Argument: Amnesties are the only long term solution

Amnesty is the only way to deal with the fundamental problem behind immigration; the developed world much richer and has more jobs available than the developing world. For example the USA has a per capita GDP of $48,100 [1] by comparison Mexico’s is only $15,100 [2] using PPP the gap with the Central American countries to the south of Mexico is even starker with Guatemalan GDP/capita at $5,000. [3] Not surprisingly the USA far outstrips the Central American countries in the Human development index; the US is 4th, Mexico 57th and Guatemala 131st. [4] So long as there is such diversity of income and opportunity immigrants will keep coming, and this will continue no matter what the state that is receiving migrants does in an attempt to deter them.

Amnesties will help allow labour to get to where it is needed, through NAFTA the US is integrating North America but it is specifically excluding labour from this integration while tightening border controls at the Mexican border. Amnesties would help to counter-act the problems caused by leaving labour as the resource that is not allowed to cross borders and so provide benefits to both the host economy and the country of origin for the migrants. This is because the migrants will send back remittances that will help to develop their home nation and they themselves may well return after developing new skills that can then be put to use at home.

[1] The World Factbook, ‘United States’, Central Intelligence Agency, 15 February 2012, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

[2] The World Factbook, ‘Mexico’, Central Intelligence Agency, 21 February 2012, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html

[3] The World Factbook, ‘Guatemala’, Central Intelligence Agency, 21 February 2012, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gt.html

[4] United Nations Development Programme, ‘Human Development Index’, 2011, http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

Candidate 1: "Far from being necessary immigrants are a drain on the economy. The vast majority of immigrants have few skills. These low skill migrants pay few taxes and take a lot of government benefits. For example in the United States each immigrant without a high school diploma costs the US taxpayers $89,000 over their lifetime. Since there are six million illegals without a high school diploma living in the US this adds up to half a trillion dollars. This increases further if they are given an amnesty so are able to claim citizenship and more money and the costs spiral yet further when the cost of educating their children is included with the possible cost rising to $2 trillion. [1] Some migrants may be necessary as a country ages, but the state should pick the migrants it wants - if a state wants migrants with skills to work in care homes it should let in those who have those skills or are applying to colleges to learn the relevant skills rather than granting an amnesty to those who are already here regardless of their worth to the economy.

[1] Rector, Robert, ‘Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the United States: A Book of Charts’, The Heritage Foundation, 25th October 2006, http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/sr9.cfm#_ftn3"
Candidate 2: "Amnesties are unpopular; governments need to get tougher if they want to be reelected.

Amnesties are unpopular, in the UK for example 65% of the population wants tougher immigration laws, [1] and so most governments are unlikely to resort to them except as a last resort. Instead of granting an amnesty governments need to get tougher on illegal immigrants in order to find, deport and deter them. This would be a much more popular policy and could be achieved using better monitoring and communications between departments. For example in the United States the Inland Revenue Service knows where millions of illegals live and are employed as they know 600,000 people work under the Social Security number 000-00-0000, presumably many more were used different made up numbers. [2] This would therefore not only catch illegal immigrants but would help end misuse of Social Security and IRS identification numbers. There are also other tactics that can make illegal immigration more difficult and less likely to pay such as preventing illegal immigrants from obtaining drivers licences or, as in Tennessee, employers that knowingly employ illegal immigrants can have their business licence suspended. [3]

[1] Standford, Daniel, ‘Illegal immigration: Is an amnesty the answer’, BBC News, 19 April 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/...

[2] Sensenbrenner, James F., et al., ‘Social Security Better Coordination among Federal Agencies Could Reduce Unidentified Earnings Reports’, United States Government Accountability Office, February 2005, p.3. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05154.pdf

[3] Department of Labor and Workforce Development, ‘Illegal Alien Employment Act Frequently Asked Questions’, Tn.gov, http://www.tn.gov/labor-wfd/faq_illegal_alien.htm"
Candidate 3: "An amnesty will not solve this problem either; all it will do is move poor people from one country to another. Those granted an amnesty might be slightly higher paid than they would be if they had stayed at home but without skills they will remain at the bottom of the pile while having to adapt to a new nation. Instead what is needed is economic growth in the poorer countries that are the origin of the migrants. This is something the rich world can encourage through numerous different methods. For example the USA allowed Mexico to join the North American Free Trade Agreement and so the US is Mexico's biggest export partner with 80% of Mexican exports being to America. Secondly rich countries can provide investment and the skills necessary to develop industries in these developing countries. For example Mexico has "structural inefficiencies" in its farming industry, [1] something which the United States as the world's most efficient agricultural producer could help with.

[1] Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, ‘Background Note: Mexico’, U.S. Department of State, 16 November 2011, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35749.htm"
Candidate 4: "There are thousands of citizens who have been made unemployed during the economic crisis of the last few years who would be happy to have a paying job again. In 2010 unemployment across the OECD ranged from 3.7% of the labour force in Norway to 20.2% in Spain with an OECD average of 8.5%. [1] These unemployed could fill the jobs left by migrants in no time at all, as a result migrants do not benefit the economy rather provide drag to it as they mean that some natives who would otherwise be in employment are unemployed.

[1] Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, ‘How do OECD labour markets perform?’, OECD Employment Outlook, 27 September 2011, http://www.oecd.org/document/22/0,3746,en_2649_33927_43221014_1_1_1_1,00..."
Candidate 5: "An amnesty would encourage rather than reduce immigration

An amnesty would simply mean more immigration resulting in new illegal immigrants. First, it would quickly become known that a country is offering an amnesty resulting in a rush to gain entry in time. An increase would continue even after the amnesty because migrants would believe that country would be more likely to grant another amnesty in the future.

Second, Once there is an amnesty those who have been granted amnesty and are able to work legally so have gained a measure of security will bring family to live with them.

This is exactly what has occurred with previous amnesties. After the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act in the United States which 2.7 million immigrants took advantage of to become legal residents the number of illegal immigrants arriving in the USA rose to 800,000 before falling back down to a more normal level of 500,000 per year. [1] Spain has granted numerous amnesties since 1985 as a response to increasing immigration, particularly from South America. There has as a result been an ever increasing number of applications for these amnesties from 43,815 in 1985 to 350,000 in 2001. [2] A general amnesty in 2005 that had 700,000 applicants. [3] If the result is simply increased immigration an amnesty will have achieved nothing except pushing up immigration; there will still be illegal immigrants, there will be more anger against them, and ultimately there will need to be more deportations or another amnesty.

[1] Camarota, Steven A, ‘New INS Report: 1986 Amnesty Increased Illegal Immigration’, Center for Immigration Studies, 12th October 2000, http://www.cis.org/articles/2000/ins1986amnesty.html

[2] Maas, Willem. "The Politics of Immigration, Employment, and Amnesty in Spain" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Town &amp; Country Resort and Convention Center, San Diego, California, USA, Mar 22, 2006. http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/9/6/1/pages99612/p99612-1.php pp.10, 14

[3] Tremlett, Giles, ‘Spain grants amnesty to 700,000 migrants’, The Guardian, 9th May 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/09/spain.gilestremlett"
Candidate 6: "An amnesty rewards law breakers

An amnesty by its very definition is letting someone who has engaged in an illegal act off the hook. It is letting criminal activity pay. It is also an admission of government defeat; other options have failed and there are still lawbreakers who are not being deported as they should be so there is a need for an amnesty. These people who have entered the country illegally, and have worked illegally are then being forgiven for their having broken the law. This is not something that rich countries should be encouraging."

An amnesty will not solve this problem either; all it will do is move poor people from one country to another. Those granted an amnesty might be slightly higher paid than they would be if they had stayed at home but without skills they will remain at the bottom of the pile while having to adapt to a new nation. Instead what is needed is economic growth in the poorer countries that are the origin of the migrants. This is something the rich world can encourage through numerous different methods. For example the USA allowed Mexico to join the North American Free Trade Agreement and so the US is Mexico's biggest export partner with 80% of Mexican exports being to America. Secondly rich countries can provide investment and the skills necessary to develop industries in these developing countries. For example Mexico has "structural inefficiencies" in its farming industry, [1] something which the United States as the world's most efficient agricultural producer could help with.

[1] Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, ‘Background Note: Mexico’, U.S. Department of State, 16 November 2011, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35749.htm
