Instigator / Con
Points: 4

Admitting Refugees

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
bsh1
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Required rating
1500
Contender / Pro
Points: 0
Description
--Overview--
This debate will last 5 rounds, with 3 days for each debater to post for each round. There will be 10,000 characters available to each debater for each round. Voting will last for 1 month. You must have an ELO of 1,500 to accept, and I would prefer someone who has completed at least one debate on the site as an opponent. I am taking the Con position.
--Topic--
Developed nations have a moral obligation to admit people fleeing oppression.
--Definitions--
Developed Nation - any nation classified as an advanced economy by the IMF
Morality - conformity to ideals of right human conduct
Obligation - something one is bound to do
Admit - to allow entry to
Oppression - the action of keeping down by severe and unjust use of force or authority
--Rules--
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate as posted links (not embedded)
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation or rejection of any of these rules or of any of the description's set-up (including definitions), merits a loss
--Structure--
R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R5. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary
Round 1
Published:
I. Overview

First, the question posed by the resolution is not one of moral obligation. Whatever arguments Pro chooses to put forward in defense of the resolution, then, they must be sufficient to sustain the high burden of proving obligation.

Second, any morally obligatory action must produce moral results. For example, a person who cannot swim does not have a moral obligation to leap into the middle of a lake in order to save a drowning person. Such an action is likely to be doubly unsuccessful, as both the original victim and the would-be rescuer are now liable to die. Thus, producing a moral result is a necessary but insufficient condition for moral obligation, as an action producing good results does not necessarily make it obligatory. For example, the fact that I choose to smile at a stranger passing by might produce the moral result of making them happier, but it does not seem like I am obliged to do so. Thus, to successfully negate the resolution, I need only show that admitting refugees is likely to fail to produce a moral result. Conversely, in order for Pro to affirm, they must show that admitting refugees is not only likely to produce a moral result, but also that it rises to the level of obligation.

Thirdly, Pro cannot affirm by showing that we have some generic duty to help refugees. Such a generic duty is not specific to admittance, and could be discharged in other ways (e.g. via aid disbursements, skills training, etc.). In order to successfully affirm, Pro must establish an obligation to admit specifically.

Fourthly, "people" is a bare plural, implying an evaluation on balance. Just like saying "birds fly" is not claiming all birds fly, but implies that most do, "admit people" is not referring to all people, but is certainly referring to most people.

II. Backlash

Admitting refugees has fueled the rise of populist-nationalist and/or neo-fascist political movements like: Vlaams Belang, National Rally, UKIP, Brexit, M5S, Liga, Jobbik, Fidesz, AfD, PiS, Golden Dawn, Vox, PvV, FvD, FPO, Finns, Sweden Democrats, and DPP. There is “a backlash being felt across Europe...The impact can be seen in country after country, with far-right parties hammering away at authorities deemed too permissive in allowing those fleeing...persecution to find a home in Europe.” [1]

This veritable alphabet soup of anti-immigrant parties were once fringe. Now, amid the xenophobic hysteria these parties have conjured up--with refugees as their bogeymen--they have found and continue to find electoral success. Vlaams Belang came second in the recent Belgian election and is likely to enter government there. M5S and Liga are currently the governing coalition partners in Italy. The Brexit Party is polling first nationwide in the UK. PiS governs in Poland and is likely to win reelection there. Fidesz has a stranglehold on power in Hungary. FvD is leading polls nationwide for the upcoming Dutch elections. And the FPO was recently in a coalition government in Austria. [2-7, 25] Here in the US, we have Trump and his wall.

Studies confirm that increases in immigration do trigger increases in xenophobic sentiments. For instance: one "large-scale European study…concluded that…an increase in immigration generally does…go hand-in-hand with increased public anxiety and anti-immigration stances." [10] What is particularly astounding about the refugee influx in the mid-2010s which precipitated this xenophobia, is that it "amounts to less than 0.5% of the European population." [11] Nevertheless, this relatively small influx was turned into a pretext for anti-refugee hysteria and backlash.

That backlash is most intensely focused on those fleeing oppressive countries, whose skin color, accents, and customs mark them out as "other." Indeed, "the backlash has focused on refugees, who tend to present as more obviously foreign.” [12] Refugees, whose foreignness accompanies them to their new countries, are turned into exhibits of a fading, Judeo-Christian identity that many Europeans are desperate to recapture; this makes those refugees easy targets of hatred and fear. [13]

So, let's recap. Refugee admittance has triggered nationalist movements throughout the US and Europe. These movements have achieved electoral success by leveraging anti-immigration messages. Many of these movements are now in power or soon will be. This sequence of events amount to a sociopolitical/sociocultural backlash against immigrants and refugees. But why is the rise of these movements a bad thing? Aside from the xenophobia they elicit, there are at least four reasons--detailed below--to worry about the rise of these nationalist parties, both for the refugees' sake and for our own.

A. Global Institutions

By virtue of their being nationalist, nationalist parties tend to eschew norms of global cooperation, and in fact tend to follow policies which actively seek to disentangle themselves from or dismantle the global community. Unfortunately, global institutions, while not exactly pretty, are key fora for international cooperation, global problem-solving, human rights observation, and norm-setting.

The EU, NATO, WTO, and the UN have all become nationalist targets. In the EU, “[f]ar-right nationalists have banded together in an effort to consolidate their power across the union.” They are planning “to pick apart the fabric of the EU, from Brussels itself. ‘They do not like anything to do with Europe, and they will do anything to destroy it’.” [14] Those not interested in imploding the EU simply withdraw, à la Brexit. NATO too is being weakened, beyond Trump's threats to withdraw from or defund the organization. “Amidst these uncertainties, NATO cohesion has frayed. Central and East European allies, including Poland and the Baltic states...fear that growing U.S. isolationism will leave them undefended...Several U.S. allies, including France, Hungary, and the United Kingdom, have growing far-right nationalist political parties that denigrate NATO." [15] Trump has threatened to withdraw from the WTO and "has sought to paralyze the WTO’s judicial functions by blocking appointments to its Appellate Body." [16] And nationalists openly criticize the UN and seek to slash budgets for key programs. [17, 9]

B. Exclusion of Refugees

The rise of nationalist parties has led to these parties clamping down of refugee admittance. They see this as their political mandate. Indeed, in Hungary, “just one [asylee] per day is allowed to enter...They will live in shipping containers...while the legal process is under way.” [18] “Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic simply refused to accept their relatively small quotas.” [19] This fact importantly renders Pro's advocacy largely self-defeating, since any moral obligation to accept refugees is likely to strengthen the political hands of those who seek to keep them out.

C. Right-wing Terror

Violence and hate crimes against immigrants rise as xenophobia rises. In Greece, anti-refugee hit squads are being trained and deployed, and in the US, right-wing violence is on the rise. [20, 21] Not to mention Germany, where refugees are 10x times more likely to be victims of hate crimes. [22] Indeed, white nationalism, the seedy underbelly of the ongoing nationalist movements in the West, is taking an increasingly alarming hold across the globe. [23]

D. Fraying Democracy

"Overall, 23 percent of populists cause significant democratic backsliding, compared with 6 percent of non-populist...leaders. In other words, populist governments are about four times more likely than non-populist ones to harm democratic institutions...Over 50 percent of populist leaders amend or rewrite their countries’ constitutions, and many of these changes extend term limits or weaken checks on executive power. The evidence also suggests that populists’ attacks on the rule of law open the way to greater corruption...Under populist rule, freedom of the press falls by some 7 percent, civil liberties by 8 percent and political rights by 13 percent." [24] We only need to look at Trump, our own dear leader, to see these statistics in concrete form. Trump's efforts to defy subpoenas, for example, weaken checks on executive power. But we need not only look at Trump. PiS in Poland sought to pack the judiciary recently, and Fidesz in Hungary controls the media apparatus to keep opposition parties from gaining traction. [25, 8].

III. Conclusion

Ultimately, the admittance of refugees triggers dangerous backlash which harms us and the refugees. Since we cannot establish a moral obligation which produces a morally undesirable result, this backlash negates the existence of any moral obligation developed nations might have to accept refugees. The Con position is thus not one which is callous to refugees. Rather, it looks carefully at the real-world implications of Pro's position and sees peril for all concerned. Thus, I strongly negate.

IV. Sources

13 - Janie Pélaby, 2017, "Communitarian equality: to each according to their contribution to the group identity," Int Soc Sci J 67, no. 222-223.
Published:
First, the question posed by the resolution is not one of moral obligation. Whatever arguments Pro chooses to put forward in defense of the resolution, then, they must be sufficient to sustain the high burden of proving obligation.
So be it.

==Case==

If people are fleeing for their lives and would die if they stay in their home country, then the government shouldn't reject them, but should provide a legal way to citizenship.  It is better if an immigrant lives in the West then dies in the middle east due to ISIS or some other terrorist group.  This does not mean open borders, but it does mean that any immigrant who meets all the requirements below ought to be eligible for citizenship.  The west just isn't reproducing to the replacement level(2) anymore, and doing so would be very expensive.  If we don't accept immigrants, then the power of the west is bound to decline, which reduces the morality that the west helps perpetuate.  One would say that the west is the most prominent type of civilization out there.  If this position got taken over by lets say China or the middle east, then morality worldwide would fail.  We therefore need to force any immigrant that comes here to go through the necessary steps needed to become westernized.  If they don't meet the standard, and if they are unable to meet the standard, like if they are a terrorist, then they aren't allowed into western society.  However, terrorists aren't refugees.  


Second, any morally obligatory action must produce moral results.
If saving people from ISIS counts as a moral result, then it counts as something moral that ought to be done.

 For example, a person who cannot swim does not have a moral obligation to leap into the middle of a lake in order to save a drowning person.
A person who can't swim does not have this obligation, but a lifeguard does since they get rewarded.  Europe would get rewarded from the filtered immigrants by having their GDP and population go up without having to resort to reproduction which is very expensive.

For example, the fact that I choose to smile at a stranger passing by might produce the moral result of making them happier, but it does not seem like I am obliged to do so.
A smile is a trifle.  We don't have to help out the middle east.  By accepting refugees, we're just helping out the refugees.

Admitting refugees has fueled the rise of populist-nationalist and/or neo-fascist political movements like: Vlaams Belang, National Rally, UKIP, Brexit, M5S, Liga, Jobbik, Fidesz, AfD, PiS, Golden Dawn, Vox, PvV, FvD, FPO, Finns, Sweden Democrats, and DPP. 
Why is this backlash taking place?  If it's because of the rape that some refugees are doing, then they aren't genuine refugees but are merely disguised as refugees for the purpose of invading Europe.  However, if they are genuine refugees, they wouldn't be doing this rape.

There is “a backlash being felt across Europe...The impact can be seen in country after country, with far-right parties hammering away at authorities deemed too permissive in allowing those fleeing...persecution to find a home in Europe.” [1]
Then make the process stricter to make sure the only people getting in are good people.  Don't block the good ones from coming in just because some of the "refugees" are terrorists.  What we need is a legal process to come in instead of outright rejection.

Studies confirm that increases in immigration do trigger increases in xenophobic sentiments. For instance: one "large-scale European study…concluded that…an increase in immigration generally does…go hand-in-hand with increased public anxiety and anti-immigration stances." 
Why is there an increase in anti-immigration stances?  Judging someone because of something that someone else did, even if that person is the same race is anti-individualistic and focuses on group identity.

That backlash is most intensely focused on those fleeing oppressive countries, whose skin color, accents, and customs mark them out as "other." 
You shouldn't hate someone just because of their, "skin color, accents, and customs".  If someone wants to pray to mecca 5x a day, that's freedom.

are turned into exhibits of a fading, Judeo-Christian identity that many Europeans are desperate to recapture; this makes those refugees easy targets of hatred and fear. [13]
It's weird and inconsistent that Europe hates people who aren't Judaeo-Christian because they are foreign even though both Islam and Christianity are from the middle east and the bible is pro foreigner(1).  If they wished to keep true to their Judaeo-Christian identity, they should start by actually obeying the bible and doing what Jesus would do.

So, let's recap. Refugee admittance has triggered nationalist movements throughout the US and Europe. These movements have achieved electoral success by leveraging anti-immigration messages. Many of these movements are now in power or soon will be. This sequence of events amount to a sociopolitical/sociocultural backlash against immigrants and refugees.
Trump's concern is that they aren't coming legally.  Europe's concern is that as you put it is losing it's Christian identity, even though it does this by not doing what Jesus would have done.  Overall, Europe is becoming less Christian, but the individual Europeans could become more Christian by not treating the foreigner badly on the basis of their ethnicity.

By virtue of their being nationalist, nationalist parties tend to eschew norms of global cooperation, and in fact tend to follow policies which actively seek to disentangle themselves from or dismantle the global community.
Whether or not a country should break away from the EU is off topic.  This is about whether or not refugees ought to be accepted within western society.

Unfortunately, global institutions, while not exactly pretty, are key fora for ...  human rights observation

I could see how they provide human rights by rejecting peaceful refugees.  The militant "refugees" aren't refugees but are terrorists in disguise.  Genuine refugees ought to be allowed to come to Europe legally using a process similar to the one I have above, but for the EU.  If Europe rejects them, America can take them under my proposed immigration requirements.

 In the EU, “[f]ar-right nationalists have banded together in an effort to consolidate their power across the union.” They are planning “to pick apart the fabric of the EU, from Brussels itself. ‘They do not like anything to do with Europe, and they will do anything to destroy it’.” 
Part of this is immigration, because the UK is against peaceful foreigners for some reason, part of this is due to the economy.  Britain is one of the richest countries in Europe and they didn't want to subsidize the former USSR.  The economy portion at least is off topic.  Also, it's a bit inconsistent that you are against immigrants I'm assuming, whether social(like fleeing oppression) or those seeking a better life/economic (like those from the Baltic states to the UK) when you support the EU which promises open borders for it's member states.

NATO too is being weakened, beyond Trump's threats to withdraw from or defund the organization. “Amidst these uncertainties, NATO cohesion has frayed. Central and East European allies, including Poland and the Baltic states...fear that growing U.S. isolationism will leave them undefended
This is because most NATO member states aren't paying the 2% that is expected of everyone in the alliance and Trump got sick of it.

The rise of nationalist parties has led to these parties clamping down of refugee admittance.
According to you, this is a good thing.

Violence and hate crimes against immigrants rise as xenophobia rises.
Because of their anti-immigrant stance that became militant.  It's weird that your arguing for my side, even though i judge right wingers, left wingers, and immigrants as individuals.  Those that commit murder in the name of their ideology deserve to be severely punished, but this does not apply to all people in a group.

"Overall, 23 percent of populists cause significant democratic backsliding, compared with 6 percent of non-populist...leaders. In other words, populist governments are about four times more likely than non-populist ones to harm democratic institutions...Over 50 percent of populist leaders amend or rewrite their countries’ constitutions, and many of these changes extend term limits or weaken checks on executive power. The evidence also suggests that populists’ attacks on the rule of law open the way to greater corruption...Under populist rule, freedom of the press falls by some 7 percent, civil liberties by 8 percent and political rights by 13 percent." [24] We only need to look at Trump, our own dear leader, to see these statistics in concrete form. Trump's efforts to defy subpoenas, for example, weaken checks on executive power. But we need not only look at Trump. PiS in Poland sought to pack the judiciary recently, and Fidesz in Hungary controls the media apparatus to keep opposition parties from gaining traction. [25, 8].
Not sure how this is on topic or how refugees are causing this except for maybe a backlash that is very small in the US (the KKK, a group that has only 5000 members) and in Europe, they shouldn't care about skin color.  These problems are largely solved if the immigrants come legally through a process.

Ultimately, the admittance of refugees triggers dangerous backlash which harms us and the refugees.
Why would they care?

Sources:

Round 2
Published:
Thanks to Pro for his reply. I will now defend my case.

== Pro's Case ==

I. Overview

First, Pro has an equal burden of proof in this debate, meaning that he cannot win simply by countering my case. By choosing to primarily focus on rebutting my case, Pro has severely shortchanged his own. As massively underwarranted as it is, it is difficult to see how Pro can uphold his burden in this round.

Second, Pro doesn't seem to be affirming the resolution on balance. Recall the fourth point of the overview from my case: that because "people" is a bare plural, it implies that the resolution is referring to "people fleeing oppression in general," just as "birds fly" means "birds in general can fly." Pro explains that he is only affirming for refugees who (1) meet some as-yet undefined "requirements" for citizenship and (2) are able and willing to be assimilated into Western culture. Not only that, but Pro wants to make the existing "process stricter." It is important to note that these limitations are more restrictive than limitations designed just to keep out criminals. It seems then that Pro might not actually be upholding the whole resolution, but only a fraction of it. Pro needs to clarify what these requirements are, or judges should treat his position with prejudice. Pro should not be able to skirt his duty to uphold the whole resolution with such ironically blatant ambiguity.

Thirdly, the google doc is inaccessible to me, and it is unclear what exactly it is for. I would appreciate a clarification from Pro, and a full accessible link.

II. Arguments

But now let's get into Pro's specific claims. As I see it, he makes three arguments: that refugees not admitted are left to die in their nations of origin, that demographic trends in the West necessitate immigration, and that admitting refugees helps to maintain Western hegemony. I'll refute each of these claims in turn. But before I do, two quick points.

First, it is important to note that, as the "Exclusion of Refugees" argument in my case illustrates, a moral obligation to admit will not actually lead to more admittance, and may in fact backfire. If the moral obligation is self-defeating, then Pro is not gaining any offense on any of these three arguments.

Second, while Pro argues that various morally desirable results might emerge from his advocacy, he does not explain, through any meaningful philosophical or moral framework, how his advocacy arises to the level of obligation. Recall that good results are a necessary but ultimately insufficient condition for moral obligation. Pro has not, with the argumentation he has provided, established a moral obligation.

A. Nations of Origin

First, Pro seems to have a very simplistic idea of what constitutes oppression, namely that oppression = ISIS. This is obviously not the case. Oppression could constitute any number of non-lethal activities, from denying gay people the right to have sex to denying women the right to vote. While oppression is never benign, it may be the case that a person fleeing oppression could still live a largely safe, healthy, and productive life in their country of origin.

Second, this argument does not establish an obligation to admit specifically. If our moral duty is to protect refugee lives, this duty can easily be discharged by either housing refugees in safe, developing (vs. developed) nations or by providing aid to the countries of origins to help ease the causes of the threat being faced. We need not, then, by obliged to admit refugees.

Thirdly, there are people all over the world whose lives are at risk. If our moral duty is to save lives, and that is why we should admit refugees, then it seems as if we have a virtually endless obligation to meddle and act across the world. Such an obligation would be absurdly overdemanding. 

B. Demographic Trends

First, accepting refugees will not sufficiently counter declining demographic trends. Indeed, "migration, even on the scale being seen this year, can [not] do much more than dent the long-term aging trend…[T]he U.N.’s Population Division…estimated that Germany would need a net total of 17.8 million migrants between 1995 and 2050…to keep its overall population from shrinking; even then, the ratio of working-age people to elderly would still fall.” [26] Importantly, this evidence refers to "migrants," a term which encompasses refugees and other kinds of immigrants. If even the combined total of refugees and other immigrants are insufficient to stem the demographic changes, it seems unlikely that Pro has any solvency here.

Second, this argument fails to establish that it is refugees we need to admit. Allowing in large numbers of other immigrants could lessen the rate of demographic change. Thus, it seems that all Pro can show with this argument is that there is a need to let in some people, not necessarily that there is a need to let in refugees specifically.

C. Western Hegemony

This argument seems like a giant non-sequitur. It's not actually clear from Pro's arguments how he believes admitting refugees is going to preserve Western hegemony. Conversely, my argument shows how admitting refugees leads to a backlash which undermines those global institutions through which that hegemony is retained. Clearly, the link in my case is stronger.

== Con's Case ==

I. Overview

First, Pro agrees with my overview's first argument, i.e. that he has the high burden of proving obligation.

Second, Pro, by acknowledging that someone who cannot swim is not obliged to jump into a lake to save a drowning person, and by acknowledging that we are not obliged to smile at strangers, concedes the point of my overview's second argument. Extend that "producing a moral result is a necessary but insufficient condition for moral obligation." Therefore, for Pro to meet his burden, he must show that admitting refugees is not only likely to produce a moral result, but also that it rises to the level of obligation

Third, Pro drops my overview's other two arguments, which should both be extended. This is particularly important, because it shows I can let in a small number refugees in my world while still negating effectively. And I don't oblige it either. This allows me to basically do want Pro seems to want to do regarding immigration.

II. Backlash

Pro makes a series of comments which are either non-rebuttals, commentary, concurrences, or tangential side notes. I will therefore zero in on just a few of Pro's comments which are actually responsive to my case.

Pro attempts to attribute the backlash to rapes. This hardly seems plausible when one considers that (a) refugee-involved rapes are not a big part of the conversation in all Western nations where the anti-immigration backlash is occurring, including here in the US and (b) study after study after study shows that immigration is either linked with less crime or is linked to no change in crime rates. [27-29] Ultimately, the root of this backlash is a deep-seated fear of the Other and creeping anxiety over social and demographic change. [12, 13] Importantly, Pro never refutes the empirical evidence/study which shows that increasing rates of immigration correlate to increased xenophobia. 

Pro tries to build on his point about alternate cause for the backlash by talking about Brexit. On the one hand, Pro's cherry-picking. On the other hand, Pro admits that xenophobia had something to do with Brexit. It is not likely the case that Brexit could have gained a successful majority without anti-immigration rhetoric, in which the likes of Nigel Farage traffic. So, it is likely that the xenophobia was either the impetus or the tipping point for Brexit occurring.

A. Global Institutions

Regarding the EU, Pro suggests that it is not a relevant concern to raise in this debate. At this point, it seems like Pro misunderstands what my argument exactly is and how disads (disadvantages) in debate work. Pro drops that it would be a bad thing for global institutions to fray. If admitting refugees triggers a sequence of events which results in the fraying of global institutions, then admitting refugees results in a morally undesirable outcome, and cannot therefore be a moral obligation.

Besides the fact that Pro fails to understand the train of my argumentation, Pro tries to dismiss the argument about NATO with Trump's oft-repeated 2% line. The reason Trump gives for destabilizing NATO is immaterial and irrelevant, to the extent that whatever reason he gives still arises from his nationalist tendencies. Since refugee admittance triggers nationalist electoral success, refugees are still a cause of Trump's destabilizing NATO, whether or not they are the cited or proximate cause.

The other examples (WTO, UN) were dropped. Extend them.

B. Exclusion of Refugees

Pro drops this entire argument. Extend it. This is going to be absolutely devastating for Pro, because it renders his advocacy self-defeating.

C. Right-wing Terror

Pro drops this entire argument as well. Extend it. This is also a strong reason to reject Pro's case, because it demonstrates how in Pro's world there is going to be increased right-wing terror.

D. Fraying Democracy

Pro says he doesn't see the causal link, but I spent a significant chunk of my case explaining that causal link. Refugee admittance fuels xenophobia which in turns allows for and encourages the rise of populist leaders, who fray democracy. Pro then says, "These problems are largely solved if the immigrants come legally through a process." This doesn't really make sense, since what most nationalist leaders focus on is the notion of the country being too full or culturally threatened. Look to Australia and the US to see examples of the former and to Germany and Italy to see examples of the latter. [30, 31]

== Sources ==

Published:
First, Pro has an equal burden of proof in this debate, meaning that he cannot win simply by countering my case. By choosing to primarily focus on rebutting my case

I provided evidence, although most of my debate is rebuttal.  My evidence/argument is if people are fleeing for their lives and would die if they stay in their home country, then the government shouldn't reject them, but should provide a legal way to citizenship.


it implies that the resolution is referring to "people fleeing oppression in general," just as "birds fly" means "birds in general can fly."

All refugees are often fleeing oppression.  That's what makes them refugees.


Pro explains that he is only affirming for refugees who (1) meet some as-yet undefined "requirements" for citizenship and (2) are able and willing to be assimilated into Western culture.

Anyone who meets the requirements I posted in the google doc I think should be allowed to be in the US.


Not only that, but Pro wants to make the existing "process stricter."

Con wants to completely close the borders to refugees.  I advocate for a process for anybody to become a member of my country.


It is important to note that these limitations are more restrictive than limitations designed just to keep out criminals.


Whose limitations?  Yours or mine? Your basically saying we shouldn't accept refugees.



Pro needs to clarify what these requirements are

It's in the document.  I realized that some sharing settings weren't the way they should have been.  I shared it with you.


Thirdly, the google doc is inaccessible to me, and it is unclear what exactly it is for. I would appreciate a clarification from Pro, and a full accessible link.

I think I shared it with you.  Try now.


First, it is important to note that, as the "Exclusion of Refugees" argument in my case illustrates, a moral obligation to admit will not actually lead to more admittance, and may in fact backfire.

If we allow more people to come into the country, then more would come in here.  Should we have open borders? No. However, my link shows what I would propose should be the requirements fro greencard and citizenship.


Pro has not, with the argumentation he has provided, established a moral obligation.

I have.  The West ought to save people from destruction by merely being a safe place they could go to, provided the immigrants undergo some filters.  The west ought to save lives when applicable.


Oppression could constitute any number of non-lethal activities, from denying gay people the right to have sex to denying women the right to vote.

The immigrants would have to accept western values in order to obtain citizenship.  Closing the borders is not the solution to this. If the middle easterners are fleeing ISIS, chances are they would accept western values.  Filtering processes would separate those that want to dehumanize women and those who want shariah law from the genuine refugees.


While oppression is never benign, it may be the case that a person fleeing oppression could still live a largely safe, healthy, and productive life in their country of origin.

How are they refugees then?  If they are not refugees, then this doesn't apply to them because this is about admitting refugees.


Second, this argument does not establish an obligation to admit specifically.

My link does.  Sorry I didn't share it with you in the previous round.  It's shared now.


If our moral duty is to protect refugee lives, this duty can easily be discharged by either housing refugees in safe, developing (vs. developed) nations

That doesn't benefit the west.  Also, other nations have their own problems that the refugees would have to face, making it harder for them to survive.


by providing aid to the countries of origins to help ease the causes of the threat being faced.

The concept of foreign aid has been tried for 35 years(http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/foreign-aid-development-assistance) and it hasn't worked in liberating nations.  They are still poor.


Thirdly, there are people all over the world whose lives are at risk. If our moral duty is to save lives, and that is why we should admit refugees, then it seems as if we have a virtually endless obligation to meddle and act across the world.

Some immigrants are fine with being poor and don't want our help.  This is fine. However, we shouldn't close the door to immigrants. For those that leave their homes and sacrifice what they know to be here, and in the case of refugees, they were forced to do this, well, migration should be a privilege that they earn.


this argument fails to establish that it is refugees we need to admit.  Allowing in large numbers of other immigrants could lessen the rate of demographic change

Most immigrants are going to be non white, whether refugees or immigrants.  What's the problem if they go through a process instead of outright rejection?  I'm not saying we let in refugees or other immigrants that meet the document's requirements, I'm saying both can be done.  The US will receive a plurality of the immigrants if we have the requirements for citizenship that are in the link(https://news.gallup.com/poll/153992/150-Million-Adults-Worldwide-Migrate.aspx).  


It's not actually clear from Pro's arguments how he believes admitting refugees is going to preserve Western hegemony.

Western supremacy would be preserved by letting in refugees that follow the legal process and get assimilated within Western society.

Conversely, my argument shows how admitting refugees leads to a backlash which undermines those global institutions through which that hegemony is retained.

The backlash is against people who don't enter the country legally.  If the refugees came here legally, then the backlash is not against those immigrants.

Therefore, for Pro to meet his burden, he must show that admitting refugees is not only likely to produce a moral result, but also that it rises to the level of obligation.

The West ought to accept more refugees through some sort of legal process instead of closing our doors because the extra population would be needed to keep western civilization alive.  The immigrants should be assiliminated into the West. If they commit terror attacks, they get severely punished and wouldn’t be a refugee, but a terrorist.

Importantly, Pro never refutes the empirical evidence/study which shows that increasing rates of immigration correlate to increased xenophobia.

The people are against immigrants because of the general lack of assimilation within their community.  Rather then turning them away,, they ought to be assimilated within Western society. They would learn the language of the western country.  They would be accepting the values of the western country including freedom of religion and speech. How could they reject the values and be a genuine refugee?  If they liked the values of their host country, how could they be fleeing it unless they were not a genuine refugee?

It is not likely the case that Brexit could have gained a successful majority without anti-immigration rhetoric, in which the likes of Nigel Farage traffic. So, it is likely that the xenophobia was either the impetus or the tipping point for Brexit occurring.

You used this term, so I think I can too and I don't know how else to use it.  There is less xenophobia in places with more immigrants, otherwise London wouldn’t have voted so strongly to stay in the EU.  In the countryside of the UK, there is some fear of immigrants that caused them to want to leave, but as more immigrants settle the rural of the UK over time, the UK would stay in the EU.  SInce the UK can’t negotiate a deal with the EU for departure, the UK won’t be leaving anytime soon. Very few Britons are okay with a hard brexit(A brexit with no trade deal)* and not all britons want to leave the EU.  The EU would make an example out of Britain, so they won’t settle for a soft brexit. For the UK, it’s a hard brexit or no brexit, soft brexit is not a feasible option. Only 52% wanted a hard or soft brexit, I think most wanted a soft brexit, so a hard brexit won’t happen anytime soon, even with more immigrants.

I dropped a lot of arguments because I was low on character limit.  Also, unless you quote me as I do to you, it’s hard to know what your referring too.

The rise of nationalist parties has led to these parties clamping down of refugee admittance.

Other countries are excluding refugees, but rather then closing the border, I want only legal immigrants in.  Since your wanting to basically not admit any more refugees, you basically agree with nationalist parties on this.

Pro drops this entire argument as well. Extend it. This is also a strong reason to reject Pro's case, because it demonstrates how in Pro's world there is going to be increased right-wing terror.

The xenophobia decreases as more immigrants come to a place, at least if the religions can peacefully coexist.  Christains in the west are moderate. As long as we let in truly moderate Muslim refugees and if we make them go through a process, the religions can coexist.

"These problems are largely solved if the immigrants come legally through a process." This doesn't really make sense, since what most nationalist leaders focus on is the notion of the country being too full or culturally threatened.

If they assimilate within society and accept the language and values of society, then the culture of Western countries isn't threatened.

Your links say that Immigration is a good thing.  Under certain conditions, it is.

I hope I did not misquote anything.  You dropped the religious argument that you brought up when you mentioned preserving Christian heritage.

Sources:


Round 3
Published:
Thanks to Pro for his reply. I will now go over the argumentation thus far.

== Pro's Case ==

I. Overview

First, I acknowledge Pro offered a case. The issue is that his case is so scant on evidence and reasoning that it cannot possibly successfully affirm when contrasted against the case that I put forward. By choosing to focus on rebuttals, Pro has fatally shortchanged his own case and his own ability to meet his burden.

Second, Pro doesn't respond to the substance of my analysis here, namely that he must affirm for refugees on balance. Extend this analysis as dropped. That means, at the very least, that the recipient nations must accept a majority of refugees who show up at their borders or who desire entry into those nations. Pro cannot impose limitation on refugee admittance which would likely result in fewer than a majority being accepted, because any such limitation or scheme of limitations mean that Pro is not admitting refugees in general, and is thus not meeting his burden.

Pro's google doc (which I am wary of citing since it can be edited by Pro), specifies that, to be admitted, refugees must lack a criminal record, must have a consistent job that benefits the recipient nation, must not need welfare, must speak fluent English, and must not disrupt the country's political-cultural balance. Most refugees require welfare when they first arrive in a host nation, and most don't speak fluent English. [32, 33] Because Pro's limitations on refugees do not affirm for refugees in general (i.e. it precludes most refugees from admittance), Pro is not actually affirming the resolution.

I will also take a moment to clarify a misconception Pro has about my advocacy: I am not arguing for closed borders. I am arguing against a moral obligation to admit refugees in general. I can argue for admittance of small numbers of refugees and for admittance being a good which does not rise to the level of obligation. It is not my burden as the negative to defend closed borders. In fact, my argument is fairly nuanced. I argue that Pro's position would ultimately open the door to too many refugees (recall, "refugees in general") which will inevitably spark the backlash I describe. Further, I argue that allowing in a controlled, very small number of vetted refugees is fine, but not morally obligatory.

II. Arguments

First, Pro attempts to refute my "Exclusion of Refugees" argument with a bare assertion absent any genuine response to my reasoning. Pro says "If we allow more people to come into the country, then more would come in here." This assessment is overly simplistic, and fails to account for how increasing rates of immigration and greater refugee intake would trigger populist backlash that would actually lead to closed borders. This chain of reasoning remains unrefuted by Pro, and it explains how any moral obligation to admit is ultimately self-defeating. 

Second, Pro says that he has demonstrated that an obligation exists because saving lives is good. Again, this assessment is overly simplistic. Saving lives is a moral result, but proving a moral result does not prove a moral obligation. Remember, moral results are a necessary but ultimately insufficient condition for moral obligation. Consider, for example, that our moral duty is to save lives, and that is why we should admit refugees, then it seems as if we have a virtually endless obligation to meddle and act across the world. Such an obligation would be absurdly overdemanding. Pro needs to provide additional moral reasoning explaining why there is an obligation, or he cannot meet his burden.

A. Nations of Origin

First, Pro seems not to have actually read the resolution. The resolution is not about admitting refugees, it is about admitting "people fleeing oppression," per the full description of the debate. I use the term "refugee" as shorthand to refer to people fleeing oppression, but people fleeing oppression is certainly a broader category of persons than traditional refugees. Therefore, it is the case that a person fleeing oppression could still live a largely safe, healthy, and productive life in their country of origin.

Second, Pro makes two responses to the argument that his "Nation of Origin" point does not establish an obligation to admit specifically. (1) Pro says his "link" shows how this argument applies to refugees, specifically. There are a few issues with this response: (a) it's not clear what link he is referring to, (b) Pro cannot farm out argumentation to links because that would illicitly circumvent the round's character limits, and (c) his google doc, at the very least, has nothing to do with establishing an obligation to admit refugees specifically. Pro relies heavily on the line "That doesn't benefit the west." But he doesn't explain how it does not benefit the West; he just makes an unwarranted bare assertion.

(2) Pro says that foreign aid fails. Well, foreign aid was only one option I mentioned. Options including humanitarian intervention and hosting refugees in other, stable developing states remain. But, beyond that, foreign aid is surprisingly effective. For example, a study of 59 developing countries found that the “present allocation of aid lifts 10 million people permanently out of poverty each year. With a poverty-efficient allocation this would increase to 19 million per year.” [34] And then there are more innovative approaches to aid disbursements that seek to solve problems in the old-fashioned ways of doing things. For instance, a new UN blockchain aid disbursement method for direct cash transfers currently in use in Jordan is saving money, increasing the transparency, and reducing corruption. It’s current capacity is "more than 100,000 individual refugees, with a stated goal of reaching the half-million Syrian refugees in Jordan by the end of 2018…[I]t could save the UN around 99% of the money it spends on transfer fees worldwide, and bring a new level of transparency to global aid disbursement…Transparent and immutable records reduce the need for external auditing…[G]overnments or funding agencies can start monitoring their own nodes and be sure they’re receiving the same information as the program operatives." [35] Direct cash transfers like this are critical for refugees' ability to flourish, subsist, and rebuild their lives after flight. [36]

Third, Pro's only response here is a strawman. My argument was about saving lives, not making people less poor. If indeed nations have an obligation to save the lives of non-citizens, which Pro seems to be arguing, then this obligation will naturally oblige us not just to, as Pro alleges, admit refugees, but also to act and engage across the world far more than we do currently, overextending our resources and willpower. Such an obligation is, in other words, too overdemanding to be feasible.

B. Demographic Trends

First, Pro drops all of my empirical evidence. Extend that evidence. This is enough to take out his entire argument about refugees being the solution to population decline.

Second, Pro never explains how population decline must be addressed by admitting refugees. If it could be addressed by admitting other immigrants, it doesn't seem like there is any specific obligation arising from this argument to admit refugees specifically.

C. Western Hegemony

Pro seems to be saying that this argument hinges on the demographic argument, to the extent that he thinks refugees are needed to keep Western civilization alive. Cross-apply then the arguments I made about the demographic argument here.

== Con's Case ==

I. Overview

Remember that all three of these points have been dropped and extended.

II. Backlash

Pro is shifting the goal posts. First he says that refugees are disliked because they're rapists. Now, he's dropped that argument and is making a new argument about assimilation. At this point, it seems like Pro is just trying to make up arguments to explain something he isn't actually able to explain. Besides, Pro offers no evidence to support his assertion. Moreover, since assimilation can take generations to effectuate, the negative impacts of my case would still be realized before assimilation could plausibly counteract the backlash.

The claim that there is less xenophobia in mutlicultural areas defies the empirical evidence introduced in this debate. Ultimately, my large-scale study outweighs the cherry-picked example of London Pro offers. We only need to look at countries like Belgium to see places where multiculturalism fails.

Pro literally drops the rest of my case, including sub-points A-D. Extend my case. Thus, if increasing refugee intakes leads to populist backlash, as I have shown (and as Pro has failed to disprove), then all the negative consequences of that backlash (which I outlined in my sub-points) can be extended as dropped. Therefore, I have successfully demonstrated that Pro's world does not produce a moral result, and is thus not a moral obligation.

== Sources ==

Published:
Sorry Bsh1, but it will be hard to come up with an argument in less than 30 minutes.  I lost track of time.  I hope I can rebut your arguments next round.
Round 4
Published:
Please extend my arguments. I await Pro's responses.
Published:
I forgot to read the resolution when I accepted this debate.  Since this is my fault, you win.
Round 5
Published:
Extend.
Published:
Good luck.  Bsh1 won't need it.
Added:
--> @Alec, @bsh1
I saved your google doc to web archive.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190831010837/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EEO-QIEwB1LmUlH1haJh3n495fqmxXAQ1Phrlj3YKf0/edit
Now, even if the original gets modified and/or deleted, the saved copy will be preserved.
I noticed that, in the debate, bsh1 said, and I quote, "Pro's google doc (which I am wary of citing since it can be edited by Pro)"
I would like to let bsh1 know that, when a google doc is saved to web archive, even if Pro (or anyone for that matter) DID edit it later, the original one would be preserved on web archive. So maybe next time, when people are citing google docs as sources in any future debate, they could create a web archive version of that google doc and cite THAT ARCHIVED COPY instead of the original google doc itself, since you can't edit an archive, and thus you don't need to worry about it being edited, so this wouldn't be an issue anymore.
Web archive is also a great tool for people who wish to cite sites such as 4chan, 8chan, twitter, reddit, and facebook in their debates, since those sites tend to delete tweets/posts after a certain amount of time passes or for some other reason, and it could be helpful to preserve sites that tend to get edited or deleted.
Previously, there was a bug/glitch which was preventing web archive from saving and preserving google docs (you could get like a 404 error or something when you tried to do so) but this brand new beta version can do it: https://web.archive.org/save
Plus it has the option to "Save outlinks" and "Save error pages (HTTP Status=4xx, 5xx)"
Web archive is straight-forward and easy to learn and use. You simply copy and paste whatever you want to be preserved and click the SAVE PAGE button. Millions of people use it to preserve things that they fear could get modified or deleted.
#16
Added:
--> @Tejretics
Oh, I think the answer is absolutely "yes." We should admit people fleeing oppression.
Instigator
#15
Added:
--> @bsh1
Just curious, what’s your personal position on this issue?
I think your case is very good, to be clear, and your overviews are very strategic and well done.
#14
Added:
--> @Alec
Keep an eye on your time.
Instigator
#13
Added:
--> @bsh1
It's harder for me to respond for multiple reasons; like Wifi problems and general tiredness. After the current debates I'm doing, I'm considering taking a break from DART.
Contender
#12
Added:
--> @Alec
I would post sooner rather than later, lest it slip your mind again.
Why are the responses harder?
Instigator
#11
Added:
--> @bsh1
I have noticed that it is harder to post arguments then before so this causes procrastination. Sorry.
Contender
#10
Added:
--> @Alec
Don't forget to post your reply (we only have two rounds until the end, so we've almost made it).
Instigator
#9
Added:
--> @bsh1
I don't feel like the position you are taking now has to necessarily contradict your stance of migration being a human right (for the most part). Being able to leave a country or move around in a country is a lot different from forcing a different country to take you in and, in America's case, we often have to provide social services. You can't force a country to allow a public charge, but it should let people leave if they want.
#8
Added:
--> @bsh1
I hope I'll get to it. It's for some reason harder to debate now. I could see why most people take breaks.
Contender
#7
Added:
--> @Alec
Please post your argument before time expires. You've got like 10 hrs. left.
Instigator
#6
Added:
--> @Alec
Just because I am debating for something does not mean it is my actual position. I am taking, in this debate, a position with which I personally disagree.
Instigator
#5
Added:
--> @bsh1
As a liberal who previously said that migration is a human right, I'm surprised your taking the side your taking. Did you change your mind on immigration?
My position is that western governments shouldn't outright reject immigration, but should have the immigrants follow a pathway to citizenship. In other words, they should come here legally.
Contender
#4
Added:
Posted.
Instigator
#3
Added:
--> @Alec
As a conservative in this day and age, I am surprised to see you on the Pro side.
Instigator
#2
#4
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Pro forfeited
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
C
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Concession
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
“I forgot to read the resolution when I accepted this debate. Since this is my fault, you win.”
Concession.