Admitting Refugees

First, the question posed by the resolution is not one of moral obligation. Whatever arguments Pro chooses to put forward in defense of the resolution, then, they must be sufficient to sustain the high burden of proving obligation.

Second, any morally obligatory action must produce moral results.

 For example, a person who cannot swim does not have a moral obligation to leap into the middle of a lake in order to save a drowning person.

For example, the fact that I choose to smile at a stranger passing by might produce the moral result of making them happier, but it does not seem like I am obliged to do so.

Admitting refugees has fueled the rise of populist-nationalist and/or neo-fascist political movements like: Vlaams Belang, National Rally, UKIP, Brexit, M5S, Liga, Jobbik, Fidesz, AfD, PiS, Golden Dawn, Vox, PvV, FvD, FPO, Finns, Sweden Democrats, and DPP. 

There is “a backlash being felt across Europe...The impact can be seen in country after country, with far-right parties hammering away at authorities deemed too permissive in allowing those fleeing...persecution to find a home in Europe.” [1]

Studies confirm that increases in immigration do trigger increases in xenophobic sentiments. For instance: one "large-scale European study…concluded that…an increase in immigration generally does…go hand-in-hand with increased public anxiety and anti-immigration stances." 

That backlash is most intensely focused on those fleeing oppressive countries, whose skin color, accents, and customs mark them out as "other." 

are turned into exhibits of a fading, Judeo-Christian identity that many Europeans are desperate to recapture; this makes those refugees easy targets of hatred and fear. [13]

So, let's recap. Refugee admittance has triggered nationalist movements throughout the US and Europe. These movements have achieved electoral success by leveraging anti-immigration messages. Many of these movements are now in power or soon will be. This sequence of events amount to a sociopolitical/sociocultural backlash against immigrants and refugees.

By virtue of their being nationalist, nationalist parties tend to eschew norms of global cooperation, and in fact tend to follow policies which actively seek to disentangle themselves from or dismantle the global community.

Unfortunately, global institutions, while not exactly pretty, are key fora for ...  human rights observation

 In the EU, “[f]ar-right nationalists have banded together in an effort to consolidate their power across the union.” They are planning “to pick apart the fabric of the EU, from Brussels itself. ‘They do not like anything to do with Europe, and they will do anything to destroy it’.” 

NATO too is being weakened, beyond Trump's threats to withdraw from or defund the organization. “Amidst these uncertainties, NATO cohesion has frayed. Central and East European allies, including Poland and the Baltic states...fear that growing U.S. isolationism will leave them undefended

The rise of nationalist parties has led to these parties clamping down of refugee admittance.

Violence and hate crimes against immigrants rise as xenophobia rises.

"Overall, 23 percent of populists cause significant democratic backsliding, compared with 6 percent of non-populist...leaders. In other words, populist governments are about four times more likely than non-populist ones to harm democratic institutions...Over 50 percent of populist leaders amend or rewrite their countries’ constitutions, and many of these changes extend term limits or weaken checks on executive power. The evidence also suggests that populists’ attacks on the rule of law open the way to greater corruption...Under populist rule, freedom of the press falls by some 7 percent, civil liberties by 8 percent and political rights by 13 percent." [24] We only need to look at Trump, our own dear leader, to see these statistics in concrete form. Trump's efforts to defy subpoenas, for example, weaken checks on executive power. But we need not only look at Trump. PiS in Poland sought to pack the judiciary recently, and Fidesz in Hungary controls the media apparatus to keep opposition parties from gaining traction. [25, 8].

Ultimately, the admittance of refugees triggers dangerous backlash which harms us and the refugees.

First, Pro has an equal burden of proof in this debate, meaning that he cannot win simply by countering my case. By choosing to primarily focus on rebutting my case

it implies that the resolution is referring to "people fleeing oppression in general," just as "birds fly" means "birds in general can fly."

Pro explains that he is only affirming for refugees who (1) meet some as-yet undefined "requirements" for citizenship and (2) are able and willing to be assimilated into Western culture.

Not only that, but Pro wants to make the existing "process stricter."

It is important to note that these limitations are more restrictive than limitations designed just to keep out criminals.

Pro needs to clarify what these requirements are

Thirdly, the google doc is inaccessible to me, and it is unclear what exactly it is for. I would appreciate a clarification from Pro, and a full accessible link.

First, it is important to note that, as the "Exclusion of Refugees" argument in my case illustrates, a moral obligation to admit will not actually lead to more admittance, and may in fact backfire.

Pro has not, with the argumentation he has provided, established a moral obligation.

Oppression could constitute any number of non-lethal activities, from denying gay people the right to have sex to denying women the right to vote.

While oppression is never benign, it may be the case that a person fleeing oppression could still live a largely safe, healthy, and productive life in their country of origin.

Second, this argument does not establish an obligation to admit specifically.

If our moral duty is to protect refugee lives, this duty can easily be discharged by either housing refugees in safe, developing (vs. developed) nations

by providing aid to the countries of origins to help ease the causes of the threat being faced.

Thirdly, there are people all over the world whose lives are at risk. If our moral duty is to save lives, and that is why we should admit refugees, then it seems as if we have a virtually endless obligation to meddle and act across the world.

this argument fails to establish that it is refugees we need to admit.  Allowing in large numbers of other immigrants could lessen the rate of demographic change

It's not actually clear from Pro's arguments how he believes admitting refugees is going to preserve Western hegemony.

Conversely, my argument shows how admitting refugees leads to a backlash which undermines those global institutions through which that hegemony is retained.

Therefore, for Pro to meet his burden, he must show that admitting refugees is not only likely to produce a moral result, but also that it rises to the level of obligation.

Importantly, Pro never refutes the empirical evidence/study which shows that increasing rates of immigration correlate to increased xenophobia.

It is not likely the case that Brexit could have gained a successful majority without anti-immigration rhetoric, in which the likes of Nigel Farage traffic. So, it is likely that the xenophobia was either the impetus or the tipping point for Brexit occurring.

The rise of nationalist parties has led to these parties clamping down of refugee admittance.

Pro drops this entire argument as well. Extend it. This is also a strong reason to reject Pro's case, because it demonstrates how in Pro's world there is going to be increased right-wing terror.

"These problems are largely solved if the immigrants come legally through a process." This doesn't really make sense, since what most nationalist leaders focus on is the notion of the country being too full or culturally threatened.