Negative impacts of refugees?

[wigsa]

I'm doing a debate Monday night as part of a regional competition.I'm OPPOSING the motion that affluent nations should accept more refugees.While researching,the only arguments I can find against the motion are fascist ones and tend to come from stormfront.

I'm just wondering if there's any left wing arguments to oppose refugees.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[F9]

You are not a leftist, so fuck off!
There arent any left wing arguments you moron, this are facists arguments!!

[BobKKKindle$]

It might be possible to argue that accepting refugees allowed affluent states to avoid their moral obligation to solve humanitarian crises when they occur, and so by not accepting more refugees or even lowering the number of refugees these states currently accept, they will face greater pressure to acknowledge their role in causing these crises and consequently will have to do more to solve them. In general, however, you want to avoid trying to limit yourself to arguments which are consistent with your own political viewpoint in debates - part of being a good debater is knowing how to argue in favour of positions you don't agree with, and during my time as a debater I've frequently had to argue downright reactionary positions such as supporting detention without trial, banning abortion except in cases on medical emergency, and so on. As opposition, if you want to win this debate, then you should try argue that affluent countries do not have an obligation to accept refugees when their own citizens are still in need of help and will become more needy as the economic crisis becomes more serious.


You are not a leftist, so fuck off!
There arent any left wing arguments you moron, this are facists arguments!!

What's wrong with you? You may not think that this user is a leftist, but there's no need to use foul language when he's asking for help. And, in case you don't know, you generally don't get to pick the motion or your side in a debate - you have to accept what you're given. However, we shouldn't expect any more than shocking ignorance from you.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Footprints on my lawn.

[F9]

Yeah right, you just go and start a debate on something you dont support...Thats plain crazy!:rolleyes:
However i apologize for being "attacking" and flaming to a member in learning forum, i am a little upset, however i should control my "nerves", sorry for flaming, but my opinion on if this is a leftist position is still there!

Fuserg9:star:

[BobKKKindle$]

Yeah right, you just go and start a debate on something you dont support...Thats plain crazy

It's not "crazy" whatsoever. The OP is asking for advice on how to debate this position from a left-wing position because he has entered a debating tournament, and as I mentioned in my last post, when you do competitive debating you generally don't get to pick the motion (i.e. the topic for debate) or the side - which means that you sometimes have to argue something you are strongly opposed to. This is a positive experience because it allows you to think about how you would defend your own beliefs against hostile arguments and can even cause you to change your views. Evidently the OP wants to see if he can make a strong case and still remain consistent with his politics. I have debated for my country several times and have also been doing competitive debating since I started university and some of my most enjoyable debates have involved me having to argue positions I would be strongly against in any other context - for example, in my most recent international competition, I had to argue in favour of providing relief to failing banks.

[DesertShark]

Also, in any situation of debate its good to know multiple sides/views because it allows you to defend your position better. It allows you to avoid 'straw people' arguments and prepares you for any attacks you might face on your own positions/ideas/beliefs/etc. Even if its an ideal you disagree with (like capitalism), you should be able to defend it (think keep your friends close and your enemies closer); the more you understand the other side the easier it is to tear down because you can attack many facets of it (divide and conquer) :reda:. Think about this, how could you know fascism sucks if you don't know what it is?


I'm doing a debate Monday night as part of a regional competition.I'm OPPOSING the motion that affluent nations should accept more refugees.While researching,the only arguments I can find against the motion are fascist ones and tend to come from stormfront.

I'm just wondering if there's any left wing arguments to oppose refugees.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I don't think this is a leftist argument, but one that seems relatively less fascist: It could be a drag on already overextended resources, which could cause a decrease in met needs for those members of society who are actively contributing. I know this is part of the reasoning behind the Thai government not giving health care to Burmese refugees (the overextended part anyway). However, if by "affluent" they mean nations that have an abundance of resources, it seems incredibly be hard to come up with a reason not to help (good luck!).