query: The Whole System is broken  It is not clear that the system works at all. The majority of those who apply for asylum are working-age males, [1] which implies that there is a strong economic angle. And worse still, even if countries decide that an applicant has no basis to their claim they are frequently unable to deport them because they often go missing, as 75,000 in Britain have, [2] or because, perversely, they may be punished on return to their country for having sought refuge. So essentially the asylum system provides a loophole for unrestricted immigration, which is both expensive, and dangerous for states. In the age of global terrorism it is a huge risk to allow undocumented individuals to enter and roam freely within any country.  [1] Blinder, Scott, ‘Migration to the UK: Asylum’, The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, 23 March 2011.  [2] Whitehead, Tom, ’75,000 asylum seekers have gone missing in past 20 years’, The Telegraph, 6 April 2011.

positive: society immigration minorities house believes right asylum should not be absolute Much of the fear of the asylum system being used by economic migrants is simply media hysteria and xenophobia. The vast majority of asylum claims (in the UK around 75%) are still rejected, which shows the system works. [1] Also it is not being abused in the way many people believe. Very few people are willing to leave their family and community, pay to travel thousands of miles to new country, in risky circumstances, with only a small chance of being accepted there, unless they have real reason to fear for their safety. The numbers of people seeking asylum are not historically unprecedented either, and most applicants still come from countries we recognise as dangerous, such as Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Compared to other forms of immigration the numbers who are accepted via the asylum regime are negligible.  [1] Blinder, ‘Migration to the UK: Asylum’, 2011

negative: Through the SIS the Schengen Area has been able to streamline immigration and asylum policy, thus making it easier to manage immigrants in a consistent manner across Europe [1] . However, countries are not wholly dependent on external borders for security and immigration checks, and so immigrants approaching from external countries can still be caught by individual countries within the Schengen area. Police are allowed to conduct random identity checks throughout the territory of any particular member state: travel advice for Schengen countries warns that while there are no longer any land border checks, you should not to attempt to cross land borders without a valid travel document because it is likely that random identity checks will be made in areas surrounding the borders [2] .  Fears over immigration and the Schengen area seem to be actually more an issue of perception than flows of people; the economic crisis has heightened anti-immigrant feeling across Europe. For example, the actual number of refugees arriving in southern Europe as a result of the 2011 Arab Spring has been fewer than expected: “Out of more than 700,000 migrants displaced by events in the western Arab states of North Africa, around 30,000 (4-5%) have attempted to reach Europe,” according to demography expert Philippe Fargues [3] . The other 95% have headed mainly for African and Asian destinations [4] .  [1] ‘Legal instruments governing migration from SIS 1+ to SIS II’, Europa, 13 July 2010   [2] ‘Advice for travel to the Czech Republic’, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 6 February 2012,   [3] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011,   [4] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011,

negative: States should form their own migration policy, because the U.N. Convention violates state sovereignty.  Every state has different issues and problems related to migration. There is no monolithic economic and social crisis facing migrants around the globe. It is inappropriate, therefore, to call for all nations to ratify a piece of one-size-fits-all legislation, like the U.N. Convention. Instead, immigration policy and migrant rights need to be approached on a case-by-case, nation-by-nation basis.  The U.N. Convention would violate state sovereignty. Not all international law is necessarily bad, but these protections go too far, because they force a huge burden on certain nations, and not others. It is fair for an international body to say that all nations should treat their citizens with equality and respect, but it is not fair to say that certain countries should have to provide for many additional citizens from less-well-off states. It is not surprising that only source countries have ratified the Convention thus far; that is because those are the countries that would benefit from the changes, at the expense of those countries that are still holding out.

negative: Protection of migrants causes “brain drain,” which further damages the economies of source countries.  The countries from which workers emigrate often struggle from failing economies, and through migration they can lose their most skilled workers, who are needed at home to turn their economy around. Strengthened protections of migrants would further incentivize migration, and so brain drain would become more of a problem. India for example has seen more than 300,000 people migrate to the United States and more than 75% of these migrants had a tertiary education [1] meaning the vast majority of these migrants were among the most educated from a country where only 7% of the population is able to goes to university. [2]  [1] Carrington, William J., and Detragiache, Enrica, ‘How Extensive is the Brain Drain?’, Finance and Development, Volume 36, No. 2, June 1999,   [2] ‘When More Is Worse’, Newsweek, 8 August 2008,

negative: The LGBT community fulfills the basic principles and purposes of asylum  The LGBT community fulfills the most basic principles and purposes of the concept of asylum.  Asylum was created as a direct protection of Article 14 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) 1948 [1] which states that “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” [2] This article was created in order to protect the third article of the declaration “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” [3] This concept of asylum was created to develop a separate category of migration that would allow its applicants to breach normal immigration protocol and application procedures [4] on the basis that these people were in immediate danger and that without creating a specific bypass for them, they would endure great harm or death. The point of asylum as a specific and emergency measure and, indeed a moral necessity, was two-fold:  1) The immediate nature of the threat/danger to their person  2) That this threat was persecutory in nature  What is important to note is that “persecution” is fundamentally different than prosecution. The difference lay in the acceptability and justice of the punishment someone may or will endure. Persecution is a term used for a punishment that is unjust or morally abhorrent. Asylum has emerged as a category of protection we grant to people who we believe that we are morally obligated to help, because if we do not, they will receive a punishment they do not deserve and will severely harmed for something they deserve no harm for.  We, the proposition, believe that both of these criteria are filled by those fleeing persecution for sexual orientation and thus we are morally-obligated to grant them asylum. First, it is clear that they are facing immediate danger. Whether it is death penalties in places like Uganda [5] or vigilante justice against homosexuals such as the murder of David Kato [6] . In places like Uganda, local tabloids often publishes “Gay Lists” of individuals they believe are gay so that the community can track them down and kill them for their sexual orientation, which is how and why David Kato was murdered [7] . It is clear that whether by the state or by their neighbour, there is a clear and immediate danger to many LGBT people across the world.  The second criteria of the unacceptability of this persecution is also clear. We as Western Liberal democracies have in recent years become increasingly accepting of the LGBT community with the granting of gay marriage, application of anti-discrimination laws and even allowing of gay-adoption in many countries. The sexual orientation of an individual is in no indicative of one’s worth as a human being in the eyes of the Western Liberal Democracy and can never possible be a death sentence. It is inconceivable for us to consider sexual orientation a reason to not allow a person to raise a child, never mind view it as an acceptable reason for death.  [1] United Nations. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.  [2] United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948.  [3] United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948.  [4] United Nations. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.  [5] Dougherty, Jill. "U.S. State Department condemns 'odious' Ugandan anti-gay bill." CNN International. 12 May 2011.  [6] "Uganda gay activist Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera hailed." BBC News. 04 May 2011, Print.  [7] "Uganda gay activist Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera hailed." BBC News. 04 May 2011, Print.

negative: We would allow discriminated women to reach their full potential  Women who are constantly threatened by their husbands or who are in societies where they are considered to represent less than a man will most certainly lack ambition to achieve their full potential – or even if they do have the ambition will be restrained from fulfilling it. When you live under a system that considers you inferior to the other gender and denies you opportunities on the basis of gender – sometimes including education the individual is clearly never going to have a chance to make their life worthwhile for its own sake. They won’t be able to take up jobs that will have an impact on the world, they won’t control their own economic circumstances as their husband is the only breadwinner, and they will be denied the opportunity to express their ideas and views. By giving them asylum in a place where women and men are treated equally, we give them the opportunity to do whatever they wanted to do before. Besides the security that they will gain, they will be able to go to school or get a job more easily than in their native country. There is no reason for which we don’t want these women to be a part of our European cultural identity. It is shameful to give this opportunity only to your citizens when women from countries that discriminate against them might be able to contribute so much more than they are able to under their circumstances in their native country.

negative: society immigration minorities house believes right asylum should not be absolute The Convention on Refugeehood was written in, and for, a totally different world. Its framers would never have anticipated the ease with which global travel is now possible, allowing huge numbers both legitimate and illegitimate to apply for asylum. Migrants can now move between countries with ease, 'shopping' for the place they see as being softest. If democracies feel these numbers are too great they should always put restricting them ahead of out of date laws.

negative: With regards to a life threatening situation under which women might face severe consequences upon their return, it should be noted that the European Union will not send someone back if it is believed their life is at risk if they are sent back. They will not be forced to leave the country even if asylum is not granted as they will be granted humanitarian protection or discretionary leave to remain which will allow them to remain until the threat is lifted. If the country in question wishes to return the asylum seeker then it will take steps to negotiate with the asylum seeker's country of origin in order to obtain guarantees that the asylum seeker will not be harmed upon their return.  UNHCR, ‘The Facts: Asylum in the UK’, unhcr.org.uk, June 2013,

negative: society immigration minorities house believes right asylum should not be absolute We have a duty to help the persecuted  The principles which underlie the asylum regime are as valid as ever. Millions still face persecution, death and torture globally because of who they are or because of their convictions. Democratic countries still have a moral obligation to offer protection to these people. We all recognise it as a horrendous failing by the countries who turned away Jewish refugees in the early days of Nazism where both the United States and the UK turned away large numbers or refugees, [1] and only the Dominican Republic was willing to take in large numbers. [2] This should never happen again. Developed nations have both the wealth and security to make them the best destinations for those seeking refuge.  [1] Perl, William R., ‘The Holocaust conspiracy: an international policy of genocide’, 1989, pp.37-51  [2] Museum of Jewish Heritage, ‘”A Community Born in Pain and Nurtured in Love” Jews who were given refuge by Dominican Republic’, 8 January 2008.

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

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

negative: Schengen has allowed cooperation in fighting global crime  Criminality has become globalized, particularly in areas such as drugs that have long supply chains. The response to these threats has to involve large numbers of countries as well and Schengen has provided the impetus for such cooperation. The Schengen Information System (SIS) has been a very successful tool for managing and curbing crime and illegal immigration in the Schengen area [1] . Between August and November 2008, in the first months since the introduction of the SIS database in Switzerland, Swiss authorities queried it about 130,000 times a day [2] . Of an average 30 hits a day, the SIS has found 25 people wanted by another European country in connection with serious crimes [3] . About 900 hits have been for people who have been denied entry into the Schengen area, while another 500 hits have been for missing persons [4] . The database produced about 600 hits for stolen property within its first few months in operation [5] . The Schengen members are now working on developing the SIS II system which will make it easier to manage a constantly expanding Schengen area [6] .  In addition, with the creation of a parallel European wide criminal intelligence agency, Europol, information can now be easily exchanged and tracked throughout the different member states, making it easier to catch and keep track of criminals across the Schengen zone [7] . Integration and unity is a better way of dealing with a global threat such as terrorism and trafficking [8] than unilateralism and nationalism. It must also be noted that countries are allowed to re-assume control of their own borders if there is a “grave threat to public order or internal security” [9] .  [1] ‘New functions for the SIS in the fight against terrorism’, Europa, 22 August 2006,   [2] Brooks, Robert, ‘Schengen Information System proves its worth’, Swiss Info, November 15th 2008   [3] ibid  [4] ibid  [5] ibid  [6] Schengen Information System: SIS II, Wikipedia,   [7] Europol Public Information, ‘EU Organised Crime Threat Assessment’, Europol, 28 April 2011,   [8] Norwaygrants, ‘Schengen Co-operation and Combating Cross-border and Organised Crime, including Trafficking and Itinerant Criminal Groups’, European Economic Area, December 2010,   [9] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011,

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

negative: Asylum is the only way to protect women  The European Union is not able to protect women in other countries that are not a part of the union. Countries that have legislation discriminating against women are clearly not listening to European urgings on human rights. They will not respond to these urgings social and cultural traditions are deeply ingrained and only slowly change. Where women are seen as second-tier citizens it is seen as a natural part of the society can barely walk to the corner of the street without the consent of their husband. Moreover, the situation in countries with legislated discrimination against women is not improving, in countries which were previously secular there is increasingly a challenge from Islamism as in Libya and Egypt during the 'Arab Spring'. Moreover the influence of the European Union is declining; it has always been primarily financial, through aid which is declining, and through investment which, at least in the MENA, region has reversed as a result of those same revolutions. By granting asylum we can help them escape a legal system that clearly is against them and replace it with a European Union legal system that grants them those rights they never had.  Kausch, Kristina, 'If Europe is to preserve influence in the Middle East and North Africa, it must move on from technocratic policies towards more flexible cooperation.' LSE European politics and Policy, 21 December 2012,

negative: society immigration minorities house believes right asylum should not be absolute States must be responsible to their own citizens first  There will always be trafficking as long as there aren't open borders. And we should maintain strict controls on both immigration and asylum. States must focus on the needs of their people first, and the reaction of citizens in accepting countries is quite rightly the feeling that their hospitality and good intentions are being abused at the moment. The social harms that these feelings cause - suspicion, xenophobia, racism and disruption of social harmony and tolerance [1] - are too large and too damaging to the actual citizens of states to justify the maintenance of a failing system that may help some few outsiders. The responsibilities of governments to their own citizens must come first.  [1] Lægaard, Sune, ‘Immigration, Social Cohesion, and Naturalisation’, Centre for the Study of Equality and Multiculturalism, p.2

negative: Abolishment of the rule would restore faith in the justice system  When we see people still unpunished for offences in society they've clearly committed, it damages our faith in the justice system. Our bargain with the state entails the state's right to judge the individual because the state protects the individual: if our attackers roam the streets because an arbitrary legal rule exempts them from prosecution despite clear guilt, then that system has broken down. When Jennifer McDermott witnessed her daughter's murderer get convicted at a re-trial, she described it as a 'victory for everyone who feels let down by the justice system.'1 Victims deserve such justice and it is an insult to them, and all of us, to see their persecutors go free. As a Home Office spokesman stated when England overturned the double jeopardy ban, 'it is important the public should have full confidence in the ability of the criminal justice system to deliver justice.'1 Justice is only applicable when the perpetrators remain within the arm of the law; double jeopardy prevents this.  1 BBC News a. (2009, May 21). Cleared man admits killing woman. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from BBC News: 2 BBC News. (2005, April 3). Double jeopardy law ushered out. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from BBC News:

negative: society immigration minorities house believes right asylum should not be absolute The rights of refugees are a cornerstone of international law  Signatories of The 1951 Convention on Refugees have a legal responsibility to offer asylum to any foreign national who has a well-founded fear of persecution, for political, religious, ethnic or social reasons, and who is unwilling to return home. Moreover the refugee is protected against forcible return when his life may be threatened, something which is an obligation even for countries which are not parties to the convention bust respect as it is part of international customary law. [1] This treaty is one of the cornerstones of international human rights law, and as such states should uphold it to the letter.  [1] Jastram, Kate, and Achiron, Marilyn, Refugee Protection: A Guide to International Refugee Law’, P.14.

negative: The response will be to impose more control over the movement of women.  While it is cliché that every action has an equal and opposite reaction in this case the reaction is likely to be bad. If the European Union wants to open up to women from countries that discriminate against women then the clear recourse for those countries is to make sure their women can’t leave. More government and family control will mean more rights will be infringed and leaving the country will be impossible even for tourism. If men are worried about their wives claiming asylum when on holiday why would they give them the opportunity? The state could respond by taking away, or regulating the possibility for women to leave the country. If in the present day, where the EU is not offering asylum, countries in the Middle East and Africa have the certainty that women will come back after their visa expires, this certainty will no longer be in place after we approve the motion. It is in no interest for national governments to lose population and therefore they will act towards infringing this right and many others to keep women at home.

negative: Receiving countries should not and cannot afford to ratify the U.N. Convention because of the burden it would put on their health, education, and welfare systems.  Because immigrants are frequently less well off financially, and they sometimes come to a new country illegally, they cost a lot for receiving countries. Therefore it is not practical for countries to grant them the equal access to health, education, and welfare systems, as they would have to under the U.N. Convention. Immigrants make heavy use of social welfare, and often overload public education systems, while frequently not pulling their weight in taxes. Illegal immigrants alone have already cost the United States “billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services. Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, have been forced to close” because they are required by law to provide free emergency room services to illegal immigrants. In addition, half a billion dollars each year are spent to keep illegal immigrant criminals in American prisons. [1] The money spent to build and maintain schools for immigrant children, and to teach them detracts from the education of current schools, existing students, and taxpayers. This is unfair. Increasing social and economic protections and rights for migrants means increasing migration and increasing benefits that migrants receive from societies. This could be a burden that a state's welfare system is not capable of handling.  [1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, "Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration," accessed June 30, 2011,  .

negative: The EU is responsible for its own citizens and not for those that live in other countries or regions. Its burden is to protect human rights for European citizens and not for the entire world. At the moment, because of the economic crisis and austerity measures imposed, all the EU attention should be focused on delivering basic human rights (in terms of basic necessities such as food, shelter and employment) for people in Greece, Spain, Italy and other countries in distress. The burden lies here because the government of a country serves the people of that country and as a union each country accepts some of the burden for others in that union. Others that are outwith that union are not giving any direct benefits for the European Union and therefore should they not be our focus. Any more egregious violations of human rights in these countries would already be sufficient cause for granting asylum without a further offer presented to women who are discriminated against.  Douglas-Scott, Sionaidh, ‘The European union and Human Rights after the Treaty of Lisbon’, Human Rights Law Review, Vol.11, No.4, 2011,

negative: Failed states are havens for drug-smugglers and terrorists  Failed states also export dangers more widely, as they often provide an opportunity for drug crops such as Opium (Afghanistan) or Coca (parts of Colombia) to be grown, processed and traded without fear of authority, with devastating effects both locally and globally. Desperate people may also take refuge in religious or political extremism, which may in time come to threaten the rest of the world. In so doing, failed states often become havens for terrorists, who can find safety in them to plot against the West, to establish training camps for future terrorists, and to build up finance, weapons and other resources with which to mount campaigns. In what was a key claim that later underpinned the 2002 US National Security Strategy and the U.S. War on Terror, Stephen Walt, a professor of international relations at Harvard University, has described failed states as ‘breeding grounds of instability, mass migration, and murder’. [1] This can be seen in Somalia, where states in recent years have ‘begun to fear al Qaeda will take advantage of the lawlessness’. [2] Other fragile states, such as Niger, Congo and Sierra Leone have radioactive and other valuable minerals which could be very dangerous in the hands of determined terrorists. The USA should work with the UN to strengthen governments so that they can more effectively maintain internal order while controlling their borders and tracking resource-flows.  [1] Rotberg, R. I. (2002, July/August). Failed States in a World of Terror. Retrieved March 16, 2011, from Council on Foreign Relations:   [2] Dickinson, E. (2010, December 14). WikiFailed States. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Foreign Policy:

negative: The Schengen Area eases the free movement of goods and people that the EU strives for  The freedom of movement of goods and people is a fundamental aspect of the European Union [1] , and the Schengen Agreement is a crucial part of making that a reality. This is not just useful in terms of cutting the cost of conducting business across Europe; it also makes it easier to have holidays too. The Schengen Agreement paved the way for the Schengen visa [2] to come into being, which is what actually makes the EU free movement policy a reality; visitors to the 25 countries above now only need one visa to visit all of them. The Schengen visa also gives non-members of the European Union the ability to travel unimpeded through all of the countries that take part in the program. Obtaining the Schengen visa is the same as any visa process: you apply, send in your passport and then receive a stamp in it if you are approved. This process not only saves money – as you do not have to pay and apply for a visa for every country - but it also allows for more freedom of movement even for those who enter the Schengen area under a visa regime. All members of the EU believe that “the free movement of people is one of the Union's key achievements and we have to maintain and safeguard this” [3] .  This is only a single point in favour of the Schengen area, but the freedom of movement clause is the very essence of the EU. Without the Schengen Agreement the most basic tenet of the European Union would cease to be. This far outweighs many of the technical disadvantages.  [1] ‘Free movement of persons, asylum and immigration’, Europa,   [2] ‘The Schengen Agreement: History and Information’, ACS, 2011,   [3] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011,

negative: Receiving countries should not and cannot afford to further protect migrants because they often free ride on health, education, and welfare systems.  Because immigrants are frequently less well off financially, and they sometimes come to a new country illegally, they cost a lot for receiving countries, and so they should not be further protected. Immigrants make heavy use of social welfare, and often overload public education systems, while frequently not pulling their weight in taxes. Illegal immigrants alone have already cost the United States “billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services. Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, have been forced to close” because they are required by law to provide free emergency room services to illegal immigrants. In addition, half a billion dollars each year are spent to keep illegal immigrant criminals in American prisons. [1] The money spent to build and maintain schools for immigrant children, and to teach them, takes away from the education of current schools, existing students, and taxpayers. This is unfair. Increasing social and economic protections and rights for migrants means increasing migration and increasing benefits that migrants receive from societies. This could be a burden that a state's welfare system is not capable of handling.  [1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, "Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration," accessed June 30, 2011,  .

negative: politics general society immigration minorities house would offer increased aid It is just to redistribute migrants  It is an accident of geography, or history, simple bad luck that has resulted in some countries getting large numbers of immigrants while many others get none. The first developed country on migrant routes get large numbers as those wishing to seek asylum have to apply in the first safe country. Similarly those countries next to conflict zones, or places affected by natural disasters, get very large influxes of migrants who hope to return home as soon as possible; there are more than 1.1 million refugees from Syria in Lebanon [1] a country of less than 6million. It is right that there should be a mechanism to help even out the burden of migrants and that rich developed countries should be those who pay that cost.  [1] ‘Syria Regional Refugee Response’, data.unhcr.org,  , accessed 19th August 2015

negative: Protections would benefit the economies of receiving as well as source countries.  Economic protections are not only good for the migrants themselves, but they benefit all countries involved. Migrants move from countries that have a lot of workers but not a lot work available, to countries with a lot of work available, but not enough workers. Migration is a market mechanism, and it is perhaps the most important aspect of globalization.  The growth of the world’s great economies has relied throughout history on the innovation and invention of immigrants. This is particularly the case in the United States, which is famously a nation of immigrants, where the architect of the Apollo program Wernher von Braun immigrated from Germany and Alexander Graham Bell the inventor of the telephone was born in Scotland. More recently immigration has been instrumental in the success of Silicon Valley co-founder of Google Sergey Brin is Russian born while the co-founder of Yahoo Jerry Yang came from Taiwan. [1] The new perspective brought by migrants leads to new breakthroughs, which are some of the most important benefits to receiving countries from migration. The exploitation of migrant workers that exists in the status quo creates tensions and prejudices that hamper this essential creative ability of migrants in the workplace.  Source countries are equally aided by migration. Able workers who would be unemployed in their home land are able to work in a new country, and then send money—“remittances”—back to their families. Migrants sent home $317 billion in remittances in 2009, which is three times the world’s total foreign aid, and in at least seven countries this money accounted for more than a quarter of the gross domestic product. [2] One of the important goals of migrant rights is to protect these remittances, and thus to protect the economies of source countries that require them to survive.  Irene Khan shows that migrant protections are important for everybody involved: "When business exploits irregular migrants, it distorts the economy, creates social tensions, feeds racial prejudice and impedes prospects for regular migration. Protecting the rights of migrant workers -- regular and irregular -- makes good economic and political sense for all countries -- whether source, destination or transit." [3] Both sides are likely to benefit more if migrants are welcomed and allowed to join the formal economy; they will be better able to work, they will pay taxes and national insurance to the host country and they themselves will be more secure so will be able to send more home. This benefit to the source state could be even greater if the benefits from paying national insurance were made portable and continue to be paid when they return.  [1] Marcus Wohlson, ‘Immigration chief seeks to reassure Silicon Valley’, USA Today, 22 February 2012,   [2] Human Rights Watch, "Saudi Arabia/GCC States: Ratify Migrant Rights Treaty," April 10th, 2003 ,  .  [3] Irene Khan, "Invisible people, irregular migrants," The Daily Star, June 7th, 2010 ,  .

negative: There is a very big difference between rewarding people for breaking the law and taking positive action to prevent them being exploited and financially marginalised. The United States’ legal system supposedly exists to protect everyone resident within its borders – not just individuals possessing citizenship. Giving illegal immigrants basic access to very rudimentary things such as the driver’s education does not reward law-breaking or undermine the rule of law. Even if side opposition disagree with granting illegal immigrants any rights, this argument is still defeated by the beneficial consequences of ensuring that a much larger number of drivers have received training on the rules of the road. Under the resolution, America’s highways and cities will generally safer for both pedestrians and other drivers.  On the point of deterrence, there are already very large deterrents to trying to immigrate illegally. The trek is long, dangerous and controlled by violent groups on either side of the border. Bandits and people smugglers engage in robberies and people trafficking on the Mexican side; extremist groups such as the minutemen attempt to assault or shoot immigrants in transit from the American side. Not being able to get a driver’s license once here is not in any way a deterrent that holds any weight when put in context.  Being able to drive is a necessary skill in the US, where under-investment in public transport infrastructure has led to workers developing a dependence on private transport. The weak bargaining position of an immigrant seeking work would be completely undermined if she were unwilling to drive for or to her job. Even the most risk averse migrant labourer accepts that the possibility of being caught driving without a licence is a risk that they have no choice but to take.

negative: local government house would directly elect city mayors Directly elected mayors provide opportunities for populists.  The position of elected mayor is likely to attract populist and maverick candidates, who will seek to capitalise on the unpopularity of party politics with “single issue sloganising, glib promises and headline grabbing” (Ken Walker, Labour leader of Middlesbrough council). [1] A good example is Paul Massey, who has had 25 convictions in the past and yet is running to be Mayor of Salford and could even have a chance of winning. [2] In office such candidates are likely to alienate elected councillors and other crucial local partners, to disappoint voters as their promises run up against the actual limitations of their power, and to neglect many aspects of local government in favour of their own pet issue. This danger is even greater if a far-right candidate were to exploit local concerns about immigration and asylum-seekers to inflame racial tensions. Again Lutfur Rahman of Tower Hamlets is a good example of how this could happen, he has links to a Muslim extremist group, and only needed a mere 23,000 votes, 13% of the electorate because there was such low turnout. [3]  [1] Hetherington, Peter, ‘Vote for US-style mayors exposes deep Labour rifts’, The Guardian, 20 October 2001.  [2] Gilligan, Andrew, ;The town hall dictator taking over near you’, The Telegraph, 22 April 2012.  [3] ibid

negative: Migrants benefit the economy  Migrants, including illegal migrants, are necessary for the economies of rich countries. There are schemes run by these countries that allow the migration of skilled workers for jobs where there is a skills shortage in the native population, for example the United Kingdom takes in a lot of migrants to work as doctors and migrants. However these schemes fail to acknowledge that migrants are also vital for unskilled jobs which native workers are often unwilling to take; for example jobs in catering, picking crops and cleaning. Approximately 6.3 million illegal immigrants are working in the USA, and these are benefiting the economy. [1] The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas says “The pace of recent U.S. economic growth would have been impossible without immigration. Since 1990, immigrants have contributed to job growth in three main ways: They fill an increasing share of jobs overall, they take jobs in labor-scarce regions, and they fill the types of jobs native workers often shun.” [2] Amnesties are necessary to ensure the economy keeps benefiting from these workers.  [1] Goyle, Rajeev, and Jaeger, David A., ‘Deporting the Undocumented: A Cost Assessment’, Center for American Progress, July 2005, p.9.   [2] Orrenius, Pia M., ‘U.S. Immigration and Economic Growth: Putting Policy on Hold’, Southwest Economy, Issue 6, Nov./Dec. 2003,

negative: politics general society immigration minorities house would offer increased aid Migrants will simply return to the countries they have been sent from  Moving migrants to developing countries in return for quantities of aid is simply not a sustainable policy. Migrants fleeing conflict looking for safety may accept any safe country but the migrant problems affecting rich countries are in large part economic migration. These people are looking to get to a developed country to earn more and have better prospects than they could at home so are unlikely to accept a country at a similar (or potentially lower) level of development as a good alternative. They are therefore likely to simply tray again to make their way to a developed country when they can. There have been examples of migrants such as Rachid from Algeria who has tried to get into Europe three times already and is waiting for a ship to try again, [1] it is unclear how this proposal would alter this problem.  [1] Ash, Lucy, ‘Risking death at sea to escape boredom’, BBC News, 20 August 2015,

negative: This policy of asylum pressures governments to reform discriminatory laws  This will help change practices of sexuality-discrimination in nations across the world.  One of the most effective ways to engage the international community on swift action to protect certain rights is to make a clear, bold statement against a particular type of behaviour. By acting to not just condemn a certain behaviour, but actively circumvent states’ ability to carry out such a behaviour, the international community sends a message of the unacceptability of such practices.  Moreover, and more importantly, regardless of if the countries are persuaded into agreeing with the international community on the issues of LGBT rights, this action will still change state behaviour. This will happen for two reasons:  Fear of sanction and condemnation. Most countries in the world are heavily interdependent and specifically dependent on the West. Falling out of popularity with Western countries and their populations is a particularly risky situation for most countries. An action such as this signals seriousness of the international community on the issue of sexual orientation equality and can be used as an influential tool to convince leaders to liberalize sexual orientation laws.  Loss of internal support. One of the biggest losses a leader can have in terms of democratic support and the avoidance of violent unrest is being seen as impotent and weak. When the international community effectively sets up a system of immunity to your country’s laws and is more powerful is protecting people and helping people avoid the laws of your country than you are in implementing them, you lose face and integrity in the eyes of your constituents. This can make leaders look weak and incapable of administering justice and fulfilling the needs of society. Furthermore, it makes leaders seem weak and subservient to the rest of the world, removing perceived legitimacy. This loss of legitimacy and support is a major consideration for state leaders. As such, a declaration of an asylum policy for sexual orientation can persuade leaders into changing their anti-homosexuality laws to avoid asylum being granted to people from their country to save face and continue to look strong and decisive as a leader and avoid the damage such a policy would do to their rhetoric of strong leadership.  The best example of this is that due to strong and vocal condemnation of the Bahati Bill in Uganda which would have imposed the death penalty for the crime of homosexuality, the Cabinet Committee rejected the bill [1] .  Therefore, this policy is instrumental in changing state behaviour towards sexual orientation and making the first steps towards acceptance and ending discrimination.  [1] Muhumuza, Rodney. "Uganda: Cabinet Committee Rejects Bahati Bill." allAfrica.com 08 May 2010.

negative: Those who are being ‘drained’ from the source countries are those who are more highly skilled and so in less need of protections in the first place as these people are leaving to find much more highly skilled and therefore highly paid jobs. The ‘brain drain’ may not be a drain at all, either on the source countries or the receiving country. In fact the ‘brain drain’ might be better considered as a ‘brain gain’. This is because the lure of migration means that individuals are much more likely to increase their education or learn skills with the intention of migrating. This decision to increase their human capital is a decision that would not have been made if the possibility of migration was not present. Of course in the short term much of this gain will migrate abroad as intended some will not and others will return home later. The result is therefore that both the source country and the receiving country have more highly skilled workforces. [1]  [1] Stark, Oded, ‘The New Economics of the Brain Drain’, World Economics, Vol 6, No. 2, April – June 2005, pp.137-140, p.137/8,

negative: The state should never allow mob mentality to govern its policies and specifically should never let prejudice of its people allow the state to let exploitation and abuse of human beings go unaddressed. This resentment and assumption that all Hispanics are illegal immigrants leeching from the state is something that is already a perception that permeates US thought. This policy will at worst marginally increase that sentiment, and even if it does, the state has a duty to ignore blind hate and not let it drive state policy.

negative: EU expansion is good for current members economically.  The current economic crisis within Europe masks its immense success in turning new member states into prosperous economies while also benefiting those who were already members. Between 1999 and 2007 trade between the new and old member states grew from 175 billion Euros to 500 billion, this outweighs the cost of EU financial assistance to the new members which only amounts to between 0.2-0.3% of EU GDP. [1] For example British exports to the 12 new member states were worth £11.6billion in 2009 compared to £4.5billion in 1999 whereas the Dutch government estimates that the benefits of enlargement to each of its inhabitants was 650 Euros. [2]  Admitting new members is also necessary over the long term in order to counter the aging that is occurring in Europe. Every member of the European Union has an aging population and a fertility rate below the replacement rate of 2.1. Encouraging economic growth in countries that are old and getting older is difficult because they are less inclined to take risks and be innovative. [3] This means that Europe needs more young workers; these can be gained either through immigration from the rest of the world or through admitting more vibrant economies into the European Union. Turkey is a good example of the kind of country the EU needs to allow to join; its economy is growing rapidly, even faster than China’s in the first half of 2011, [4] and the median age of the population is still only 25. [5]  [1] ‘Good to know about EU Enlargement’, European Commission – Directorate General for Enlargement, March 2009,   [2] David Lidington, ‘European Union Enlargement: Tulips, Trade and Growth’, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, 9 March 2011,   [3] Megan McArdle, ‘Europe’s Real Crisis’, the Atlantic, April 2012,   [4] Ergin Hava, ‘Robust private sector fives Turkey fastest H1 growth worldwide’, Todays Zaman, 12 September 2011,   [5] Euromonitor International, ‘Turkey’s Population Young and Rapidly Expanding’, 24 January 2012,


query: Directly elected mayors provide opportunities for populists.  The position of elected mayor is likely to attract populist and maverick candidates, who will seek to capitalise on the unpopularity of party politics with “single issue sloganising, glib promises and headline grabbing” (Ken Walker, Labour leader of Middlesbrough council). [1] A good example is Paul Massey, who has had 25 convictions in the past and yet is running to be Mayor of Salford and could even have a chance of winning. [2] In office such candidates are likely to alienate elected councillors and other crucial local partners, to disappoint voters as their promises run up against the actual limitations of their power, and to neglect many aspects of local government in favour of their own pet issue. This danger is even greater if a far-right candidate were to exploit local concerns about immigration and asylum-seekers to inflame racial tensions. Again Lutfur Rahman of Tower Hamlets is a good example of how this could happen, he has links to a Muslim extremist group, and only needed a mere 23,000 votes, 13% of the electorate because there was such low turnout. [3]  [1] Hetherington, Peter, ‘Vote for US-style mayors exposes deep Labour rifts’, The Guardian, 20 October 2001.  [2] Gilligan, Andrew, ;The town hall dictator taking over near you’, The Telegraph, 22 April 2012.  [3] ibid

positive: local government house would directly elect city mayors If the position of Mayor is given powers then it will attract a wide range of candidates, which may include extremists. However these candidates are no more likely to win than they would be in any other election. As with any other election voters are likely to vote for centrist candidates that have strong manifestos and good ideas about how to solve the city’s problems.

negative: local government house would directly elect city mayors Talented individuals with a proven track record are unlikely to seek mayoral office unless local government is given much greater autonomy by central government. With the powers for each city not yet clear many may not be willing to take the risk. The reason for the lack of talent in councils is therefore not because they work as a body rather than one prominent individual but that councils themselves have too little power. Regardless of the system of election, if real power is offered, real leaders will be attracted by the prospect of wielding it and will rise to prominence.

negative: On the contrary having several manifestos used by a coalition actually means that there are many more people who get some of the policies they voted for passed. Under FPTP only a minority has ever voted for the manifesto that wins and gets implemented. If there is a coalition created by PR then more than 50% of the electorate will be getting a large amount of the policies they voted for implemented.  The whole issue of manifesto promises also makes the assumption that parties always stick to them when they get into power. This is not the case even under single party government. Election promises are often not implemented as politicians are simply using them to win an election, they may realise that the policy will not form the basis of a sensible government policy, or be too politically difficult to implement. Creation of a democratically elected House of Lords was in every New Labour manifesto, yet after three terms in power was at best half complete.(Summers, Labour’s attempts to reform the House of Lords)

negative: local government house would directly elect city mayors Coordinating between a few mayors in a region is considerably easier than between hundreds of councillors. The whole point of devolving power is to let local people have more influence and decide for themselves. Neighbouring areas could eventually have referendums to become part of the area controlled by the mayor if it is seen as being necessary just as they would to get a mayor of their own.

negative: Young people would be more likely to misuse their vote  It would be dangerous to give young people the vote. They might use it in foolish ways. For example they will be more likely to make their decision on which party had the best image; so will vote for parties that put up celebrities. They are also more likely to vote for extremists into power or vote without thinking on single issues (e.g. making drugs legal, free university places, cheap beer!). It is notable that in late 1990’s Russia 80% of the Communist party’s members were under 30, and a far right nationalist party, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, has called to lower the voting age to 16. [1] A study from the University of Nijmegen found that younger people are over represented in voters for extreme right wing parties, [2] and the same goes the other way with younger people more likely to support left wing populist measures at the expense of democracy, rights, and freedoms. [3]  [1] ‘Extremists push for young voters’, Times Higher Education, 7 December 1998  [2] Lubbers, Marcel et al., ‘Extreme right-wing voting in Western Europe’, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 41, 2002, pp345-378, p.364  [3] Seligson, Mitchell, A., ‘The Rise of Populism and the Left in Latin America’, Journal of Democracy, Vol.18 No.3, July 2007, pp.81-95, p.91

negative: government voting house would have no elections rather sham elections Elections of any sort force rulers to meet their people  Elections almost anywhere in the world mean politicians getting out and campaigning. Regardless of the legitimacy of the final election the leadership of the country will be going out and meeting voters. In many of these events individuals won’t be able to express their views but there are also likely to be protests and meetings where individuals can get their views across. This provides an opportunity for the leader to stay in touch with the people – often a problem with dictators who have been in power too long.  Dictators will want to, and often believe that they are likely to win even without resort to fraud, as Marcos did in 1985. [1] They are then are much more likely to consider the views of the electorate to still be relevant if there are elections than if there are not. Thus for example Mugabe in the most recent elections made a bid for, and won, the youth vote by promising a direct stake in the economy, [2] so responding to their desire for jobs. [3]  [1] Kline, William E., ‘The Fall of Marcos: A Problem in U.S. Foreign Policymaking’, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, 1992,  p. 10  [2] Agyemang, Roy, ‘Why a Robert Mugabe victory would be good for Zimbabwe’, theguardian.com, 2 August 2013,   [3] AFP, ‘Youth, rural voters may hold key to Zimbabwe election’, Fox News, 27 July 2013,

negative: Open primaries promote engagement with political minorities  A major problem with general elections, specifically in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom and Canada which use Majoritarian Simple Plurality electoral systems, is that only two major parties (e.g. Democrats and Republicans) are in contention for power or in some cases representation, leaving those that have loyalties elsewhere feeling disenfranchised from a political system that does not take into account of their point of view.  Open Primaries counters this by allowing these voters a chance to vote for candidates of a major party that are closer to their own political persuasion, thus giving as many people as possible the opportunity to register their opinion on who will be their representative for the next term, ending disillusionment with predictable election results. This means that third party candidates may become serious candidates in elections when they pass the primary test. [1]  [1] Nielson, Susan, ‘Open Oregon’s primaries’, The Oregonian, 13 October 2008,

negative: First elections are not just a retrospective vote on how the government did, it is also about what political parties want to do. Yes a few elction promises get dropped but the vast majority stick to their promises because they know that not doing so will result in them losing the next election. It is simply not true that representative democracy is oppressive. If people aren’t happy with the way the government is using its power they can vote for a candidate who promises to undo what the previous government has done, or they can even enter politics themselves. The people can always take back powers that they don’t want the government to have by forming and supporting a party or a lobby specifically for that purpose. The reason why this hasn’t happened yet is that most people are happy with the representative system and do not feel like their liberty is being violated.

negative: The incentive for corruption and self-enrichment in office is increased by term limits:  With term limits, a legislator will, after he enters his final permitted term of office, not have to face the electorate again, meaning he can do whatever wants, to an extent. This encourages corruption and self-enrichment on the part of legislators in their final term of office when they do not need to face the people to answer for poor management. There is likewise less incentive to follow through on election promises to supporters, since their withdrawing support can have little tangible impact on a lame duck. A study into term limits in Brazil found that "mayors with re-election incentives are signi?cantly less corrupt than mayors without re-election incentives. In municipalities where mayors are in their ?rst term, the share of stolen resources is, on average, 27 percent lower than in municipalities with second-term mayors."(Ferraz, 2010) Furthermore, lame duck politicians can devote time to buddying up to businesses and organizations in order to get appointments to lucrative board seats after they leave office. This has often been the case in Western democracies, where former parliamentarians, cabinet ministers, senators, etc. find themselves being offered highly profitable positions upon their retirement (Wynne, 2004). Imposing term limits necessarily increases this sort of behavior, as politicians look more toward their retirement during their final years of office, rather than to the interests of the people. 1 Ferraz, Claudio and Finan, Frederico, (2010). "Electoral Accountability and Corruption: Evidence from the Audits of Local Governments" Berkeley, 2 Wynne, Michael. 2004. "Politics, Markets, Health and Democracy". University of Wolongong.

negative: local government house would directly elect city mayors Electing a mayor would not concentrate power too much in the hands of one individual. Although models of local government vary, mayors usually have to pick a cabinet from among the elected councillors and to seek approval for their policies and budget from the whole elected council. A mayor would thus have to persuade and build a consensus in order to govern effectively. This is a more transparent approach to local decision making than the present one, and should therefore be free from the accusations of corruption and nepotism that have been levied at the old system.

negative: The current system is undemocratic as it gives undue influence to the early states  As most primaries only serve to decide the number of delegates who will be bound to vote for a particular candidate at a party’s national convention, a presidential hopeful will be able to ignore contests later in the election cycle if he has already secured a majority of delegates. The staggered nature of primaries under the status quo allows candidates to determine when their lead has become unassailable. As a consequence, candidates will refrain from mounting campaigns in states that poll later in the election cycle. The later a state votes, the less chance it has of influencing the size of a candidate’s majority.  In 2000 and 2004, by the time New York – the third most populous state in the union – voted, both main parties had, in effect, selected their candidate. If that isn’t the perfect example of an undemocratic system, then it would be difficult to think of what might be.  The current system discriminates against lesser known candidates who are already at a disadvantage. The advantage of running all primaries during a single day in February is that it would allow lesser known candidates the time to introduce themselves to the nation. A promising but little known candidate can easily be taken out of contention during the Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina primaries. Running a single primary in February or March would give unknown candidates a full three months to mount their own media campaigns and to build up the press contacts and public profile that established candidates already enjoy. A single primary election would also do a great deal to help with a more even distribution of donations between the candidates.  The primaries effectively function as part of the general election campaign; they are certainly central to selecting the two people from whom the eventual winner will emerge. It is therefore damaging and deceptive to continue to treat them as a purely party-political issue that has no relevance for voters who are not closely involved with the republican and democrat campaign machines.  A final argument concerns the role of political capital and states’ influence over candidates’ activities. Campaigning compels candidates to offer party members and voters in states incentives in return for their endorsement. These may take the form of pledges to address local issues, to provide funding to public projects or to pursue policies at a national level that are beneficial to certain states. However, states that are excluded from the primary process when a candidate secures a majority of delegates will be unable to win promises or concessions from a presidential hopeful. This creates inequalities in the ability of individual states to influence federal policy and governance, reducing the cohesiveness of the union as a whole.

negative: Politicians don’t engage with issues that are important to me  Political parties are not about issues, they are either about ideologies or are purely about trying to triangulate on enough issues so that they can get into power. With relatively few parties able to get representation in the Parliament how can I be sure that my views on issues will be represented. If I want isolationism then who should I vote for in the US election? Both candidates say they want similar policies which are not at all isolationist. [1] Often there is little choice; in the US there are only two real options, the democrats and the republicans, [2] while in the UK all three main parties occupy very similar ground in the centre. [3] The problem is similar if I am interested in multiple issues but no party has a similar portfolio of views.  [1] Helling, Alex, ‘The debate for the rest of the world’, idebate.org, 23 October 2012  [2] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012  [3] Parker, George, and Pickard, Jim, ‘Centre prize: why UK political parties look more and more the same’, Financial Times, 4 March 2008

negative: PR produces fairer results  First past the post (FPTP) often results in a party without majority support being able to dominate parliament. Minority parties, such as the Green party and UKIP (in the UK), which can win 5-10% or so of the vote all over the country, can fail to win a single seat. In the UK 2010 general election, UKIP received 919,546 votes across the country, but not a single seat (BBC News, UK 2010 general election results). Parties with a uniform vote across the country are punished unfairly. Thus in Singapore’s general election of 2011 the National Solidarity Party contested 24 seats and won 39.25% of the valid votes across the wards it contested yet still failed to win any seats.(Wikipedia, Singaporean general election, 2011) Theoretically parties could win huge numbers of votes, potentially up to 49% in every constituency, without ever getting any representation in parliament. As such FPTP favours parties that appeal to local issues or to particular segments of the population these parties that are losing out are likely to be those parties that either appeal to a broad segment of the population or whose support is based upon an issue that affects everyone. Furthermore, in the UK 2010 general election, two thirds of MPs were elected without receiving a majority of the votes in their constituency (Lodge, 2011). This suggests that most people are being represented by people they didn’t vote for.

negative: There are preexisting institutions in Arab countries.  Many middle eastern states already have institutions that are similar to the representative institutions that a stable democracy needs so can easily become the real thing. Arab dictators have grown adept at holding elections, setting up parliaments; constitutional courts etc. as window dressing to show either to their people or to the outside world that they are reforming and are ‘democratic’. No matter how undemocratic these regimes have been the simple existence of these institutions is useful when there is a revolution as they allow some continuity and the possibility of a transition to democracy.  To take Egypt where protests toppled the Mubarak regime as an example. It has a parliament with the Majilis Al-Sha’ab (People’s Assembly) as its lower house and Majilis Al-Shura (Shura Council) as its upper house. In both houses a majority of the members are directly elected. [1] Egypt held elections for its parliament as recently as November 2010, these elections had very poor turnout and blatant ballot rigging while the main opposition the Muslim Brotherhood have to stand as independents. [2] Egypt also has previously had local elections for 52,000 municipal council seats in some 4,500 towns and cities. These elections are just as fraudulent as those for the national parliament. According to Muslim Brotherhood MP Jamdi Hassan “The ruling party used to allow opposition candidates to run and then simply rig the elections. Now, it has adopted a new strategy to ensure its continued domination: preventing the opposition from fielding any candidates at all.” [3] This may not be the best democratic tradition but at least it is a start. Similarly Egypt has a Supreme Constitutional Court that is supposed to be independent. [4]  While these institutions may have ceased working in a democratic way they could quite easily be changed in to being fully democratic. This would create the necessary checks and balances to sustain democracy over the long term. The people are used to elections and will know what to do when they have the option to vote freely, they would vote in a broad range of candidates. Many of them may be islamist but it would be democratic.  [1] Wikipedia, ‘Parliament of Egypt’,  accessed 19/05/2011  [2] Egypt hold parliamentary poll, 28/11/2010, BBC News,   [3] Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa al-Omrani Opposition Squeezed in Local Elections, IPS News, 17/3/08,   [4] The Supreme Constitutional Court, ‘Historical Overview’,

negative: Citizens have a right to know who is being elected to represent them  Beyond the discussion of the balancing of the right to privacy, it is important to understand the nature of representatives as stand-ins for the citizens who elect them. In other words, politicians are surrogates. Their duty is to represent the people in public life across all issues and policies. [1] Yet it is impossible to ascertain the desires of the citizens on all issues in the course of an election campaign. Even harder is to understand political decision-making in a context that had not existed at the time of the election. For example, if a war was to begin suddenly in a country that had not expected any conflict and had not elected representatives on the basis of how they stood on fighting this war. But that is exactly why politicians are elected as much for who they are as what their avowed policy aims are. We elect politicians who we believe will act best under such changing conditions; the ‘3 am phone call’, how a candidate will react in a crisis, is often a major issue in U.S. Presidential elections and temperament is often the only way to judge this. [2] Mitt Romney as candidate in the 2012 election was widely considered to have lost out to Obama on this measure. [3] Understanding the personal lives of politicians allows voters to elect one who best represents them in the sense of being able to act in their place in a changing world. Thus it is critical for the good electoral decision-making that the right to privacy of politicians be infringed.  [1] Hughs, J. “Does the Public Really Have the Right to Know About Politicians’ Private Lives”. University of Phoenix Online. 27 June 2011,   [2] Fallows, James, “Mitt Romney Drops His 3 a.m. Phone Call”, the Atlantic, 12 September 2012,   [3] Drum, Kevin, “Obama Wins the 3 a.m. Phone Call Test”, Mother Jones, 14 October 2012,

negative: The army is not the best institution to run a country  If the country is in trouble is the army the best placed to take over and manage the country better than it has been in the past? This may plausibly be true if the reason democracy is failing is a large scale insurgency or near civil war but in almost every other case it is not the best institution. The army is trained to fight not to govern. The generals who take over top positions are used to running a bureaucracy that has to respond to politicians, not one that has to respond to the people.  Politicians may be corrupt, venal, or unpopular but at the least they are open about what they stand for. They have a manifesto and a clear ideology which if the people don't agree with they wont be voted for. This is not the case with generals; the chances are they have a bureaucratic desire to maintain the power and funding for the military but otherwise there is likely to be little known about their politics.  Finally for those who are being overthrown the electorate has had a chance to investigate their policies, their past, to question their views and catch the candidate out when they are not consistent. The candidate came through an electoral test and media grilling. When there is a coup there is no such chance to determine if the coup leader is the right man for the job.

negative: It would help distinguish between levels of elections  The number of different elections can be confusing; almost everyone has three, European, National, and local, and some have others added in such as Mayoral, or regional elections. As such there is much to be gained from helping to differentiate elections by not being concerned about being allowed to vote for them all at the same age. Having elections for the European Parliament at the age of 16 would clearly distinguish the elections from all the other elections within the country (with the exception of Austria). For the European Union this would be an opportunity to show that it cares for the youth vote and has their issues at heart as it is a chance to get teenagers involved in Europe before they can be involved in their own national elections. For the teenagers it provides a chance to engage with one election, and one electoral system, before all the others helping to keep things simple.

negative: Term limits tend to increase partisanship between political parties and factions:  Term limits on legislators serve to exacerbate partisan tensions between political parties1. This is due to several causes. First, the increased iteration of primary elections, caused by politicians being forced out of office by term limits, in which there tends to be low voter turnout, and higher voter apathy when they happen to regularly. This leads to the selection of more conservative candidates from the right, and more radical candidates from the left. These more opposed groups forming large portions of political parties' representation will lead to more tension in the legislature. Second, newly elected politicians are often more likely to readily take the party whip when they enter the legislature. These results in more disciplined voting, which restricts the ability of moderates on either side to build consensuses on legislation. Third, the ability to build consensus and support from other parties relies on experience and deft political acumen, which are usually garnered through lengthy participation in the legislative process.2 Term limits exclude many skilled politicians from being able to use their expertise in the building of such consensus efforts. Fourth, concerns for their post-legislative career can lead to greater partisanship from retiring legislators. This is due to their need to court appointments to positions at party-affiliated, or party-leaning, think tanks, and on corporate boards favorable to their party. All of these factors lead to a less cooperative legislature when term limits are instituted. 1 Marcus, Andrew. 2010. "Dodd and Other 'Retiring' Democrats Show Why Term Limitsare a Bad Idea". Big Government. 2 Kouser, Thad. 2004. Term Limits and the Dismantling of State Legislative Professionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

negative: europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty Reform treaties are too important to be left to politicians of the day  Decisions that affect the national sovereignty of a country should not just be left to elected politicians who have power for a limited time but should be given to the citizens through direct vote. The nature of the Lisbon Treaty changed the relationship between member states and Brussels; it is clearly a constitutional issue and therefore needs to be ratified by all citizens. The Blair Labour Government held referenda on a whole range of constitutional changes, including not only devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but even on whether individual cities should have directly elected mayors

negative: The party leadership has the experience and expertise of actually winning elections, they provide a useful buffer against activists – usually from the party’s extremes  It is a standing joke in both parties that to win the nomination candidates need to run to the extreme and then, to win the election, run back to the middle. The very fact that this disparity exists suggests that having a stop button of people who have actually won some elections because, by definition, they have an understanding of the electorate might not be a bad idea.  In essence the superdelegates act as what in parliamentary terms as a reviewing chamber, rarely used but useful in a crisis. [i]  [i] Thurow, Glen E., "The 1984 Democratic Primary Election: Issues and Image," in Peter W. Schramm and Dennis J. Mahoney, eds. The 1984 Election and the Future of American Politics (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press), 1987

negative: A referendum will create a better political climate.  The general public will be appeased: 75% of voters want the vote held.1 MPs will fulfil their duty to represent constituent interests by calling the referendum. A contented electorate will be more supportive of government and feel included in political life. Not only individuals but also parties will be appeased: the far left and right each feel strongly about this issue. Euroskeptic parties like UKIP and the BNP have agitated for an in-or-out vote for years, and disguise racism and anti-immigrant sentiment as Euroskepticism in the process. A vote either way would settle the issue and make it harder for them to disguise antisocial aspects of their platforms. Pro-Europeans like the Lib Dems also want the referendum: leader Nick Clegg said that "nothing will do more damage to the pro-European movement than giving room to the suspicion that we have something to hide"2 by not holding one. Both sides of the political spectrum wants this issue definitively settled. Once it has been, politicians will be able to redirect focus and work on crucial issues like the economy.  1 LITOBARSKI, JOE. February 18, 2011. "In or out? Labour shouldn't fear a referendum on Europe." The Guardian. accessed June 15, 2011.  2 CLEGG, NICK. October 15, 2003. "We need an EU referendum." The Guardian.accessed June 14, 2011.

negative: It is fashionable to exaggerate the pervasiveness of the “negative campaign environment”, but democracy still functions perfectly well in almost all liberal states. People still vote when their vote will matter the most. Voter turnout in the 2008 [i] American presidential election and in the 2010 UK general election [ii] was significantly higher than in previous years. Both of these elections took place against the backdrop of a rapidly evolving financial crisis. Both elections focussed on candidates promoting a wide range of new and radical ideas. Both elections produced a preponderance of attack adverts that focussed on the content of policies, ideologies and the reliability of evidence showing the candidates’ previous policy success. With one or two over-reported exceptions, the politics of the personal was largely absent in both the US and the UK.  Moreover, liberal-democratic ideals promote openness and transparency within both the government and the political class. Voters are entitled to information on a candidate’s “down-side”; the opponents of a candidate are obviously well placed to voice such concerns. Journalists risk accusations of bias if they attempt to publish details of an individual politician’s failings in office. However, when these issues are raised by an opponent of that politician, the press is placed in a position that allows it to act as a disinterested assessor of that claim. Far from simply reproducing negative messages, as side proposition claim that they do, the mass media frequently conduct detailed investigations into the content of attack adverts. “Ad watch” reports of this type are now a common feature of US election coverage [iii] . The interrelationship of politicians and the press enhances the transparency of the campaigning process.  Proposition have unrealistic expectations when it comes to assessing the efficacy of campaign adverts. It is true that an attack advert will not be able to convert a supporter of its target into a supporter of the attacking politician. However, this is equally true of positive campaign adverts. The transfer of political loyalties will always be a long, drawn out process that on-spec campaigning cannot hope to influence [iv] .  The resolution would compromise the efficiency of political campaigning by obliging candidates to over emphasise the role of ideology and policy in campaign literature, rather than their qualities as a decision maker.  Moreover, the resolution would encourage politicians to “over-promise” in manifestos and campaign literature. If the only means by which contenders in an election can distinguish themselves is by pledging to initiate more new policies, taxes, tax cuts, projects or consultations than their opponents, the workloads of successful candidates will become artificially inflated and unmanageable.  In short, politicians running for office will be incentivised to create ever more outlandish manifesto pledges and policy initiatives. Due to term-limits, organisational inefficiencies and unpredictable, emergent problems, very few of these promises will be realised. The consequence of this situation is obvious. When politicians fail to keep their promises, citizens will lose confidence in the effectiveness of the state.  There is greater utility in encouraging politicians to be cautious and conservative when campaigning. If an election is dominated by fantastical and elaborate schemes that are left unfulfilled, the likely result will be chronic apathy and disengagement among the electorate – precisely the outcome that proposition wish to avoid.  [i] Voter turnout in presidential elections: 1828-2008, The American Presidency Project,   [ii] The Electoral Commission,   [iii] Winning, but losing. How negative campaigns shrink electorate, manipulate news media. Ansolabhere, S. Iyengar, S. Stamford University.   [iv] Effectiveness of negative political advertising. Won Ho Chang and others. 1998. Ohio University, Scripps School of Journalism.

negative: Negative campaigning leads to negative governance.  Information on demographics, on taxation rates, on the state’s finances are made publically available precisely so that voters can arrive at reasoned, rational and nuanced decisions as to whom they should vote for. Governments are judged by evidence of the efficacy of their policies.  Analysis conducted by political scientists William Riker, Michael Davis and Michael Ferrantino [i] show that where negative campaigning is permitted, even politicians with no history of running attack campaigns will adopt aggressive electoral tactics. If a politician wins on a positive platform- by promising to implement new policies and reform existing ones- then his chances of re-election will be affected by his success or failure in bringing about those changes. The electorate are able to test and assess a politician’s positive claims. However, if a politician campaigns on a negative platform, portraying his opponent as incompetent or his policies as damaging, an electoral victory will make such claims unassailable. The attacking politician will be free to state that his election has prevented the dire consequences he warned from coming about. Non one will be able to prove otherwise, notwithstanding the spluttering of his defeated opponent.  By portraying opponents as reckless or dangerously radical, an attacking politician immediately sets himself up as the lesser of two evils. This may do little to convert undecided voters, but it still allows the successful candidate to take credit for “protecting” the electorate. Although this strategy may be the easiest to implement, it does not fit with the ideal of critical and ideological transparency that characterises contemporary liberal states.  The increasing amount of information produced by governments, think tanks, universities and political parties is intended to make the state- and the electorate- more responsive to the success and failure of particular policies. By closing the gap between the proposal of a policy, its implementation and the indicators of its success, information-led democracy supposedly makes governance and democratic choice more efficient. Negative campaigning circumvents this feedback system. It distorts ideas, by misrepresenting them and rendering them unacceptable, before any objective assessment of their merits has taken place.  Moreover, negative portrayals of candidates and policies, as noted above, are more likely to dominate media coverage, than the sober, balanced information produced by academics and analysts. This line of argument also leads to equally damaging distortion of the attacking candidate’s platform and proposals. By diverting resources to negative campaigning and attack adverts, candidates have less time and money to expend on the creation of positive policies. Indeed, the fewer testable claims that a candidate makes about his own policies, the less likely he is to be subject to effective criticism by opponents or the electorate if he takes up office.  Negative campaigning incentivises a distant, evasive, conservative approach to government. It creates an adversarial relationship between politicians and those wishing to gather and disseminate information about the effects of policies – academics, political analysts and engaged citizens.  [i] The Rational Attacker in Russia? Negative Campaigning in Russian Presidential Elections. Sigelman, L and Shiraev, E. New York University, April 2001.

negative: Term limits create more competitive elections for public office that empower new leaders and ideas:  Incumbency provides a huge election advantage. Politicians almost always win reelection. The frequency with which they win varies over time and between states, but incumbency is always a powerful advantage. This is seen most visibly in the United States Congress of the past 30 years, in which it has become virtually impossible to unseat an incumbent legislator. Legislators are reelected because they have better name recognition both with the electorate and with lobby groups. People have a tendency to vote for whom they recognize, and firms tend to support past winners who will likely continue to benefit their interests. Term limits actually increase voter choice by making elections more competitive and encouraging more candidates to run. In areas where term limits have been instituted there is far higher turnover amongst legislators, giving voters far more choice in who should represent them. In California, the institution of term limits on state legislators caused a rush of retirements, which led to 50 percent more candidates than would otherwise have been expected, as well as a marked increase in the diversity of the backgrounds of those elected [1] . Ultimately, old legislators using election machines to retain power do their country and constituents a disservice. Power is best used when it changes hands over time in order to allow for dynamic new solutions to be mooted in a changing world.  [1] Bandow, Doug. 1995. "Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever". Cato Institute Policy Analysis.

negative: First how democratic the governance of the city is does not detract from the right of the city government to restrict the size of soda drinks. The system of government has not been changed in order enact this particular regulation. Second it must be remembered that Mayor Bloomberg himself was elected. He was elected to a third term with 51% of the vote compared to 46% for his Democratic rival. [1] To be elected for a third time in a Democrat stronghold gives him a good deal of electoral legitimacy.  [1] Goldman, Henry, ‘Bloomberg Wins Third NYC Mayor Term Beats Comptroller Thompson’, Bloomberg, 4 November 2009.

negative: A national primary would disenfranchise large portions of the country, as candidates would be forced to court the support of only the most populous states as they currently do in the general election. At least with the primary system as it stands, candidates have to pay attention to all of the states and all sections within the party.  Staggered primaries create a relationship of interdependence between the nomination campaigns that are run in various states. A poor showing in one state can undermine a candidate’s attempts to make gains in the following state. American political culture is much more fragmentary and heterogonous than European conceptions of the Union might lead us to believe. Each state is sufficiently large that what may seem to be a parochial “local” issue within the context of the entire Union may be of vital importance to a particular state’s voters. The protection and promotion of the politically and cultural plural nature of the states of the Union is a key aspect of the American democratic ideal. It is appropriate, therefore, that blunders in one state’s primary campaign should be open to analysis by the citizens of other states. If a president does not have a commanding understanding of the issues affecting one state, he may be unable to make effective decisions on the rights and affairs of other states.  It is also worth noting that a single national primary would also be likely to disenfranchise those who do not closely and continuously involve themselves in the political process. Staggered primaries lead major national news services to focus on the local-level issues that may affect turnout and voting in individual states. Staggered primaries allows for reflection on these regional issues. Coverage of this type brings local controversies onto the national stage and fosters cohesion and understanding between the constituent states of one of the largest federal republics in the world. However, a one off election would just deliver national totals and even where this is broken down on a state-by-state basis, there will be much less of an understanding of why certain states supported certain candidates. Only political obsessives will are likely to expend time and effort contextualising and understanding this data; the majority of the population will be less informed than under the status quo.

negative: Representative Democracy Prevents Domination by Special Interests  Governments often have to pass decisions which anger small, well-organised special interest groups – like teachers unions – but are in the long-term interest of the country. Under representative democracy, the government can simply make the decisions it has to, and resist the political pressure these groups put on them. But under more direct forms of participatory democracy, the special interest groups can organise their members to campaign and vote against proposals which are good for the country but against their private interests. The reason why they are likely to be successful is that most voters won’t have the technical knowledge to recognise the importance of the proposal (curbing unaffordable public sector pensions, for example), they may be uninterested if they do not see how it directly affects them, and will probably be exhausted and bored of referendums if they are held very regularly – an effect observed in Switzerland called “election fatigue”. [1] As a result, turnout amongst regular voters is likely to be low, but the unions or interest groups will be well organised and will be active in campaigning and voting, since they know that they are fighting for their interests. The effect of this will be to enable organised interest groups to dictate policy on issues where they have a major conflict of interest. An example of this is a Californian initiative in 1990 to raise billions of dollars on the bond markets to invest in railways. The initiative was passed after a campaign funded by railway companies. [2]  [1] Buhlmann, M. et al. (2006) “National Elections in Switzerland: an Introduction” Swiss Political Science Review, 12(4) 1-12   [2] The Economist (17 December 2009) “The tyranny of the majority”

negative: Open primaries promote moderate, non-partisan politics  By creating a situation whereby all voters have a potential say in selecting candidates, it can prevent overweening control by party grass roots who may vote for overtly ideological candidates who turn off the moderate voters needed to win elections.  An Open Primary is more likely to choose more centrist candidates for the general election, providing a degree of moderation to the process of election and politics in general. This in turn can help foster a consensual atmosphere in political discourse with general agreed points, focusing the debate on more core issues between the main parties. [1]  This then means that much more is likely to get done. At the moment American politics is plagued by gridlock both in the states and in Congress. Individuals elected under open primaries are much more likely to be willing to compromise across the aisle. [2] As a result government will begin moving again.  [1] ‘Editorial: California should switch to open primary elections’, The Stanford Daily, 12 May 2010,   [2] Michael Alvarez, R., and Sinclair, Betsy, ‘Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: The Effects of Primary Processes’, P.2

negative: Earlier voting is not a solution to the low turnout problem, the electoral commission in the UK concluded .here is evidence to suggest that extending the franchise will actually create lower turnout and projections about if it would get higher cannot be sufficiently determined [1] At the moment 18-25 year olds are the least likely to cast a vote at election time. Youth membership of political parties is falling. Lowering the voting age still further is therefore likely to reduce turnout even more. Most people don’t vote because they think the election system is unfair, their vote does not count, or because they don’t trust any of the political parties on offer - lowering the voting age won’t solve these problems. Instead with a generation that is increasingly online, to take the UK 21 million households (80%) had internet access in 2012 [2] , and there are over 6.4 million iPhone users, [3] the answer is therefore to engage them digitally not through trying some magic bullet at the ballot box.  [1] The Electoral Commission, ‘Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission’, 19 April 2004  [2] Office for national statistics, ‘Statistical bulletin: Internet Access – Households and Individuals, 2012’, 24 August 2012  [3] NMA Staff, ‘UK iPhone users to reach 6.4m this year’, New media age, 6 August 2010

negative: Political will to affect change in areas riddled with violent crime is not generated by media reporting on the violence. Rather, the way the media reports, prioritizing the sensational, blood and guts, aspects of crimes, results in frightened voters clamoring for something to be done. This usually just results in more policing and more draconian sentencing laws. Neither of which solve the underlying problems of poverty and poor provision of essential state services. Rather, they serve merely as stand-ins for real action, resulting in no efforts to genuinely reclaim troubled communities. By excluding media reporting on the most visceral goings on in these areas, namely violent crimes, politicians and the people affected can enter into rational dialogue that is not perverted by media sensationalism.

negative: The current system is hugely expensive; a national primary would control the scale of spending in campaigns  Immense pressure is placed on candidates to win in the early primaries and then to deliver repeat performances across “key” states. Each stage of the process is effectively a national campaign and has to be treated- and funded - as such. Even though votes in primaries are limited to the citizens of individual states, or the members of state parties, the media can communicate a poor showing in the polls or a blunder in a debate to the entire nation. The overall cost of running campaign adverts, researching a candidate’s position on a huge range of local issues and organising rallies, debates and press briefings can quickly become astronomical– hence the need to establish as decisive lead as early as possible.  A single national primary would both reduce costs and provide for a clearer result. Moreover, a single national primary would compel candidates to mount campaigns based around positive policy statements and direct involvement in issues local to states. The role of attack campaigning- aimed at undermining opponents with an early lead- would be de-emphasised. To give these practical benefits some context we should consider the 2008 campaign for the democratic party nomination. By the end of primary season, Obama and Clinton between them had raised nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. Obama won on paper, but the campaign had been dominated by the differing perspectives of two figures who would go on to be President and Secretary of State. It can hardly be in the interest of party of national unity to know that the Secretary of State thinks the President lacks the experience to receive a late night phone call concerning an international crisis.

negative: Our political situation is not as dire as this point makes it seem; it is easy to manipulate statistics between voting and reality televisions by discounting the fact that many people who vote in television shows vote multiple times – often as many as ten [1] . Young people are not completely detached from the political or the non-electronic world. Many are passionate about politics and exercising their right to vote [2] . Low voter turnout is a general trend across the nation, and if young people are failing to vote then this too reflects disillusionment with government. For example, many young people who voted for the Liberal Democrats in the UK recently were shocked when he expressly went against his promise to prevent tuition fee rises [3] . Political disillusionment among young people is also a problem in the USA [4] and Europe [5] . It is the state of politics itself, rather than the literal process of voting, which deters people from full political participation.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11  [4]  , accessed 24/08/11  [5]  , accessed 24/08/11

negative: y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting It will cause more people to become interested in politics  Compulsory voting increases the number of people who cast their vote 1. People who know they will have to vote will take politics more seriously and start to take a more active role. Compulsory voting will potentially encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. This may force candidates to be more open and transparent about their positions on many complex and controversial issues. Citizens will be willing to inform themselves even about unpopular policies and burning issues that need to be tackled. Better-informed voters will, therefore, oppose a plan that is unrealistic or would present an unnecessary budget-drain. This means that such a system could produce better political decisions that are not contradicting each other, quite upon the contrary.  1 Peter Tucker, The median Australian voter and the values that influence their vote choice presented by the author at the 3rd European Consortium for Political Research Conference in Budapest, September 10, 2005.