Free Immigration

I didn’t know that I needed to propose a standard, nor that I was supposed to clash with it. If my opponent wanted me to, I fail to understand why she didn’t request that I propose a standard in R1. I ask that readers not hold this against me when voting. I also retract my comment about quote-mining, it appears I misinterpreted the quote, and I hope I did not offend my opponent. HARM vs. RIGHTS When I stated “harm” in my previous round, I was referring to harming a country and the rights of everybody in that country, not “harm” as in physical or psychological harm. My opponent has admitted that brain drain exists and that it kills a developing country. Thus, everyone attempting to leave is violating the right to autonomy, life, liberty, freedom, almost every right that exists for those people still within the country and the country itself. For example, I cannot exercise my right to autonomy if it will harm the interests United States. Thus, the arguments regarding rights are invalid. He said that Justice varies from country to country. It varies within the United States. It is very clear that justice is not like a math question, justice unlike math will not always have a certain outcome. In every case, justice will be different. Thus, John Rawls ideas will not apply to every single case as they must be looked at individually. Thus, this standard really is an unknown variable. He also claims that the US should not be protecting other citizens. True the United States must uphold these people’s rights, but as I have shown, those people’s rights are harming the rights and lives of others, thus the United States has no responsibility to those people. There is no reason that we cannot hold elections if borders are open. Of course we cannot hold elections if borders are open. If we open our borders, people who are voting one day may not be here the next, thus they are essentially voting for other citizens as they will not even be part of our democratic process. Immigrants may enter the US, vote, then leave, creating a government that does not represent the population. Current immigration does not present this issue, so you cannot compare current immigration and free immigration. If I buy Toys R Us and fire all the workers, I have harmed all of them, but I have not violated their rights. Unless you had a valid reason for firing an entire companies worth of workers, you would be violating their rights (to be free of discrimination etc. ). However, I have shown in the beginning of my speech how these harms violate people’s rights. His point about freedom of movement is false. I never made a point about freedom of movement, I only pointed out that it was a right acknowledged in the United States, it is not an international right. If uneducated people cannot purchase property, they would be automatically screened out even in a society with open immigration This does not follow with my definition of free immigration which I laid out in R1. Under free immigration, we are obligated to let these people in, something I am against. There are plenty of vacancies in areas that need talent, like healthcare and computer systems. However, as I pointed out in the previous round these people do not have the skills to do these jobs, precisely why some of them failed to enter the United States currently. These people will not fill high skilled jobs and will only fill low-skilled jobs. This competition will only allow employers to abuse wages because there is such a large pool to choose workers from. This is like saying that women shouldn’t be allowed to work because some men don’t like that they can work. I never said this. I merely said that it creates racism, not that we should ban immigrants because of the fact that it creates racism. Somebody loses their job to an immigrant’s family. Will that person be happy to live beside that immigrant? Of course not, this will obviously create racism and hatred within the United States and failure to assimilate. Mexico will have no incentive to improve because everyone would want to leave. My opponent believes a third-world country will somehow find billions of dollars to fix their country and attract people to go to Mexico and not the United States. Clearly, they may have an incentive to improve, but it will be impossible to do so. Turn this against him, because that means his whole case is irrelevant because it was only about Mexico. I never stated ANYWHERE that this debate was about Mexico. I only used Mexico as an EXAMPLE, people from other countries will obviously be allowed to come in as well. CONCLUSION This was a wonderful debate, thank you PRO! I have shown how the brain drain effect will harm the country and the rights of the people within the country, effectively negating the PRO case.