BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Aggressive acts violate the meaning of the G8

The focus of the G8 is on economic, monetary, financial and globilisation issues. Aggressive actions scare the markets – as shown by the rouble reaching new lows against the dollar and Euro – so run counter to the focus of the G8.[1] Russia has in the past also used its gas supplies as an economic weapon, this and acts of aggression such as in Crimea are repudiating the idea of globilisation. The G8 is important because there is “a good understanding among G8 members” clearly when one of those members is engaging in conflictual acts that understanding is damaged.[2] The G7 members on 2nd March 2014 in a statement responding to Russia’s aggression in the Crimea stated “Russia’s actions in Ukraine also contravene the principles and values on which the G-7 and the G-8 operate”.[3] Any member that does not follow the principles of an organisation should be suspended as a member. [1] BBC News, ‘Russian rouble hits new low against the dollar and euro’, 3 March 2014 [2] Government of France, ‘The G8’, g8.fr, 2003 [3] Office of the Press Secretary, ‘G-7 Leaders Statement’, whitehouse.gov, 2 March 2014
Russia should never have been a member

The G8 has been meant to be a group of industrialised democracies. Russia is neither particularly industrialised, nor particularly democratic. Russia remains reliant on natural resources for much of its wealth; 30% of its GDP and 70% of exports.[1] Its most recent presidential election – that voted in Putin for a third term – was not exactly free and fair. The OSCE election observers concluded “There was no real competition and abuse of government resources ensured that the ultimate winner of the election was never in doubt”.[2] Its qualifications for membership have been questioned from the very beginning, when Russia joined the G7 were able to argue inclusion would bring it closer to the west. Yet Russia remains essentially an outsider in the group, it does not share western values and goes its own way.[3] [1] Aron, Leon, ‘The political economy of Russian oil and gas’, American Enterprise Institute, 11 April 2013 [2] Eschenbaecher, Jens-Hagen, ‘Russia’s presidential election marked by unequal campaign conditions, active citizens’ engagement, international observers say’, OSCE, 4 March 2012 [3] Dempsey, Judy, ‘Judy Asks: Is Russia Relevant in the G8?’, Carnegie Europe, 19 June 2013
The biggest action the west can take without sanctions

European states, which make up half of the members of the G8, have been reluctant to take stronger economic steps against aggressive Russian actions. Russia has warned the US “We will encourage everybody to dump US Treasury bonds, get rid of dollars as an unreliable currency and leave the US market.”[1] The European countries have more reason to be concerned because they rely on Russia for their gas supplies; 39% of German gas and 9% of total energy consumption is reliant on Russia.[2] If Russia were to retaliate to sanctions it could seriously damage the European economy. This means that throwing Russia out of the G8 or other institutions is the biggest sanction that does not have any risk of economic retaliation and escalation that damage everyone. [1] RIA Novosti, ‘Putin Adviser Urges Dumping US Bonds In Reaction to Sanctions’, 4 March 2013 [2] Ratner, Michael et al., ‘Europe’s Energy Security: Options and Challenges to Natural Gas Supply Diversification’, Congressional Research Service, 20 August 2013, p.10
There needs to be a place to talk

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier argues that "The format of the G8 is actually the only one in which we in the West can speak directly with Russia".[1] Russia’s proposed priorities for the G8 summit included “fighting the drug menace, combating terrorism and extremism, settling regional conflicts, safeguarding people's health, and establishing a global management system to address risks associated with natural and man-made disasters”[2] since Russia is clearly willing to discuss regional conflicts then it makes sense to use the summit to discuss Ukraine. Since Russia has not turned up to other suggested talks, such as a meeting of the Budapest agreement group[3] (UK, US, Ukraine, Russia – the agreement guarantees Ukraine’s territorial integrity[4]), it makes sense to go to Russia’s summit which Russia can’t avoid. [1] kms/ccp, ‘Putin agrees to Ukraine 'fact-finding' mission after talk with Merkel’, Deutsche Welle, 2 March 2013 [2] Putin, Vladimir, ‘Address by President Vladimir Putin on Russia assuming the G8 Presidency’, en.g8russia.ru, 1 January 2014 [3] Guardian Staff, ‘Only talks between Russia and Ukraine can solve crisis, say US and UK’, theguardian.com, 5 March 2014 [4] Presidents of Ukraine, Russian Federation and United States of America, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, ‘Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994’, cfr.org, 5 December 1994
Allows strength in numbers

Russia was originally allowed in to the G8 to encourage it to reform, or rather to provide a place where Russia’s leader can be backed into reforming. The G8 is a western institution, a forum in which an aggressive Russia has no natural allies. This means that it is the perfect place for the western democracies to voice their concerns; Russia will find itself isolated at the table and on the back foot. While at its own summit it will be even more likely to give concessions in the interests of making its own summit a success. At the last G8 summit Putin hosted in 2006 Russia made some concessions to the US in order to try and obtain WTO membership.[1] [1] Rutland, Peter, ‘Russia and the WTO: deal, or no deal?’, National Bureau of Asian Research, Special Report no.12, March 2007. Pp31-36, p.32
Will make no difference to Russia

Throwing Russia out of the G8 to punish the country – whether for aggressive acts in its near abroad, for human rights violations, or simply for corruption and economic crimes – is unlikely to make any difference to Russia.[1] Being in the G8 provides very little tangible benefit; it is all about the symbolism of it being the top club. Russia however has created its own top club in the BRICS conferences that are very similar to the G8 as a series of informal gatherings of major world leaders. Russia could rightly argue that despite having fewer members it is broader and more inclusive as it includes members from the Americas (Brazil), from Africa (South Africa), and the important players from of Eurasia (Russia, China, India). Since these powers are the rising countries why would Russia want to be associated with the declining west? [1] Judah, Ben, ‘Why Russia No Longer Fears the West’, Politico, 2 March 2014
Simply narrows the G8 making it irrelevant

The G8 has been losing its relevance with the rise of other countries economically. It can no longer claim to be the top eight economies as Canada is the world’s eleventh largest economy with India, Brazil and China all bigger. It is even lower (14th) if done by Purchasing Power Parity.[1] Newer more inclusive institutions such as the G20 that include other vital economies like China have been taking over its primacy on the economy. The G8 is no longer the best grouping to steer the global economy as was recognised during the 2008 financial crisis where the G20 took the lead.[2] Throwing out Russia would simply be making the G8 narrower and less important globally so reducing the institution’s influence. [1] The World Bank, ‘GDP (current US$)’, data.worldbank.org, 2012 figures [2] Cooper, Andrew F., ‘The G20 as an improvised crisis committee and/or a contested ‘steering committee’ for the world’, International Affairs, Vol.86, No.3, 2010 pp.741-757
There needs to be a response to bad behaviour internationally

If there needs to be a response to Russian actions it does not need to be this response. Much more useful would be economic sanctions against Russia; either targeted freezing of state assets and the assets of leaders, or more comprehensive sanctions that would damage Russia’s economy. Such actions would provide a real cost to aggressive action, not simply a symbolic cost.[1] [1] Verhofstadt, Guy, ‘Russia will bow to economic pressure over Ukraine, so the EU must impose it’, theguardian.com, 6 March 2014
Russia should never have been a member

It is wrong to say that Russia is not an industrialised country, it is considered by the World Bank to be a high income country.[1] It is also a democracy that holds regular elections. President Putin is held in high regard by Russians 67.8% of Russians approve of Putin’s job performance[2] – far higher than any other member of the G8. [1] The World Bank, ‘Russian Federation’, data.worldbank.org, accessed 7 March 2014 [2] Luhn, Alec, ‘Ukraine crisis and Olympics boost Vladimir Putin’s popularity in Russia’, The Guardian, 6 March 2014, note however the pollster is state run!
The biggest action the west can take without sanctions

Sanctions by necessity harm both sides. However Russia is a much smaller economy than either the EU or US (both of which are seven-eight times bigger). Any economic retaliation and escalation will therefore harm Russia more. The threat to cut off gas supplies is a major threat but Russia can’t simply sell the gas elsewhere because its pipelines mostly go to Europe. In the 2009 ‘gas war’ which involved supplies to Europe being restricted (though not completely cut off) for 20 days Russia’s state gas company Gazprom lost $1.1billion in revenues.[1] A more complete cut off would have higher losses. [1] Pugliaresi, Lucian et al., ‘Is it time for Gazprom to hit the reset button?’, Oil&Gas Journal, 3 September 2009
Immigrants are needed to make up for aging populations

Much of the rich world is aging, and in a few cases is close to having a declining population. As a result the size of the available workforce will decrease. For example in Germany by 2050 a third of the population will be over 60,[1] and over the next 15 years will as a result loose five million workers from the current workforce of 41 million.[2] While increasing retirement age can mean that these reductions in the size of the workforce come later to maintain the size of the workforce immigration or a rapid increase in birth rate is necessary. These countries in order to maintain the size of their economies will therefore either have to rapidly increase productivity, which itself may not be easy as they are already the most productive nations, or else allow migrants to fill the gaps in the labour force. At the same time there will be an increase in some jobs that rely on migrants such as care workers to help look after the increasing number of elderly.[3] [1] Ripperger, Sabine, ‘The Challenge of Demographic Change in Old, Shrivelling Europe’, Deutche-Welle, http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,1865419,00.html [2] Elliott, Larry, and Kollewe, Julia, ‘Germany faces up to problem of ageing workforce’, guardian.co.uk, 17 March 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/new-europe-germany-retiremen... [3] Martin, Susan, et al., ‘The Role of Migrant Care Workers in Aging Societies: Report on Research Findings in the United States’, Institute for the Study of International Migration, December 2009, p.vii, http://www12.georgetown.edu/sfs/docs/20101201_Elder_Care_Report.pdf
An amnesty rewards law breakers

An amnesty by its very definition is letting someone who has engaged in an illegal act off the hook. It is letting criminal activity pay. It is also an admission of government defeat; other options have failed and there are still lawbreakers who are not being deported as they should be so there is a need for an amnesty. These people who have entered the country illegally, and have worked illegally are then being forgiven for their having broken the law. This is not something that rich countries should be encouraging.
Amnesties are unpopular; governments need to get tougher if they want to be reelected.

Amnesties are unpopular, in the UK for example 65% of the population wants tougher immigration laws,[1] and so most governments are unlikely to resort to them except as a last resort. Instead of granting an amnesty governments need to get tougher on illegal immigrants in order to find, deport and deter them. This would be a much more popular policy and could be achieved using better monitoring and communications between departments.  For example in the United States the Inland Revenue Service knows where millions of illegals live and are employed as they know 600,000 people work under the Social Security number 000-00-0000, presumably many more were used different made up numbers.[2] This would therefore not only catch illegal immigrants but would help end misuse of Social Security and IRS identification numbers. There are also other tactics that can make illegal immigration more difficult and less likely to pay such as preventing illegal immigrants from obtaining drivers licences or, as in Tennessee, employers that knowingly employ illegal immigrants can have their business licence suspended.[3] [1] Standford, Daniel, ‘Illegal immigration: Is an amnesty the answer’, BBC News, 19 April 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/... [2] Sensenbrenner, James F., et al., ‘Social Security Better Coordination among Federal Agencies Could Reduce Unidentified Earnings Reports’, United States Government Accountability Office, February 2005, p.3. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05154.pdf [3] Department of Labor and Workforce Development, ‘Illegal Alien Employment Act Frequently Asked Questions’, Tn.gov, http://www.tn.gov/labor-wfd/faq_illegal_alien.htm
An amnesty would encourage rather than reduce immigration

An amnesty would simply mean more immigration resulting in new illegal immigrants. First, it would quickly become known that a country is offering an amnesty resulting in a rush to gain entry in time. An increase would continue even after the amnesty because migrants would believe that country would be more likely to grant another amnesty in the future. Second, Once there is an amnesty those who have been granted amnesty and are able to work legally so have gained a measure of security will bring family to live with them. This is exactly what has occurred with previous amnesties. After the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act in the United States which 2.7 million immigrants took advantage of to become legal residents the number of illegal immigrants arriving in the USA rose to 800,000 before falling back down to a more normal level of 500,000 per year.[1] Spain has granted numerous amnesties since 1985 as a response to increasing immigration, particularly from South America. There has as a result been an ever increasing number of applications for these amnesties from 43,815 in 1985 to 350,000 in 2001.[2] A general amnesty in 2005 that had 700,000 applicants.[3] If the result is simply increased immigration an amnesty will have achieved nothing except pushing up immigration; there will still be illegal immigrants, there will be more anger against them, and ultimately there will need to be more deportations or another amnesty. [1] Camarota, Steven A, ‘New INS Report: 1986 Amnesty Increased Illegal Immigration’, Center for Immigration Studies, 12th October 2000, http://www.cis.org/articles/2000/ins1986amnesty.html [2] Maas, Willem. "The Politics of Immigration, Employment, and Amnesty in Spain" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Town & Country Resort and Convention Center, San Diego, California, USA, Mar 22, 2006. http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/9/6/1/pages99612/p99612-1.php pp.10, 14 [3] Tremlett, Giles, ‘Spain grants amnesty to 700,000 migrants’, The Guardian, 9th May 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/09/spain.gilestremlett
Amnesties are the only long term solution

An amnesty will not solve this problem either; all it will do is move poor people from one country to another. Those granted an amnesty might be slightly higher paid than they would be if they had stayed at home but without skills they will remain at the bottom of the pile while having to adapt to a new nation. Instead what is needed is economic growth in the poorer countries that are the origin of the migrants. This is something the rich world can encourage through numerous different methods. For example the USA allowed Mexico to join the North American Free Trade Agreement and so the US is Mexico's biggest export partner with 80% of Mexican exports being to America. Secondly rich countries can provide investment and the skills necessary to develop industries in these developing countries. For example Mexico has "structural inefficiencies" in its farming industry,[1] something which the United States as the world's most efficient agricultural producer could help with. [1] Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, ‘Background Note: Mexico’, U.S. Department of State, 16 November 2011, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35749.htm
Migrants benefit the economy

There are thousands of citizens who have been made unemployed during the economic crisis of the last few years who would be happy to have a paying job again. In 2010 unemployment across the OECD ranged from 3.7% of the labour force in Norway to 20.2% in Spain with an OECD average of 8.5%.[1] These unemployed could fill the jobs left by migrants in no time at all, as a result migrants do not benefit the economy rather provide drag to it as they mean that some natives who would otherwise be in employment are unemployed. [1] Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, ‘How do OECD labour markets perform?’, OECD Employment Outlook, 27 September 2011, http://www.oecd.org/document/22/0,3746,en_2649_33927_43221014_1_1_1_1,00...
Immigrants are needed to make up for aging populations

 Far from being necessary immigrants are a drain on the economy. The vast majority of immigrants have few skills. These low skill migrants pay few taxes and take a lot of government benefits. For example in the United States each immigrant without a high school diploma costs the US taxpayers $89,000 over their lifetime. Since there are six million illegals without a high school diploma living in the US this adds up to half a trillion dollars. This increases further if they are given an amnesty so are able to claim citizenship and more money and the costs spiral yet further when the cost of educating their children is included with the possible cost rising to $2 trillion.[1] Some migrants may be necessary as a country ages, but the state should pick the migrants it wants - if a state wants migrants with skills to work in care homes it should let in those who have those skills or are applying to colleges to learn the relevant  skills rather than granting an amnesty to those who are already here regardless of their worth to the economy. [1] Rector, Robert, ‘Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the United States: A Book of Charts’, The Heritage Foundation, 25th October 2006, http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/sr9.cfm#_ftn3
An amnesty rewards law breakers

An amnesty is not a reward for breaking the law, and any illegal immigrant who has committed crimes other than entering the country illegally could be excluded. Instead amnesty should be seen as acknowledging those who live and work in a country but are nonetheless ignored. An amnesty would mean the state would get to collect more money in taxes from immigrants and they would be subject to all the requirements that all citizens are expected to abide by. They could also be expected to pay a processing fee to cover town or government expenditure for the amnesty amongst other things. So an amnesty wouldn't be a reward in its entirety as much as an acknowledgment and a way to balance the books.[1] The government would also be free to impose strict restrictions on any amnesty. For example the one proposed by the liberal democrats in 2010 was only to allow those who had been in the UK for ten years, spoke English and wished to work towards earning citizenship. There would also have been a probationary period and some form of voluntary service.[2] [1] Barney, Katherine, ‘Mayor Wants Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants’, London Evening Standard, 9 March 2009, http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23659506-details/Mayor+wa... [2] Standford, Daniel, ‘Illegal immigration: Is an amnesty the answer’, BBC News, 19 April 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/...
Amnesties are unpopular; governments need to get tougher if they want to be reelected.

The question is what happens then? Do we immediately deport all these newly found immigrants despite the large cost? Would the occupation they are engaged in or having made a family make a difference? Finding or knowing where illegal immigrants are is not the same as getting them out of the country, in the UK in 2006/7 20,700 people were recorded as failing in asylum requests but the UK only managed to deport 18,280.[1] Finding more illegal immigrants would mean the deportation systems could not cope. [1] Johnston, Philip, ‘Number of failed asylum seeker removals falls’, The Telegraph, 21st August 2007, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560854/Number-of-failed-asylum-s...
An amnesty would encourage rather than reduce immigration

Amnesties do not increase immigration. For examples it is not the case that the Immigration Reform and Control Act encouraged immigration. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas concluded “it appears that amnesty programs do not encourage illegal immigration. If anything, IRCA reduced the number of illegal immigrants in the short run, perhaps because potential migrants thought that it would be more difficult to cross the border or to get a job in the United States after the law was passed.” And also over the long term illegal immigration did not increase. “apprehensions [at the Mexico-US border] were about 11 percent lower during the pre-filing period than prior to IRCA’s passage, controlling for other factors.” While there was little change overall between the periods before and after the amnesty.[1] [1] Orrenius, Pia M., and Zavodny, Madeline, ‘Do Amnesty Programs Encourage Illegal Immigration? Evidence from IRCA’, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Oct. 2001, pp.11, 14. http://www.dallasfed.org/research/papers/2001/wp0103.pdf