Resolved: Immigration ought to be recognized as a human right.
On May 1st they announced the resolution. On May 2nd the following article appeared in a column on philosophy. If I were building a case, this article is where I’d start. Prof. Bauman’s first paragraph, starting with the “In the modern era…”, is something I would expect to hear opening an Aff on this resolution.
An earlier article from the same column:
Immigration isn’t going to stop soon – and this isn’t the only reason:
The current impact of Africans moving north:
…and that leads us back to the basic human rights question – do we have human rights simply because we’re human, or only because other people (usually more powerful than we are) grant us certain rights.
I posted this earlier, when I posted my topic announcement:
Refugees fleeing violence that threatens their existence would seem to have a pretty strong case – but what about climate or economic refugees? Is fleeing a particular type of political system that narrows your rights (see: same-sex attraction, or religious rules) enough to justify immigration as a human right?
Note that the Evans article (above) answers most, if not all, of these questions.
This post from October, on the PF topic for Nov. ’15, has some articles that may be relevant.
And a point worth reposting:
When we debated the CX immigration topic back in the 1990s, one point made at the time was that immigration was acceptable only if it met two conditions: 1.) It was good for the individual immigrating, and 2.) It was good for the country to which that person immigrated. How does this view pay into the resolution’s wording?