Controlled Immigration

Greetings to my opponent. In this debate I will be making a case for why controlled immigration is wrong. In Mexico, people are poor. A few Mexicans are able to run across the border and work for low wages in America, because when that money is converted back into Peso, they are are millionaires. They have nothing to lose and everything to win under the status quo. I do not believe that this will be contended by my opponent. Similar things happen elsewhere. Indonesians try to tug boats to Australia in search of a few Australian dollars in wages, because to them that money is worth much, much more. Other people illegally immigrate in search of a better lifestyle. People from Zimbabwe are usually over-represented in illegal immigration statistics, because of the poorer quality of life there. That is why illegal immigration happens, and again, I doubt this will be contended. What this debate is really about is whether the status quo of controlled immigration is providing an adequite solution. Let's see what my opponent thinks. .. "i believe they [Mexicans] should wait in line. .. " Thanks for sharing. Unfortunately that is no evidence that controlled immigration is working. So seeing as my opponent is yet to make an argument, it seems like I don't have to do any rebuttal. So what does this side of the house stand for? We firmly believe the world would be a better place if governments all around the world, by a UN declaration, were to lift all controls on immigration within a one-week transition period. Laid off immigration staff would join air carriers for the expected surge in flights to wealthy countries. The effect will be that people can work where they like. The follow-on effect will be that money will be redistributed away from rich countries and towards poorer countries. Then, the exchange rates balance. Therefore there will never be immigration out of reasons of relative riches - ever again! Countries will also become balanced in terms of quality of life, as population shifts. While I admit tax reforms would have to be made to accommodate this system, the end result will be that the countries with the most people will get the most tax, and therefore be able to pay more social security. Of course governments would retain control over how this would work, as certain schemes would be best for certain countries. So why do we believe this? 1. We believe that people should be free as they are born. We believe the right of freedom of movement is a fundamental human right, both sacred and irremovable. This is not just an assertion of many famous philosophers, but enshrined in the legal code of many countries. We do not consider it to be within the role of the government to regulate movement unless there is a good cause for it. There is no good cause for controlled immigration other than empty belief. 2. The status quo is not working. It only leads to injustice, the denial of essentials to those who most need it, and poverty around the globe. One good example might be the African struggle to get AIDS drugs - corporates charged millions to Africans what only cost Americans a few hundred, as they knew there was no danger of Africans getting in to America. This was not fair and challenged in courts for decades. The status quo is locking millions in to countries like Bangladesh, often ravaged by floods and with extreme poverty - but the people have nothing to do but sail away in search of a better life. Besides which, the Mexico example highlights the fact that governments cannot keep everyone out. 3. The status quo is already toppling. The advent of the internet means that national boundaries are becoming more irrelevant than ever before. Illegal immigrants are so numerous many countries are already looking to alternative solutions. These arguments will be expanded upon in later rounds.