BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Crimination would increase

If we were to look at the two possible outcomes we would see that allowing both males and females to compete against each other would actively decrease discrimination. This happens as, in this situation,  we perceive the two sexes as being equal, able to compete against each other, both beginning the race from the same starting line, whereas the alternative would be to draw an imaginary barrier between the two sexes claiming that they are so far apart that competition between them would be futile. Those women who come on top on several occasions, such as Danica Patrick who has won NASCAR competitions (1) will show that all those stereotypes are wrong and that they should have been long forgotten. Of course there will be a lot of women who won’t be able to win anything, but the entire spotlight and all the media coverage will be on the ones who will, so they’ll be getting the lion’s share of media attention. As a result, successful stories of women defeating men in their leagues will come as a megaphone for promoting gender equality in society. (1) Esteban “9 Female Athletes Who Competed Against Men”, Total Pros Sports,  October 28, 2011 http://www.totalprosports.com/2011/10/28/9-female-athletes-who-competed-against-men/
There will be a negative effect on women’s leagues

On this point, it is relevant which of the two plans gives more incentive to young girls to enroll into sports thusly creating a wider pool of talent, which is necessary for women sport to grow. Firstly, as men’s leagues are more televised, women who compete in those will get more fame and attention so inspire girls from all around the world compared to playing into an ignored, untelevised, ill-funded league. Secondly, as  there will be female winners even in the male leagues, this will act as a further incentive for teenage girls to start practicing sports as there would be much more media attention for Serena Williams for example if she won the men’s US Open than for winning the women’s tournament. Moreover, by having talented women competing in competitions which get a lot of media attention you would actually incentivize people to start watching women’s leagues as well, as that is where those very talented female athletes came from. They will act as proof to the fact that women’s leagues can be thrilling, thus increasing interest and media coverage. In time, due to the increase in the league’s wealth and TV coverage, some females who started to compete in men’s leagues may even come back.
Destroying the pleasure of watching certain sports

Firstly, passionate viewers of these violent sports are not watching them only for seeing blood and broken noses, but for the technical abilities and the strategic tactics in these sports. As a result, they tend to focus more on the speed and precision of one’s uppercut than rather on the effects it has on the opponent’s body, thus they will be able to ignore the violence towards women, as they currently do towards men. Secondly, if indeed there is a part of the population who watches violent sports but is averse to watching if there is violence involving women, then they should feel nothing but excitement when a woman will win a boxing match for example against a man, overcoming this irrational stereotype. This is because a lot of this hatred against violence against women even in a competitive situation is based on the idea that the woman is both powerless in front of the man and not willing to fight him; essentially a view that women should be subservient. Obviously, neither of these points stands when talking about professional sporting competitions.
This could simply swap inequalities around

On this level, it is obvious that letting men compete in women’s leagues is a dreadful thing to do. On the other hand, there is absolutely no discrimination towards men on this level so there is no reason to open up women’s leagues to men. The levels on which women are discriminated are the money they receive and the air time they get. Allowing them to migrate from one league to another is by no means an advantage in itself, but rather the means through which they can receive as many benefits as men do. Men already get those advantages so both sexes are treated equally on the point which is the root of discrimination. There should still be this differentiation, as indeed a competition between men and women can be very biased in a lot of cases, but what is important is to let those women who can face men head-to-head to so.
Costs of illegal migrants and harm to labour market

Illegal immigrants cost the state in money, time and resources. It is difficult to give an accurate number on the cost of illegal immigrants for the rest of the population (the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has come up with numbers as high as $1,183 per household in the state of California1), but they are likely to put a strain on resources by not paying taxes whilst demanding social services such as healthcare and education. As a result, they take taxpayer's money away from those who are lawfully entitled to use these services and put a burden on the state. Moreover, illegal immigrants undercut the labour market by accepting low wages and working under illegal conditions. This is harmful to lawful residents because it takes employment opportunities away from them and encourages employers to seek illegal labour in order to keep costs down. Removing the illegal workforce would increase the number of jobs available to lawful residents and force employers to pay fair wages and provide safe working conditions. 1 Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), "The Costs to Local Taxpayers for Illegal Aliens", 2006,, accessed 31 August 2011
Alternatives are better

Repatriation is a more direct solution to the problem, and it is not sure whether these alternatives would work. Tougher border controls will only result in immigrants finding better ways to avoid them; improving economical conditions in poor countries is a slow and insecure progress, and the situation in many developing countries in unlikely to improve anytime soon. Giving illegal immigrants temporary working visas will not stop some immigrants from staying in their host country after their visas have expired if they prefer the living conditions. Even in the case where they do decide to go back to their country of origin, this means the money they have earned will be spent there, and not in the country they have worked. This means the states loses out on revenue.
Repatriation poses a danger for illegal immigrants

Although it might be true that immigrants might be harmed by repatriation in some cases, the majority of illegal immigration takes place because of economic reasons, and those people can return safely. The United High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) sets the conditions for voluntary repatriation on the grounds of legal (absence of discrimination, free from persecution), physical (freedom from attack, safe routes for return) and material (access to livelihoods) safety1. If this is not the case, these people should be given temporary asylum. Victims of trafficking are usually given special protection, as is the case with the EU, which also imposes tough rules on criminals involved2. 1 Refugee Council Online, "Definitions of voluntary returns", accessed 31 August 2011 2 European Commission, "Addressing irregular immigration", 30 June 2011, , accessed 31 August 2011
Illegal immigration is facilitated by criminal networks

A repatriation policy will not effectively target this area of illegal immigration. Criminal networks will always find ways of smuggling people into a country and evading detection. All a repatriation policy will do is make these gangs more sophisticated when it comes to hiding illegal immigrants. This not only makes it more difficult to discover and undermine these networks, but also puts the illegal immigrants that are involved in these criminal activities at risk. If there is a standard repatriation policy for all illegal immigrants, vulnerable groups such as trafficked women are less likely to seek help, because not only is it likely that they will be repatriated, but they also put the lives of themselves and their families at risk by going through this procedure, rather than receiving anonymous help. As a result, illegal immigrants that are often at the bottom of criminal organisation will be worse off, while the criminal at the top will get more power over their victims.
Loss of trust in the government

The repatriation of all illegal immigrants is an impossible task to start with, so if this policy is adopted and fails in its execution, this will lead to a greater loss of trust in the government. If immigration policies focus more on the integration of illegal immigrants, this will have a more beneficial effect than criminalizing them. Marking illegal immigrants as criminals that have to leave the country as soon as possible will actually incite more conflict between migrants and populists.
Alternatives are better

There are alternatives to the repatriation of illegal immigrants that are much more attainable. First of all, there has to be more attention to the root causes of migration, rather than attacking the results. The money that would be spent on repatriation could be used for prevention of immigration by focusing on border controls and improving economic conditions in countries where migrants come from. Trade agreements between developed and developing countries could be improved, which gives poorer countries more opportunities to trade. Most illegal immigrants migrate to Western countries to earn money, so if there are more opportunities for foreign workers to operate legally and on a temporary basis, with the assurance that they can come back if needed, this will remove the current incentive for many illegal immigrants to stay in their host country.
Repatriation poses a danger for illegal immigrants

The system of repatriating illegal immigrants can be proven harmful for these immigrants on several levels. Some illegal immigrants, although they might not fall under the official category of refugees, have fled dangerous situations such as persecution, violation of human rights and severe poverty. In 2009, France and the UK sent back several migrants that had fled the Taliban to Afghanistan when the country was still at war1. To send these people back to their country of origin would be a severe attack on their liberty and security. Having a zero-tolerance policy on illegal immigration will also make it harder for those who are trafficked to escape from criminal gangs because if they contact the authorities they will be sent home. This gives the criminals behind people-trafficking more power over their victims and will lead to worse living/working conditions in illegal industries. 1 The Telegraph, "France deports illegal Afghan migrants on joint Franco-British flight", 22 October 2009,, accessed 31 August 2009 improve this
Illegal immigration is facilitated by criminal networks

Repatriating illegal immigrants would lead to fewer opportunities for criminal networks to gain entry to the country. Illegal Immigration is linked to dangerous criminal activity such as people and drug trafficking, terrorism and the sex trade. An estimated 270 000 victims of human trafficking live in industrialized countries, of whom 43% are forced into commercial sexual exploitation, mostly women and girls1. This is both dangerous for those involved in illegal immigration but also increases the criminal activity in a country, putting lawful residents at risk. The state also has a duty to protect its citizens from the harms associated with illegal immigration. Illegal immigration fuels dangerous industries such as prostitution and the drug trade, repatriating illegal immigrants cuts off a vital source of labour for these industries and could contribute to the eradication of these industries. 1 UN.GIFT, "Human Trafficking: The Facts",, accessed 31 August 2011
Loss of trust in the government

Failing to remove illegal immigrants undermines public confidence in the government and its migration policy. In the UK, opposition leader Ed Milliband has acknowledged that Labour had lost trust in the south by underestimating the number of illegal immigrants and the impact they would have on people's wages1. People believe that allowing those who have no right to remain in the country to stay on means the whole immigration system is broken. Legitimate migrants such as refugees, students and those with visas for work will be lumped together with illegal immigrants, and calls will grow for all forms of migration to be restricted. Populist feeling may also be inflamed against ethnic minorities, with increased social tensions.  1 BBC News, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13133544
Repatriation is expensive and unrealistic

It might be true that repatriation is a costly option, but so are other alternatives. Illegal immigrants are already putting a costly burden on the state by using its resources without giving much back. If this situation is left on its own, the long-term costs of keeping illegal immigrants might be higher than the relative short-term cost of repatriation. Alternatives, such as nationalisation of immigrants are also very costly and time-intensive, and would moreover encourages more potential migrants to come and obtain the country's nationality.
Repatriation is immoral

The repatriation of illegal immigrants is not immoral because they do not have the right to be in that country in the first place. Laws are put in place to prevent people to live certain countries without a legitimate reason, and if these laws are wilfully breached, people must face the consequences. It is true that people have the right of freedom of movement, but this right is restricted to the borders of one's home country, and are widened by international agreements. But even then the freedom of movement can be restricted, even for people in Western countries. If we take the example of a European or an American that wants to go on holiday to a tropical island, we see that freedom of movements is relative. Legally this person can be free to go, but if he or she does not have money to pay a ticket or refuses to do so, this right can still be taken away.
There needs to be a tough stance to prevent illegal immigration.

There are many alternatives to a repatriation policy that will more effectively target the problems caused by illegal immigration. Countries can toughen border controls and have better systems in place for granting asylum. Voluntary repatriation is unworkable, even if accompanied by financial assistance, because many illegal immigrants want to stay in the country. Involuntary repatriation is inhumane and harmful because it restricts the freedom of movement for people, and separates them from their family and friends, whilst they are forced to go back to potentially harmful situations. Repatriation will not stop the numbers of people coming to the country. Illegal immigration does not occur because a country is a 'soft touch': very few, if any, countries have no problems with illegal immigration. The reasons behind immigration are social, political and economic and have nothing to do with an individual country's policy on illegal immigration. Those who turn to illegal immigration are often desperate and will pay no attention to the immigration policies of a country. improve this
Costs of illegal migrants and harm to labour market

It is impossible to prove that all illegal immigrants are a drain on the system and so their cost to society cannot be used as a justification for repatriation policies. Many illegal immigrants pay taxes in some way and actually contribute to the economy of a country. For instance, every time an illegal immigrant buys something, they pay the same amount of sales tax or VAT as any other person. Illegal immigrants do not always undercut the labour market. The illegal workforce is a necessary part of the economy because lawful residents do not want jobs such as casual labour, agricultural or domestic jobs. Illegal immigrants often provide vital services that would otherwise be too expensive or hard to find if regular workers were employed e.g. cleaning, childcare and manual labour. Goods would become too expensive to produce if, for example, parts of the agriculture industry had to employ lawful residents/migrants. improve this
States have the sovereign right to control their own borders.

All states have sovereignty– the supreme authority within a territory 1.This includes the supreme authority to decide who should be allowed into and out of the country. Illegal immigrants have breached that sovereignty by arriving uninvited and attempting to circumvent checks. These people should be deported in order to maintain the sovereignty of the nation. The United Nations recognises the sovereign rights of members when it says “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state."2 Who is allowed to be resident in the state is an internal consideration. 1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/ 2. Article 2, UN Charter, http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
Repatriation is expensive and unrealistic

The repatriation of all illegal immigrants is impossible to realize, and this large-scale project would cost large sums of money. The Center for American Progress study released in March of 2010 concluded that a strategy aimed at deporting the US population of illegal immigrants would cost the government approximately $285 billion over five years. (A deportation-only policy would amount to $922 in new taxes for "every man, woman, and child in this country)."1 In separate research released in January, UCLA professor Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that if undocumented immigrants were removed from the economy, it would reduce US GDP by $2.6 trillion over ten years.1 The impracticality of repatriation lies not only in the costs of the transportation and the help given to immigrants, but also in the time and effort of finding all illegal immigrants. A repatriation policy would be never-ending and a waste of time and money. It would be better to target only those illegal immigrants who pose a proven risk of harm to society. 1. Apsan, 2010 http://news.jornal.us/article-4716.Mass-Deportation-Of-illegal-Immigrant...
Repatriation is immoral

The repatriation of illegal immigrants, even if it is not completely under coercion, is immoral. Even if the repatriation is 'voluntary', immigrants know they have no alternatives, and might agree to go back voluntary because the next step would be involuntary repatriation. This means that illegal immigrants are severely restricted in their freedom of movement. In the Western world, people can move around relatively easily, and this is seen as an inalienable right. To restrict this for people that do not come from this part of the world would be inhumane. Moreover, illegal immigrants have often built their lives in the country they reside in, having a family, sometimes children, work and a social circle. Often, children from illegal immigrants get citizenship because of their age, whilst their parents are repatriated. This forceful separation of children from their parents is a violation of their human rights, as article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that the family is the natural unit in society which is entitled to state protection1. Separating children from their mother can be seen as a violation of this right. 1 United Nations, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948,, accessed 31 August 2011
There needs to be a tough stance to prevent illegal immigration.

The only way to stop the problem of illegal immigration is to take a hard-line stance and adopt policies of repatriation. This means that illegal immigrants, after it has been proven through a fair hearing that they have no legitimate reason to stay, will be granted a period of voluntary repatriation, where they receive counselling and help to return to their country. If this does not work, and the illegal immigrant wants to stay, he or she will forced to repatriate. Repatriation is needed because illegal immigrants are residing in a country which is different from their country of origin, without fulfilling the legal requirements to do so. They also do not make the same contributions to the state as other people do, such as paying taxes. This means that illegal immigrants are actively harming the legal system, the citizens of the country and legal immigrants. At the same time, the number of illegal immigrants is rising every year, with an estimated 11.5-12 million illegal immigrants living in the US alone1. These kind of numbers show that the rules on immigration need to come with tough sanctions to ensure that they are not exploited or broken in the future. Repatriation is necessary because it targets successful illegal immigrants and ensures a comprehensive immigration policy that aims to reduce illegal immigration. What this policy of repatriation will do, is that it firstly will reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, which will lead to a decline of harms caused by them. Secondly, it will act as a strong deterrence for future immigrants. Repatriation sends a message to potential illegal migrants that their presence in the country will not be tolerated and that any attempt to stay in the country illegally will be unsuccessful. 1 BBC News, "BBC guide on illegal immigration in the US", 2005, accessed 31 August 2011
Sanctions are ineffective because it is very difficult to unify an adequate number of countries to cripple an economy.

A unified front is not impossible, and when executed correctly can have effective results. Sanctions were used in South Africa, and due to grassroots pressures in the US and Europe trading with South Africa became stigmatized1. Even though it is difficult to create effective sanctions, it is not impossible particularly if there is pressure internally and externally on the country to reform. 1 Foer, Franklin (1996), "Economic Sanctions", Slate.com,, [Accessed June 7, 2011]. improve this
Sanctions are ineffective because they hurt ordinary people more than leadership.

Although they do indeed hurt ordinary people, in the long term this can create appropriate pressure on governments. When people are suffering enough at the hands of the government, they are likely to take action. In Egypt and Tunisia the leaders were getting richer, and the people were becoming poorer, leading to the protests for regime change1. Sanctions worked in South Africa and in the former Rhodesia. It is true that they can lead to the mass suffering of the very people they are designed to help, as they did to the black population of South Africa2. Yet this suffering creates necessary internal pressure for regime change. By the utilitarian standard, which says it is just to help the most people, the current suffering of some due to sanctions is outweighed by the future freedom promised to all citizens. Sanctions are therefore justified and effective even though they hurt the people as well as the leaders of a country. 1 Bajoria, Jayshree and Assaad, Ragui (2011), "Demographics of Arab Protests", Council on Foreign Relations, [Accessed June 20, 2011]. 2 Heritage Foundation (1997), "A User's Guide To Economic Sanctions", , [Accessed June 10, 2011]. improve this