Instigator / Pro
christianm's avatar
0
christianm
1527
rating
14
debates
39.29%
won
Topic
#3727

That the US should have no cap on the number of visas

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Tejretics
Tags
Politics
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Tejretics's avatar
1
Tejretics
1535
rating
7
debates
64.29%
won
Description

The United States and other countries have a cap on the number of people who can enter legally. This debate asks whether the US should remove that restriction.

Round 1
christianm's avatar
christianm
Pro
#1
Immorality of border restrictions

I will postulate that in order to pass a law or restriction, a government must have a legitimate reason to do so. If, for example, the government told people they weren't allowed to wear blue t-shirts without any significant justification, we should consider this a violation of individual liberty.

Suppose that Person A was in danger of starvation and wanted to work for Person B. If a third party came in and prevented this transaction, we'd consider this very immoral, if not murder. In this scenario, Person A represents would-be immigrants, Person B represents employers in the US, and the third party is the US government.

To whom does the land in the United States belong?

I hold that the government has the right to regulate public spaces in the United States (within reason) but does not own them. Government restrictions should not violate inalienable rights such as freedom of speech. One could argue that the "American people" own these spaces, but this really just means that the government owns them, as the government is the only vehicle through which the public can express their decisions—even in a democracy, the majority can make decisions that violate someone's inalienable rights.

Free trade (especially when one party is in danger of starving) is an inherent right unless the government can provide a strong justification to restrict it. It will be on my opponent to provide this justification. Often these restrictions are justified as giving an advantage to domestic workers. But let us return to our previous scenario with Person A and Person B. Suppose this third party wanted their daughter to work for Person B instead. After all, parents have an even stronger responsibility to their children than governments do to their citizens. Yet this action would still be as immoral as before.

Therefore, we must consider the cap on work visas an arbitrary restriction that must be ended.
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
Con
#2
== Framework ==

(1) Counterplan

The US issues numerous kinds of visas; most have numerical caps. Pro’s proposal is to abolish all these visa caps. Insofar as there is some immigrant visa category under which a person can legitimately get a visa, in Pro’s world, they’re able to permanently migrate to the US (and extend their visas indefinitely). Hence, Pro’s plan effectively equals open borders in America. 

In light of that, I propose the following counterplan: the US should (1) increase the number of immigrants it admits over time, until it doubles the size of immigrants admitted under most visa categories and (2) offer amnesty to undocumented immigrants currently in the US. Cumulatively, about 1.2 million new people gain lawful permanent residents status in the US in any year. I would advocate gradually increasing that until it roughly doubles to about 2 million. This is still substantially fewer immigrants than in Pro’s world. According to a Gallup poll, “about 158 million adults worldwide” would migrate to the US if they could. Many of them have children, suggesting the annual number -- at least over the long term -- might be even higher. 

(2) Ethical criterion

This debate should be judged on utilitarian grounds (the greatest good for the greatest number), acknowledging that the US government has unique obligations to American citizens (hence weighting their interests a bit more). 

Pro implicitly advocates a criterion that emphasizes individual liberty, but only asserts that it is an “inherent right” (with no warrant). Prefer a utilitarian standard for two reasons. First, it captures the many different kinds of individual liberty. One kind of liberty is being free from state coercion, which is the focus of Pro’s case. But having a decent-paying job, for example, allows you to afford things you want, expanding your freedom. Second, utilitarianism privileges people’s preferences. Pro simply assumes that individual liberty matters more than other values. But someone could value culture or economic mobility over individual liberty. The only way to decide which values are important is to maximize preference-satisfaction (i.e., preference utilitarianism). 

== Rebuttal ==

Pro employs the “starving Marvin” thought experiment in favor of open borders (Huemer 2010). Three responses (Pro’s second contention is entirely defensive). 

(1) My framework addresses this argument. If a policy action does more good than harm, that constitutes a “legitimate justification” to violate individual liberty (e.g., it’s okay to stop Marvin from getting a job, if Marvin getting a job hurts other starving people). Unlike a parent and a daughter’s job, immigration policy affects third parties. 

(2) This argument proves too much. Any government regulation of the economy stops someone in need of help from getting the help they need; that is not a sufficient reason to oppose a restriction. For instance, a worker safety regulation might prevent an employer from hiring a worker who’s willing to work in unsafe conditions, but is still arguably important to protect the workers who are employed from being subject to unsafe conditions they do not want. 

(3) Pro’s framework contradicts their claim about state ownership of public spaces. The state engages in massive coercive action against its citizens all the time. Hence, by Pro’s own strong presumption in favor of freedom, the state should only make decisions on behalf of what people choose. If public spaces are owned by the people, Pro’s moral argument fails. I have no duty to give residence to a homeless person in my home (refusing them entry wouldn’t be violating their individual liberty). Similarly, Americans would have no obligation to accept residents into their public spaces.

== My case ==

(1) Human capital flight

Most people in developing countries won’t migrate to America even in Pro’s world. 3.4 billion people live in low- and middle-income countries; if 158 million people move to America, even if all of them were from LMICs, that would be under 5 percent of people in LMICs. 

The people who will move to America are less poor than those left behind. Moving is a costly process reserved for those who aren’t extremely poor -- you need to have the skills to feel confident you’ll get a job in the American labor market (one that becomes much more competitive if Pro’s policy is passed). Hence, if I show you that Pro’s plan hurts people who remain in LMICs, that outweighs any benefits to migrants themselves -- because it is a larger group of more vulnerable people. Pro’s plan hurts the global poor through brain drain. Three warrants. 

First, people who’re educated and have the skills to compete in America will move out of developing countries. This makes it harder for people to access basic services -- when doctors in Ghana leave for the US, the medical system suffers; Ghana has only one doctor per 6,700 people, because nearly two-thirds of its medical professionals leave for abroad (Price 2004). It also means countries struggle to attract foreign investment (because there’s fewer skilled workers around) or grow their economies through innovation -- human capital is a prerequisite to growth (Mankiw, Romer, and Weil 1992).

Second, Pro’s plan -- unlike my counterplan -- reduces the brain gain of emigration. Increasing emigration from poor countries, as my counterplan does, can increase human capital back home, but that benefit disappears with Pro’s plan. Locals build up their human capital (e.g., by undergoing skills training) because they wish to move abroad, but then visa caps prevent them from moving, and hence, developing countries experience upskilling through failed attempts at emigration. Furthermore, more people return to their home countries with new skills due to having temporary work visas. In Pro’s world, the attempts all succeed, and fewer people are forced to return -- so anyone who builds up skills to move successfully moves and stays in the US. Under my counterplan, more people try to emigrate and fail, but this increases skill in LMICs. 

Third, the weight of the evidence backs my counterplan over Pro’s advocacy:

  • Agrawal, Kapur, and McHale 2008 find that “the net effect of innovator emigration is to harm domestic knowledge access” in developing countries, slowing innovation.
  • Beine, Docquier, and Rapoport 2006 find that “the brain drain appears to have negative effects in countries where the migration rate of the highly educated is above 20% and/or the proportion of people with higher education is above 5%. There appears to be more losers than winners and, in addition, the former incur relatively high losses.” Among the countries that gain, the gain is largely due to “an increase in the number of skilled workers living in the developing countries” because of people upskilling, but being unable to move due to visa caps (an argument for visa caps). 
  • Khanna and Morales 2017 found more brain gain than brain drain in Indian IT due to the H-1B visa. However, the mechanism was that “[t]hose who could not join the US workforce, due to the H-1B cap, remained in India, enabling the growth of an Indian IT sector. Those who returned with acquired human capital and technology after the expiration of their visas also contributed to the growing tech-workforce in India.”
  • Abarcar and Theoharides 2021 found that a US visa expansion for medical professionals actually increased the number of nurses in the Philippines because “for each nurse migrant, 9 additional nurses were licensed [to practice at home].” However, this was only made possible because people trained to be nurses, but “the probability of securing a visa [was] low.” Under Pro’s plan, everyone who trained to be a nurse would be able to migrate -- indeed, they might be able to migrate without even becoming a nurse -- shutting out the benefit of additional nurses in the Philippines. 
The impact of this argument is that developing countries struggle to grow or provide for their citizens. Human capital is a driver of growth, and economic growth is a prerequisite for eliminating poverty (Pritchett 2019). 

(2) Effects on America

(a) Political effects 

Abolishing visa caps would create substantial backlash. A Gallup poll found that only 9 percent of Americans support increasing immigration at all. Opposition to Pro’s plan is likely near-unanimous among Americans. Passing heavily unpopular policy likely endangers social progressivism and the inclusion of minorities on other fronts. Craig and Richeson 2014 find that information about rapid demographic change yields more “intergroup hostility” and racism. A summary of extensive amounts of research by Enos 2017 concludes that even liberals show more hostile attitudes when exposed to sudden, sharp demographic change. 

(b) Economic effects 

A sudden spike in immigration has a range of economic effects, that I hope to expand on in future rounds, for Pro to contend with:

  • If cities don’t adapt quickly enough to sudden population growth, it could temporarily cause overcrowding, place pressure on urban infrastructure, create housing scarcity, or even force migrants to settle in slums. 
  • It suddenly increases the demand for American goods and services, which could raise costs of living. 
  • At least in the short term, immigrants could compete for jobs against American workers, lowering their wages. 
  • It could disincentivize American companies from either automating or moving abroad, which could improve their productivity and help developing countries grow. 
  • It would likely cause each immigrant to produce more CO2 emissions than they otherwise would, worsening the threat of climate change globally. 
  • Government spending might increase much faster than immigrants can pay for this spending, increasing deficits unsustainably. 
Pro’s plan is a big risk. I’d rather increase immigration than abolish all visa caps. Vote Con.

Round 2
christianm's avatar
christianm
Pro
#3
Plan vs Counterplan

Con is right that there are many kinds of visas. However, all types of visas, including work visas, are capped [1], allowing only a certain number of people into the country. This means that overall, the total number of people who can receive a visa is capped. This cap could be lifted by lifting the cap on work visas, for example, or by creating an entirely new type of visa. It doesn't require the government to lift the cap on all types of visas. While some restrictions are reasonable (not allowing serial killers into the country) others aren't, such as letting in people who want to work. Due to the arguments I will present, I argue that artificially limiting the number of people who enter the country is wrong.

Moral Framework

Con and I have proposed different systems that will result in different numbers of immigrants. Neither of us contests this. But deciding the better system will come down to what moral framework is used. Con suggests using a framework that maximizes total utility, under which the ends always justify the means, and argues that we should prioritize the well-being of US citizens. Con attempts to reframe the issue by arguing that having a higher-paying job increases someone's freedom. The same could be said of police states that monitor everyone and afford them no privacy in order to reduce crime or have a universal DNA database [2]. Whether or not you agree, these countries aren't exchanging freedom for more freedom (even if you have the freedom not to be robbed or killed), they're exchanging freedom for safety.

Furthermore, Con isn't arguing that we should violate minor freedoms to afford major ones. Con is arguing that we should violate the rights of would-be immigrants who are desperately in need of work to confer minor benefits onto our own citizens. There are questionable benefits to the home countries of would-be immigrants losing talented people, since many of their problems likely come from poor governance, and it's unlikely that the benefits for an immigrant coming to the US are outweighed by the benefits they could offer to others back in their home country. And the moral framework itself raises other issues. Why should starving Marvin be forced to stay away from the market, just because he might help other people? But this of course brings us to...

Starving Marvin

Unlike a parent and a daughter’s job, immigration policy affects third parties. 
The parent represents the govt and the daughter represents US citizens. I assume the third party here is poor people in the immigrants' home country.

Con's argument relies on the assumption that people in developing countries will be significantly harmed by the amount of talent leaving. But this moral framework is full of holes. If Ghana forcibly prevented talented people from leaving the country, much like North Korea [3], we would consider this outrageous. But at least then, Ghana is helping its own citizens (which my opponent seems to support). The US has even less of a justification to compel them to stay in their home country. This is essentially slavery, arguing that these people should be forced to stay in a certain place to help the poor whilst living in poverty themselves.

Any government regulation of the economy stops someone in need of help from getting the help they need; that is not a sufficient reason to oppose a restriction.
Most of these restrictions help the poor. Hurting the poor in other countries to help the rich in our country is wrong, and we're not simply adding regulations or taxing a portion of someone's paycheck: we're cursing people to live in poverty and controlling their entire livelihood. It would be like telling a farmer they weren't allowed to become a janitor no matter what, rather than just adding a few minor regulations. We're also telling immigrants what they can and can't do with their bodies as well as where they can and can't live, all for economic benefit.

The state engages in massive coercive action against its citizens all the time. Hence, by Pro’s own strong presumption in favor of freedom, the state should only make decisions on behalf of what people choose.
But not all these actions are justified. Segregation and restricting freedom of speech in public spaces aren't justified just because people decide that they are. We're talking about morality here and what the law should be. Public spaces aren't owned by the American people, they're regulated by the American people. And sometimes the majority makes immoral decisions. The American people don't have a moral right to pass any law they choose, even if they can get away with it.

Political Effects

Obviously, this plan won't pass because people won't vote for it. My position is that they should. Nothing more, nothing less. Oddly, Con seems to be opposing immigration because it results in diversity. It's the same sort of logic that was used to justify segregation.

Economic effects

Much like human capital flight, I've addressed this mainly in other parts of the debate by arguing that it does not justify robbing people of their freedom.

Conclusion

Eugenics and restrictions on freedom of speech are some of the many efforts that have been attempted to "improve society" at the cost of personal liberty. If robbing foreign citizens of their livelihoods to help our economy is justified, is imperialism (robbing resources from other countries [4]) justified? If Mexico prevented its citizens from leaving for America, we would consider this morally indefensible. But when America stops Mexican citizens from entering the country, my opponent has no complaints. The economic good does not justify robbing people of their livelihoods.
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
Con
#4
I've fallen a bit sick, so I'm going to be waiving this round.

I am not conceding the debate -- I will be sure to return the next round, and there are still two whole rounds to go. I urge judges to vote based on the arguments and rebuttal presented, and not give me the loss just because I missed one round due to being ill.

Apologies, christianm, for waiving this round. I’d appreciate if you could wait at least 24 hours before posting your round, so that I have a bit of extra time to recover and am fully able to write my response. 
Round 3
christianm's avatar
christianm
Pro
#5
Extend. I agree, don't hold skipping one round against Con.
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
Con
#6
I thank Pro for their graciousness in letting me waive the round.

Overview

  • Pro concedes that anyone who wants to work, for example, or come into the country if they’re not a criminal, is likely to be let in. 
  • Debate convention dictates that there should be no new arguments in the final round. This includes new rebuttal to the initial case. It applies to both of us. Hence, for any warrants from my R1 that Pro drops, don’t let them make new responses in R4. 
Pro’s case on individual liberty

You should vote Con if I prove that Pro’s plan causes more harms than benefits to the global poor -- these harms, if I successfully prove them, would outweigh Pro’s case on individual liberty. Three reasons.

(1) Pro concedes that large harms can override liberty

Throughout this debate, Pro has conceded that sufficiently large harms can override liberty:

  • In R1, Pro said: “[I]n order to pass a law or restriction, a government must have a legitimate reason to do so. If, for example, the government told people they weren't allowed to wear blue t-shirts without any significant justification, we should consider this a violation of individual liberty.” This concedes that there exist “legitimate reasons” to violate liberty; if my case provided a “significant justification,” you should vote Con.
  • In R2, Pro’s sole response to my point that Pro’s principle proves too much -- that it would justify zero economic regulation by the government -- is that “most of these regulations help the poor.” That is an implicit concession by Pro that if a regulation helps the poor, it is justified. Hence, if I prove that some visa caps help the global poor, you should vote Con. 
So don’t buy Pro’s contradictory claim that we should prioritize liberty even over helping the global poor, because through R1 and R2, Pro has conceded that we shouldn’t. 

(2) Even if individual liberty is the top priority, the effects on the global poor outweigh Pro’s case

I argued that protection from state coercion is just one type of freedom, and there’s no reason to privilege it over other types of freedom -- for example, the ability for people in developing countries to not live in extreme poverty (which shuts out their ability to make decisions) due to brain drain, or due to losing the large brain gain that comes with current levels of immigration. 

Pro never provides a warrant for why protection from state coercion is the most important type of freedom. Pro argues that individual liberty matters, but defines “individual liberty” as “fewer state restrictions on actions.” I argued for a more holistic conception of liberty, one that understands that poverty is an assault on liberty. 

Pro has two responses to this. 

First, Pro argues that this justifies states that carry out mass surveillance and universal DNA databases. Three responses.

  • I argued that poverty reduces liberty, not a lack of safety. So Pro is rebutting a point I didn’t make. 
  • This response is a form of circular reasoning. If it is true that surveillance and universal DNA databases would substantially reduce crime, I’d support them. Pro can’t just say “Con’s framework would justify X, and X is clearly bad,” as that is circular, if I’m willing to bite the bullet and support X. 
  • There are many utilitarian problems with police states. For example, they make people unhappy, and have the potential to be used in abusive ways by governments (e.g., to police dissidents, thus worsening governance and reducing safety). Hence, you don’t have to buy Pro’s framework to oppose police states, and Pro hasn’t explained why this is analogous to immigration. 
Second, Pro says I’m sacrificing “the rights of would-be immigrants who are desperately in need of work to confer minor benefits onto our own citizens.”

  • This doesn’t apply to the argument I made about how Pro’s plan substantially increases extreme poverty, often by denying people in developing countries jobs (making them “desperately in need of work”) or economic growth. It is not “slavery,” as Pro asserts (without warrant) it is, to prevent people from leaving to ensure they don’t cause extreme poverty in their countries by leaving. 
  • I preempted this when I explained why people who don’t immigrate should be the primary concern in this debate. Extend my argument in contention 1 that most people don’t immigrate even under Pro’s plan, so these harms affect more people. The last round is too late for Pro to make a new response. 
  • I preempted this when I explained in contention 1 that those who do immigrate tend to not be “extremely poor” -- hence, the people who don’t immigrate are more “desperate” and vulnerable. 
  • This response is conditional on showing that people who immigrate actually end up getting jobs, or improving their lives. This is a bare assertion, and round 4 is too late for Pro to provide this new warrant. 
  • The benefits I identified to American citizens aren’t “minor.” Overcrowding, layoffs, wage cuts, and climate change are serious problems. 
Furthermore, even if protection from state coercion is the sole form of liberty that matters, poverty increases the risk of democratic backsliding -- thus reducing the protection of people in developing countries from state coercion. Tuya 2013 explains, “Poverty is as much a threat to a democracy as poor institutions in that it deprives people of their political voice preventing them from holding their governments accountable and responsive, and eroding public trust in the emerging institutions of democracy.” 

This is backed by empirical evidence. 

  • Wietzke 2018 uses household income data to find that “poverty reduction has a stronger effect on democracy than alternative predictors that are more widely used in the democratic regime transition and consolidation literature.”
  • Heo and Tan 2001 find that increases in economic growth increase the likelihood of democratic institutions. 
Hence, if Pro’s plan increases global poverty (relative to my counterplan), then Pro risks institutions in poor countries becoming more oppressive, or violating their liberty more. 

(3) My framework is better justified than Pro’s case

(a) Pro’s case is assertive 

Pro doesn’t actually have a single warrant for their preferred moral framework. Pro exclusively uses analogies of things that most people, according to Pro, would consider morally abhorrent. This is flawed:

  • It is circular reasoning. What if it is, in fact, justified to stop Marvin from accessing the market, in order to ensure that no one else starves? Pro doesn’t prove it isn’t. 
  • Pro themselves concedes that “most people finding something morally acceptable” isn’t a reason to believe something is ethical, when they say that the majority sometimes makes immoral decisions. This means Pro can’t prove their framework simply by using thought experiments they think most people would find morally acceptable. 
(b) Pro’s analogies are disanalogous 

This is unlike stopping Marvin from accessing a market. It’s more like a shopping mall refusing entry to someone who wants to buy something from a shop located inside a mall, or a club refusing to let someone in even if the bar inside the club is willing to sell them something. 

This is because American public spaces are owned by the American people. Pro asserts that they are only “regulated” by the American people, but doesn’t engage my justification for why the public is entitled to ownership. In R1, Pro concedes that the government owns these spaces. But the government is merely a servant of the public, due to the reciprocal obligation created by taxing and regulating people’s lives. Pro drops this.

Collective ownership is in fact the status quo. In the words of Justice Roberts in Hague v. CIO, “Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have … been held in trust for the use of the public.” Even though Roberts’s conclusion in Hague was not the majority view, this specific idea has been the dominant view of the Supreme Court. 

(c) Pro drops key elements of my framework

  • Extend that the US government has a special obligation to its own people. Pro drops this, and concedes it in R1. 
  • Extend my second warrant for util: there’s no reason to think individual liberty matters, and morality is only coherent when people decide their own preferences. Maximizing preference-satisfaction, thus, is the best moral framework. Pro drops this, and R4 is too late to respond.
Pro’s plan hurts the global poor

Pro’s sole response to my argument about brain drain and brain gain is that it is immoral to trap people in their countries for social good. But Pro never explains why this is the case, and certainly never proves the analogy with slavery. Indeed, the majority of people are trapped either way -- and when immigrants (often high skill immigrants, who aren’t trapped in poverty) leave their countries entirely, they shut out the potential for growth in their countries, hurting those who’re left behind even more. 

This outweighs Pro’s nebulous benefits to the immigrants themselves:

  • As proven in R1, more people are left behind, and fewer people immigrate. Furthermore, the people left behind are poorer. This outweighs on magnitude. 
  • Pro never shows that immigrants actually benefit or get out of poverty by moving -- a warrant that R4 is too late for. It’s unclear that many immigrants moving at once would benefit; as explained in R1, it could result in large numbers of immigrants overcrowding infrastructure, entering slums, and struggling to find jobs. My counterplan, by increasing but limiting immigration, accesses these benefits. 
  • Pro also drops the effect on climate change, which affects the world as a whole, as well as all the economic harms to the US. 
Global poverty is the largest assault on liberty there is. Pro’s plan both causes brain drain, and limits the true benefit of global migration (and my counterplan): building human capital in LMICs. Vote Con.
Round 4
christianm's avatar
christianm
Pro
#7
Debate convention dictates that there should be no new arguments in the final round.
This is not an official rule and strongly depends on context. If a debater does a complete left turn to avoid rebuttal, I agree this should not count toward their case. The rules discourage a final round "blitzkrieg" for example [1]. But Con forgets that he has an opportunity to respond to my last round while I don't have an opportunity to respond to his. So if anything, this rule should only really apply to him. Even then, he should be able to respond to any new arguments I've made, as I should be able to respond to new arguments he's made.

You should vote Con if I prove that Pro’s plan causes more harms than benefits to the global poor -- these harms, if I successfully prove them, would outweigh Pro’s case on individual liberty.
Con never proves this outside of speculation (especially with studies that seem to contradict their position), since benefits to immigrants could outweigh the effects on people still in their home countries. And my system would allow more people to immigrate, leaving less people behind. "Total harm" is hard to prove anyway and depends on subjective measures of happiness. And not every action that helps the poor is justified, such as forcing the rich to sell their kidneys.

My case against the visa cap is that it robs people of the entire livelihood that they would have otherwise, which taxes do not do. It would be no different tan forcing skilled people in the US to move to other nations. If a tax did anything like this, it would be unjustified. Con also misunderstands my DNA analogy: the point wasn't that it was unjustified but that it would not increase freedom. Adding additional regulations in order to help people (mask mandates, etc.) is still a reduction in freedom.

Pro can’t just say “Con’s framework would justify X, and X is clearly bad,” as that is circular, if I’m willing to bite the bullet and support X.
Con never asserts any of his moral arguments as well (why is helping the poor justified?) You can't get an ought from an is [2]. But some things, such as slavery, genocide, and trapping people inside a country, are clearly known to be immoral since they violate human rights [3]. Exploring morality relies on empathy and showing how one thing that's supposedly justified is actually just a known evil by another name. If Con is willing to accept anything as moral to win an argument, voters will have to decide whether to accept this extremely messed-up moral framework. But Con does seem to agree on objective morality and some things being wrong, against which we can judge our moral claims.

 It is not “slavery,” as Pro asserts (without warrant) it is, to prevent people from leaving to ensure they don’t cause extreme poverty in their countries by leaving.
Slavery involves telling someone what to do with their body and robbing them of their livelihood for economic benefit [4]. Abolition might harm the economy, as allowing people to choose where they live could, but it does not justify trapping someone inside a country. This is the same justification North Korea uses to stop people from leaving.

Extend my argument in contention 1 that most people don’t immigrate even under Pro’s plan, so these harms affect more people.
Again, an extremely narrow moral framework that does not justify the violation of human rights.

The benefits I identified to American citizens aren’t “minor.” Overcrowding, layoffs, wage cuts, and climate change are serious problems.
They are very minor in comparison to the freedoms robbed from would-be immigrants. Con's framework assumes that Americans have rights people in other countries shouldn't have—it's fine for Americans to pollute, for example, but not immigrants.

Pro risks institutions in poor countries becoming more oppressive, or violating their liberty more
Again speculation, and Con does not show how total harm increases. There could also be other long-term effects Con doesn't account for, such as more motivation for people in these countries to become skilled so they can come to the US. (If standards are lowered, they could be more achievable to the poor in these countries. Con assumes people will move to the US as soon as they're skilled, and won't wait until they have a job lined up.) So if we're speculating, we could easily do it either way.

Pro exclusively uses analogies of things that most people, according to Pro, would consider morally abhorrent. This is flawed
See my earlier explanation

It’s more like a shopping mall refusing entry to someone who wants to buy something from a shop located inside a mall, or a club refusing to let someone in even if the bar inside the club is willing to sell them something.
Again I'll deal with the claim that American spaces are owned by the American people (or the democratic majority, to be more specific.) I never said the government owned these spaces in R1, I stated "I hold that the government has the right to regulate public spaces in the United States (within reason) but does not own them." If people voted to ban free speech or prevent minorities from using the library, this would be immoral.

Extend that the US government has a special obligation to its own people. Pro drops this, and concedes it in R1.
But these obligations do not justify harming the rights of people in other countries, as I explained with the scenario of a third party helping their daughter at the expense of Person A.

when immigrants (often high skill immigrants, who aren’t trapped in poverty) leave their countries entirely, they shut out the potential for growth in their countries, hurting those who’re left behind even more.
Just because poverty robs people of their livelihoods doesn't mean the government should do it as well. Again, economic benefit does not justify slavery.

Pro never shows that immigrants actually benefit or get out of poverty by moving.
Con argues that many people would come here, and why would this be if they weren't getting some kind of benefit? As I explained before, immigration opens the door to many more economic opportunities/potential jobs/etc. even if not every immigrant will get one.

Pro also drops the effect on climate change, which affects the world as a whole, as well as all the economic harms to the US.
Because this is another minor economic benefit. Con doesn't give any reason why current Americans should be allowed to pollute, but not new immigrants.

Global poverty is the largest assault on liberty there is.
Violating liberty for some people (slavery) to give opportunities to others (better economy) is not an example of liberty by any commonly accepted definition.

Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
Con
#8
== Intro ==

Thanks to christianm for an engaging and fun debate.

Some clarifications of my position:

  • Pro’s burden is to show that you should abolish all visa caps. Regardless of anything else, including my counterplan, if I prove to you that the US shouldn’t abolish all visa caps, you should vote Con. Everything else is secondary. 
  • As Pro notes, I agree that morality exists and that moral obligations are coherent. However, unlike Pro, I believe the only coherent basis for morality is respecting people’s preferences, and the best way to do that is maximize overall preference-satisfaction -- i.e., preference utilitarianism. 
  • I’m broadly pro-immigration. I support -- over time -- doubling the number of immigrants America accepts (maybe even going moderately further than that). However, I think Pro’s plan undermines the benefits of immigration to migrants themselves, to their home countries, and to America. 
Debate theory. Pro claims there’s no rule against new arguments in R4. However: (1) It follows from the rule against a blitzkrieg -- rebuttal is a form of argument, and making a completely new response to my initial case in the final round would be withholding an argument until the final round. (2) It ought be a rule, as it allows for fairness -- with limited characters in a final round, my capacity to respond to new arguments in Pro’s final round is also constrained (and I agree this rule also applies to me). Regardless, Pro doesn’t violate this rule much, so it’s not a big deal. 

(1) Pro’s plan does more harm than good

Pro hasn’t addressed the most of my case. I’ve argued that Pro’s plan would hurt both the United States and the countries from which these immigrants come. I’ll address Pro’s challenges now.

First, Pro has raised some uncertainty by arguing some of this is “speculation.” Since I’ve made clear arguments, and provided evidence for them, labeling them “speculation” isn’t a response.

Second, Pro argues that I haven’t considered other potential long-term effects, but only names one: “more motivation for people in these countries to become skilled so they can come to the US.”

But I actually explicitly considered this -- this was my second warrant under contention 1. I argued that, under my counterplan, many people try to come to the US, and hence upskill. However, when the visa cap prevents them from coming to the US, that’s when they remain home, and increase overall skills back home. 

Pro says migrants may upskill and then not get an American job; however, this is a bare assertion, whereas I showed that the visa cap was crucial for this human capital -- extend the Beine, Docuier, and Rapoport 2006 evidence, the Khanna and Morales 2017 evidence, and Abarcar and Theoharides 2021 evidence, all of which explicitly name the visa cap as an important reason these newly upskilled workers stayed behind. 

Third, Pro argues that “benefits to immigrants could outweigh the effects on people still in their home countries.”

  • As I pointed out in R3, Pro doesn’t actually prove benefits to immigrants until R4. Pro’s only justification comes in R4 (a new argument in the final round). 
  • Extend my impact calculus from R3 -- there are likely to be fewer immigrants than people left behind either way, and the people left behind are likely more vulnerable. Combined with the scale of my evidence (compared with Pro’s bare assertions), that means, on both probability and magnitude, my case outweighs this claim. 
  • Pro’s first warrant in R4 is that immigrants would only choose to come to the United States if they saw the potential for benefit. (1) This is a bare assertion. It could be that they don’t have adequate information to make this decision, for example. (2) Even if they saw a benefit to themselves, Pro’s plan would likely create a collective action problem -- where many immigrants think they could benefit by moving, but when they all move simultaneously, the resulting move could lead to overcrowding and saturation of the labor market, leaving only few of them with homes and jobs. 
  • Pro’s second warrant in R4 is that immigration “opens the door” to more economic opportunities and jobs. Even if this is true in the status quo, it’s possible my counterplan extinguishes these benefits -- for the first ~2.4 million immigrants each year, it offers economic opportunities, but afterward, due to diminishing returns and saturation, these opportunities might decline. Either way, Pro only states this claim, offering no evidence. 
Fourth, and finally, Pro claims (in another new argument in the final round) that fewer people are left behind when immigration does happen, since more people can immigrate. However, I’ve explained that the majority of people stay behind even in Pro’s world -- and the only ones who leave are people who are relatively less vulnerable, rather than the poorest in the world (as argued in R1, with no response). Hence, the majority of people -- and the poorest -- are left behind in Pro’s world, albeit with an economy growing much slower. 

In short, Pro fails to address much of the harms of their plan:

  • Climate change worsens. Pro asks why it’s okay for Americans to pollute, but not immigrants. But the fact that Americans are polluting and causing harm doesn’t justify more people causing harm -- it justifies policy that reduces domestic pollution in America, as well as sensible immigration policy that prevents even more people causing the harm that Americans do. 
  • Pro’s plan is a massive risk. We have no idea the scale of change it could bring. This uncertainty should scare you, especially when coupled with the risks of swamping and slum formation, the risks of sudden increases in costs of living, and the risk of political backlash (my claim isn’t, as Pro strawmans it as in R2, simply that people will oppose it -- it’s that this opposition translates to nativistic politics that hurts other minorities). 
  • Apart from worsening brain drain, slowing development in LMICs, it also doesn’t access the large human capital benefits of migration, that my counterplan uniquely accesses. 
(2) Pro’s libertarian framework doesn’t justify these harms

(a) Americans own public spaces in America

Pro claims that Americans can only regulate public spaces, and can’t own them. I’ve disagreed:

  • Extend my legal reasoning, from Hague v. CIO, that the state (and hence the public) actually does own these spaces. 
  • Extend my moral reasoning. In R1, Pro first says the state doesn’t own these places. However, in the next sentence, they say that the public owning these places only means the government owns these places. If you hold Pro to this second claim, that means -- since the state merely represents the public -- the public owns these spaces as well. 
  • Pro’s analogies about the majority voting to not let minorities in these spaces don’t apply to this case, because those minorities are also Americans, who are entitled to these spaces. However, Americans, as a democratic polity, can deny non-Americans access. 
Just like I can deny someone entry to my home, visa caps are justified. 

(b) Many kinds of freedom

Pro says giving economic opportunities to people doesn’t meet any “commonly accepted definition” of individual liberty. This is a bare assertion. 

Individual liberty matters because it enables people to make choices. States coercing people is not the sole violation of liberty. Living in poverty means having your choices permanently constrained -- not being able to buy what you want, not being able to exercise basic rights like voting rights because you can’t take the time off work, not being able to live without financial stress that affects your every decision. 

But even if it’s the only definition, extend Tuya 2013 and Wietzke 2018: increases in poverty increase authoritarian regimes, worsening the very state coercion Pro is concerned by. 

(c) Pro’s analogies don’t work. 

The only warrants for Pro’s case are their analogies -- let’s consider them:

  • Starving Marvin. (1) Most people who can immigrate aren’t extremely poor, as proven in R1. Hence, this doesn’t justify abolishing the cap entirely, as most who would benefit from the abolition wouldn’t be starving or in need of that degree of help. (2) Our intuitions are consistent with stopping Marvin from accessing the market if stopping him would prevent even more people from dying of starvation. (3) This is conditional on proving immigrants get benefits from moving, which Pro fails to show. 
  • Banning emigration. (1) Pro doesn’t prove most people have an intuition that banning emigration from America is always deeply immoral. (2) It isn’t analogous, because while preventing immigration only restricts access to one country -- yours -- banning emigration prevents access to any country. 
  • Forcing kidney donations (new in R4). (1) This fails the act–omission test. Failing to donate your kidney is omitting from helping someone. Leaving your country is taking an action that harms people left behind. (2) Forcing kidney donations would likely cause more fear and suffering than good, which explains our intuition against it. 
  • Slavery. (1) Slavery is owning another person, controlling their entire life, and forcing them to engage in unpaid labor. Simply “telling them what to do” isn’t enough. (2) This is more akin to a restriction on one specific freedom of people to prevent massive harms to others (e.g., minimum wage legislation that bans people from accepting very low-wage jobs, to protect others) -- which people’s intuitions often align with. 
Underview. Pro drops my second warrant for utilitarianism, relies on uncertain analogies to defend their libertarian principle, fails to engage with the range of other freedoms Pro’s plan could stomp on (including increasing the risk of authoritarianism by worsening poverty), and fails to address most of the disadvantages I identified early on. For those reasons, vote Con.