Mar 23, 2019
In NSDA Novice
For Vivian and Jasmine's team We stand PRO on the resolution resolved: On balance, refugee restrictions in developed countries are permissible. [Definitions] According to Wellman, a professor at Washington University, refugees are generally understood as individuals who must leave their home country due to war or persecution. According to the Marriam Webster’s Dictionary , “Restrictions” means to hold something within limits or bounds. In this case, it means the control over the number and quality of the refugees entering borders. According to the University of Belgrade, “permissible” means Tolerable. In practice, what is morally permissible is what is in a way morally indifferent, and it is the subject of legitimate freedom. Tolerance is possible only when I tolerate something with which I disagree, something that is unpleasant, odious and repulsive. [Framework] If the PRO can prove that refugees may cause danger and sovereignty can protect state’s natives, and show bountiful evidences while reasoning every piece logically, then the PRO will win this round. Contention 1: National sovereignty The definition of National sovereignty is one country/state’s power to handle internal affairs without any external interference. According to ARDD LEGAL AID, Because refugee status is contingent upon border-crossing, this legal definition strips other forced migrants – such as people displaced by intra-national conflicts – of the protections and resources afforded to refugees. Some scholars have warned against broadening the definition, because the stipulation that refugees must cross state borders is the legal caveat that allows the international community to aid refugees without infringing on national sovereignty. According to Amit Singh, a human security and social justice expert, in 2016, Jurisdictional sovereignty allows the States to pass immigration laws; and, it has been considered an essential sovereign act of the State. Since development of the modern states from the fifteen century onwards, governments have regarded control over their borders as core of the sovereignty. An essential characteristic of sovereignty is the State’s prerogative to regulate the stay and entry of people within their country border. Many countries put various kinds of limitations on non-citizens regarding their stay and entry in their territory. So since the refugees cannot violate against the national sovereignty, we can use the authority to limit the amount and types of refugees. Sovereignty is a very important system that in which protects the states’ natives, provides insurance for what kind of people comes into the country, and helps the country to maintain independence and stability. Contention 2: Cultural tention According to STARTTS, an organization aimed to provide psychological treatments to refugees, Muslim refugees comprise over 70% of the current world's refugees, with a growing number resettling or seeking asylum in western countries, where developed countries cluster. They can well exemplify the refugees group. The Europeans now show increasing Islamophobia towards the Muslims coming from Islamic states. According to the most recent annual European Islamophobia report in 2017, Europe’s average public opposition to further migration from predominantly Muslim states is 55 percent, ranging from 41 percent in Spain to 71 in Poland. All of these are caused by the relatively loose or even no regulations over refugees. If we let refugees to freely come in and out in developed countries, the contradiction between western culture and Muslims will only be intensified. Less refugee restriction means most of them resettles in developed countries. The European stereotype of Islam coming from violent extremism such as 9/11 and ISIS plus an influx of refugees who shared their living resources will intensified the sense of insecure, xenophobia and bias towards Islam. The cultural tension can lead to social instability and chaos including stabbing, arson, melee attack, shooting in those developed countries which is both detrimental to local citizens and newly settled refugees. Q: Why a growing number in western countries? [According to the Pew Research Center, the percentage of Muslims fleeing conflicts in Syria and other predominately Islamic countries in Europe increased from 19.5 million (3.8% of the over-all population ) in 2010 to 25,8 million (4.9%) in the middle of 2016]Contention 3 National Security Interest Terrorism is a threat to national security, but it is limited by border restrictions. According to the Fox news, At least 61 people who came to the United States as refugees engaged in terrorist activities between 2002 and 2016, according to a report from the Supreme Court’s reinstatement of much of President Trump’s travel ban. The report says “There is no universal right to migrate, resettlement is not the solution to mass displacement, and U.S. policymakers have a responsibility to ensure that the United States takes in only as many refugees as it can safely vet and assimilate.” Accepting refugees increases the risk of terrorist attack. According to Robin Simcox at the Heritage Foundation, in November 2015, an ISIS cell killed 130 people in coordinated attacks across Paris. They used migrant routes to travel back and forth between Syria and Europe. The potential security risk that bogus asylum seekers pose in Europe was brought into focus with more urgency than ever. It proved simple for these ISIS members to conceal themselves among genuine refugees. Being deprived of the rights to have control over refugees coming into their borders, countries are forced to open their gates to terrorism, which would threat their citizens’ security and cause them to lose confidence to the current government. Another famous example for this is the traumatizing 9/11 attack, with a total of 2,977 people killed in New York City, a scar to Americans even till now. Therefore, it is permissible for a developed country to ensure its country and citizens’ security by border restrictions. For these reasons, we urge a PRO ballot.