Free Immigration

I will now take this time to refute the arguments brought forth by my opponent. Please note I am not a xenophobic, however I support the US adopting different immigration policies, and this is a result of that. THE QUOTES IN GENERAL My opponent has done some quote mining. For example, his quote from Carens about people desiring to move for jobs, family members etc. was talking about movement within a country. “More generally, one has only to ask whether the right to migrate freely within a given society is an important liberty. ” This quote was not about migrating from one society to another, but within a society. Furthermore, because these people have said these things does not make them true or arguments. The Standard of Justice MOST IMPORTANTLY, the definition of justice will vary from person to person, country to country. Justice in one country may be the death penalty, while in the other it may be letting the criminal walk free. Just because John Rawls said that justice means the rights of an individual over the rights of many does not make it so. When justice is deliberated in our society today, different people will tell you different things based on the case. For example, will we allow the right to autonomy in one individual, but in the process violate the right to life, liberty, and happiness of a million individuals? What John Rawls has said cannot be taken as the definition of justice as justice is nearly impossible to define. While justice is important, the United States is not the decider of what is justice for other countries. We cannot prosecute criminals who commit a crime in Bosnia. Though global issues such as genocides require global attention, the United States has no responsibility and does not extend its rights to non-citizens who do not reside within the United States. This concept of us fighting for those people and extending them rights that apply to US citizens is non-sensible. The state’s duty first and foremost is to its own people. Arbitrary borders and accidental citizenship The idea and right of self-government does not apply without borders. For example, people will come and go as they please, leaving it impossible for people to effectively vote and decide on a government for a nation without borders. Though it is arbitrary, citizens of any country have stayed there and contributed to that country enough to earn a citizenship and the right to vote and self-governance. If you’re unhappy with the country that you currently live in, you may still immigrate or leave that country. Thousands of people travelling as they please within a country will undermine the concept of self-governance. Right to Autonomy As I have shown, the country the immigrants leave will be damaged, thus harming the rights of everyone still living within that country, thus this right does not apply anymore as it is harming others. Freedom of movement is not an international right, rather a right that is accepted by many states, included the United States. [1] However, this right does not apply to everybody on Earth, only United States citizens. Right to Property Regarding the example my opponent has brought forth, I fail to see why the relevance in this debate. I never stated that people cannot lawfully purchase land within the US and immigrate, merely that we should not implement free immigration, we should not allow people without high school degrees and no job experience to immigrate to the US. Now if this person bought land, that would different. I fail to see the relevance. REFUTATIONRight to Autonomy My opponent has once again brought up the point of autonomy, however this right fails if the person is not capable of making adequate decisions by themselves or if it harms others. My opponent has conceded that the brain drain is a negative effect on a country and has conceded that it essentially harms the state and everybody within it, thus the right to autonomy in this case does not apply. Talented Individuals True, some talented individuals will arrive in the US. However, the economy is terrible in the United States and US citizens themselves cannot get jobs. Now, an influx of talented immigrants with law degrees arrives and competes with US citizens who also have law degrees. Clearly, someone will not have a job, and this may even spark racial hatred. However, the US will also receive millions of untrained, low-skilled workers. Only 28% of people in Mexico have college degrees [2], and many of these people will come to the United States. Beneficial to the Mexican Economy Firstly, my opponent has provided no source to his claim that people immigrate away from a country because of a lack of innovation. I think a far more appropriate reason would be because the country is a third world country completely lacking in education and standards of living. Open immigration would not give Mexico an incentive to improve because the vast majority of the citizens would have left for first world America. Finally, this focus on Mexico isn’t part of this debate. The resolution is free immigration, that means not only Mexicans may immigrate to the United States, but anybody from around the world, so really this entire refutation is small and irrelevant. CONCLUSION My opponent has attempted to argue the resolution through rights, however she has admitted that the brain drain effect is real and harming the country and its citizens, thus the rights to autonomy and property are irrelevant as the rights of the individual are harming the rights and freedoms of others within that country. Some of my opponent’s refutation has also not relevant and the definition of justice varies from individual to individual. Back to PRO. SOURCES: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://chronicle.com...