surgery for the same purpose. But I keep saying "fundamental right." How truly fundamental is it? We can look to any number of sources. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states it plainly in Article 23.1.[1] The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is unequivocal as well, and this can be found in Part III, Article 6.[2] The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights agrees as well, in Article 15.[3] I think these all firmly establish the right to work (to be distinguished from "right-to-work" laws established in many states in the U.S., which prohibit unions requiring membership) quite clearly, and as long as this right exists, it must be extended to all adult, capable human beings, regardless of their sex, skin color, or citizenship. So what does it mean to deny this right? It's dehumanizing. Countries that engage in this practice are dehumanizing foreign peoples, denying their agency as individuals. The merits of these foreign persons are essentially subverted to their status a s foreign persons. It's part of a protectionist mindset where our goal is to ensure that more people in the U.S. get jobs while essentially stating that those who are foreign and just as, if not more, capable to perform those jobs should be denied access. It's arbitrary discrimination aimed at a goal that harms consumers (who are better served by more competition for jobs) for the sake of protecting work for individuals who would otherwise be outclassed by their foreign counterparts. That's not reason enough to treat others as less than human. 2. Human Decency Why would someone want to leave their home country and work in another nation, even without citizenship? There may be multiple answers to this question, but the two that come most prominently to mind are working conditions and higher income. In terms of working conditions, we could look at the obvious ones, like whether the industry adheres to internationally accepted labor practices, safe working conditions, and has unions to join, but there are a number of issues anyone takes into account with their choices that go deeper than that. People want to know if they have a chance at mobility, if their work provides assistance of sorts, how they motivate their workers, how well they deal with people of different cultures, what the environment looks like, how much interactivity there is between employees and supervisors, etc. There's a lot to be concerned with, whether it's the decision to escape a nation where businesses are engaging in dangerous practices, or they simply don't fit the set of preferences that potential employee has. Working for an employer who fits their preferences can also make them far more productive, and that increase in productivity as a result of expanding their job pool provides an increased opportunity that doesn't exist now. Then there's income inequality. There are massive inequities in what each country pays to people working the same jobs. "the wages of a Peruvian worker willing to work in the United States are about 2.6 times as much as the same person would make in Peru. This figure for Peru is typical among the 42 developing countries analyzed, but for some it is much higher. For Filipino it is around 3.5, and for a Haitian it is over 7. In other words, a Nigerian moderately-educated adult male urban formal-sector wage worker who moves to the U.S. increases his wages by several hundred percent."[4] If you look at the paper in that link, you'll note that people in Nigeria working the same job will make 14.85 times less than their U.S. counterparts. The paper actually understates it. That's not several hundred percent. Considering how this directly relates to their ability to feed, house, and clothe themselves and their families, not to mention their capacities for contributing to the broader economies of their home nation and the nation in which they work, it's a big deal. 3. Diversity The idea of diversity is generally touted as important, but why? At its most basic level, this is meant to increase the creativity of a given workplace by providing a swell of different ideas, but why is that? Because different people from different countries are brought up in highly varied environments that breed a wide array of mindsets and ways of thinking/learning. But it goes beyond simply having more ideas. It forces groups to spend more time deliberating about their courses of action, engendering more constructive conflicts to ensure that each route taken is deliberated carefully, and is considered the most effective route to preventing Groupthink.[5] In a world with changing demographics, it's important to better understand existing and emerging markets. Companies have long understood the benefits of diversity and many have gone to great lengths to increase their diversity,[6] but policies that prevent foreign workers from applying effectively limit their progress. There are a lot of reasons why this is important to nations, but I'll focus on two. First of all, it forces nations to change their employment practices to garner the best employees from the broader economy. For nations that already have extensive laws supporting their labor force, this means improving on the formula and ensuring higher incomes, better benefits, etc. For nations that don't, pressure is placed on them to retain their best and draw new blood into their borders. Lacking that, they stand to lose the majority of their educated and better trained employees. Second, it's hugely beneficial for their economies. Economist Michael Clemens argues that "total global GDP could double if all barriers to the free movement of labour were removed."[7][8] That's huge. We're talking about, on average, doubling the income of everyone on the planet. The reason why is actually pretty simple " it is mostly the result of utilizing workers who are otherwise wasted in their places of origin. That kind of benefit comes especially to nations receiving foreign labor, and would likely expand labor markets as well, meaning that they companies could hire on more people. With that, I leave it to phantom to establish his case. 1. http://www.ohchr.org... 2. http://www.ohchr.org... 3. http://www.achpr.org... 4. http://www.cgdev.org... 5. http://www.businessweek.com... 6. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... 7. http://www.economist.com... 8. http://www.cgdev.org...