If states were to ratify the U.N. Convention, many of them would not be able to protect their national identities.  A state-by-state approach would allow each state to pass a law that fits its needs, particularly those of protecting its national identity, which is a concern international law cannot approach. Maintaining an original ethnic and cultural structure is important to many states, especially those that are populated by one ethnic group. Is Israel, for example, wrong to term itself a "Jewish state"? There is nothing inherently wrong with its efforts to maintain this identity, even if that effort constrains the expansion of migrant rights.


Ratifying the U.N. Convention would increase unemployment rates in receiving countries at a time when they are already painfully high  Increasing protections of migrant rights has the general effect of increasing migration. Article 8 of the U.N. Convention grants all workers the right to leave their state of origin. This implies an obligation of other states to receive them, and so it would protect increased migration. Further, the right to family reunification for documented migrants, found in Article 50, would also increase migration.  This increase in migration would be problematic in many countries. It could worsen overpopulation problems, increase tensions between ethnic and/or religious groups, and raise unemployment rates. The economies of many receiving countries are barely managing to fight unemployment in the status quo. If migrants receive further protection, they will take more jobs, making it harder for citizens to find employment. Everybody should have the opportunity to work in his home country, but the economic protection of migrants overcrowds receiving countries, driving up unemployment. In America, for example, between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled workers is caused by immigration, and around 1,880,000 American workers lose their jobs every year because of immigration. [1] In addition to unemployment problems, overcrowding can have a variety of negative consequences affecting air pollution, traffic, sanitation, and quality of life. So, why are migrants deserving of "protection"? It should be the other way around: the national workers of a state deserve protection from migrant workers and the jobs they are taking.  [1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform. "Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration." Accessed June 30, 2011.  .


It is in the nature of international treaties that they represent a compromise, if it was not a compromise receiving nations were willing to make they should have made changes during the negotiations. However the convention does not impose a heavy burden on states wishing to deport migrants, it simply ensures that their human rights are upheld. Suggestions such as “Migrant workers… who are subjected to any form of detention or imprisonment… shall enjoy the same rights as nationals of those States who are in the same situation.” (Article 17) is simply asking for equality for all rather than allowing the current inequality to continue.


States should form their own migration policy, because the U.N. Convention violates state sovereignty.  Every state has different issues and problems related to migration. There is no monolithic economic and social crisis facing migrants around the globe. It is inappropriate, therefore, to call for all nations to ratify a piece of one-size-fits-all legislation, like the U.N. Convention. Instead, immigration policy and migrant rights need to be approached on a case-by-case, nation-by-nation basis.  The U.N. Convention would violate state sovereignty. Not all international law is necessarily bad, but these protections go too far, because they force a huge burden on certain nations, and not others. It is fair for an international body to say that all nations should treat their citizens with equality and respect, but it is not fair to say that certain countries should have to provide for many additional citizens from less-well-off states. It is not surprising that only source countries have ratified the Convention thus far; that is because those are the countries that would benefit from the changes, at the expense of those countries that are still holding out.


While it is true that migrants are poorer than natives, or they would likely not be migrating to that country, it is not the case that they are costly for the receiving country. Immigrants come for a reason; to work. It therefore stands to reason that these people are going to be working and paying taxes. In the US in 2010 the labor force participation rate for foreign born men was 80.1%, much higher than among native born men. They are at the same time likely to be young, and therefore healthy so relatively less of a burden on healthcare, and in many cases leave their families behind so are not a burden on the education system. The typical immigrant in the United States and their descendants represent an $80,000 gain to the government. [1]  [1] Daniel T. Griswold, “Immigration and the Welfare State”, CATO Journal, Vol.32, No.1, Winter 2012,  p.163


The scientific debate is not as settled as proponents of gay rights claim. The studies, while positive in their conclusions, have generally been based on very small samples, not more than a dozen families. Some experts claim that there is also a volunteer bias, with the subjects of these studies usually supportive of the gay rights agenda and therefore keen on reporting positive results. Lastly, the researchers themselves can be biased and willing to find evidence to back a political agenda1.  1 Parke, Mary. "Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?".Center for Law And Social Policy. May 2003. (accessed 2 August 2011).


There is no fact-based evidence for this exclusion.  The overwhelming majority of scientific studies on this issue have convincingly shown that children raised by gay couples are certainly not worse off than those raised by straight parents1. Some studies have gone as far as to demand that in the face of this evidence, gay bans be ended2. Based on the robust nature of the evidence available, the courts in Florida were satisfied in 2010 that the issue is beyond dispute and they struck down the ban3. When there isn't any scientific evidence to support the differential treatment of one group, it is only based on prejudice and bigotry, which should have no place in a democratic society.  1 Carey, Benedict. "Experts Dispute Bush on Gay-Adoption Issue". New York Times. 29 January 2005. (accessed 2 August 2011).  2 Wikipeida. "LGBT adoption status around the world" .(accessed 2 August 2011).  3 Foster Care 1999 Statistics. Adoption.com .(accessed 2 August 2011).


States place many restrictions on adoptions. China, for example, does not permit adoptions by couples who are too old, have disabilities or are obese1. It doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with being overweight, old, or disabled. But the Chinese authorities are trying to decrease the likelihood of the adopted child losing a parent before the age of 18, which for these kids can be especially traumatic. If the parents being gay can be shown to be inherently harmful or less desirable for a child than straight parents, then such a ban would not constitute discrimination. It would be a decision based on a relevant and valid criterion.  1 Belkin, Lisa. "An End to Gay-Adoption Bans?". New York Times. 28 July 2010 .(accessed 2 August 2011)


Where same-sex households exist, they should have equal rights as opposite-sex households.  There are still many ways for gay people to become parents. Some of them are able to pay for a surrogate; some may have a natural child from a previous (heterosexual) relationship and then raise the child with a gay partner. In effect, what this law does is make it impossible for two gay people to have legal rights over a child they may already be raising together. These kids deserve the security of two legally recognized parents. If being raised by gay parents is really that harmful, why would the law allow two gay people to raise a child together as parents but refuse to legally recognize them as such?


Because no democratic government should ever attempt to regulate people's reproductive rights and dictate who is or isn't allowed to have children. And unless a massive harm can be shown to the child, the government usually doesn't take children away from their parents, as that might be more harmful. But the government is allowed to define what a family is or should be, under the law.


Just because the government will protect people's right to have a family from outside interference, and will publicly fund the treatment of a medical condition, such as infertility, it doesn't mean the government has to give children to those who don't or are unable to have any in order to protect their right to a family life.


Gay adoption bans amount to state sponsored discrimination against gay people.  Discrimination is the practice of treating people differently based not on individual merit but on their membership to a certain group. The adoption bans are a clear example. Rather than assessing gay couples individually, it is simply assumed that they would all make bad parents because they are gay, while straight couples are assessed based on their individual merit. This breaches the fundamental right of all people to be treated equally under the law and it should be stopped. This principle is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; article 1 "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."1 And also many other national and regional legal texts (e.g. The US Constitution,2 The European Convention on Human Rights).  1 United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights , (accessed 2nd August 2011)  2 James Madison et al., Constitution of the United States ,(accessed 2nd August 2011)


Gay people have the right to a family life.  Getting married and raising a family is considered in most societies one of the most important and fulfilling experiences one can aspire to. It is so important it is considered a human right (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."1) It is considered so important for people to be able to become parents that some governments (the UK, for example) fund fertility treatments for couples who are reproductively challenged, and a majority of the population supports that policy2. But members of the LGBT community are stopped from pursuing this human right by repressive and discriminatory laws.  1 Council of Europe, The European Convention on Human Rights, 4th November 1950 ,( accessed 2nd August 2011)  2 Schwartz, John. "Florida Court Calls Ban on Gay Adoption Unlawful". New York Times. 22 September 2010 .(accessed 2 August 2011).


Even if it were true, that the ideal environment for a child is a mother and father, which studies show it isn't, that still wouldn't justify a flat-out ban. Most governments still allow single people to apply for adoption, and even single gay people1. That is because there won't be an 'ideal' family available for every child who needs a home. So other options should be considered. After all, a child is better off with 'non-ideal' parents than with no parents at all. With adoptions, there is generally great demand for babies and toddlers, but older children are generally unwanted2 and end up in foster care until they're 18.  Proposition fails to tell us what studies they are referring to which does leave the question open whether these studies have taken into account other factors such as whether or not the biological parents were drug users. The heritage left by the biological parents needs to be remembered.  1 United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights , (accessed 2nd August 2011)  2 James Madison et al., Constitution of the United States ,(accessed 2nd August 2011)


These kids won't be completely deprived of models from the opposite sex to their parents'. They will still have contact with grandparents, teachers, friends, etc. But even if they didn't, why would the opposition just assume that gender roles are a valuable thing to learn? Why would we want to teach children to act and think differently based on being a boy or a girl? Parents should help them develop as individuals, based on their own interests and propensities.


The government's interest in protecting traditional families.  Numerous studies have shown that children do best when they are raised by two married, biological parents1. In the case of adopted children that is impossible, but a man and a woman is the best approximation of that family. Since that is the best environment to raise children, the government has to encourage and promote these traditional unions, not undermine them. Allowing gay couples to legally become parents, would legally and socially redefine what a family is and society as a whole may suffer. Children who are adopted already face bullying and exclusion in school because of their difference, placing them in same-sex households will double their exclusion and make their lives much harder than if placed in an opposite-sex household.  1 Council of Europe, The European Convention on Human Rights, 4th November 1950 ,( accessed 2nd August 2011)


The welfare of the adopted child as the primary concern of the state.  The focus of this debate should not be on gay rights, but on what is in the best interest of the adopted child. The adoption process' goal is to find the most suitable parents for that child, not to resolve other social inequalities and injustices. Being raised in a traditional family, by a mother and father, is the best environment for a child. Studies have shown that children who are raised by homosexual couples can have problems with substance abuse, violence and 'at risk' behaviour. Therefore the state has the obligation to try to provide the child with that environment.


Gender roles.  Children raised by gay couples will find it more difficult to learn appropriate gender roles in the absence of male and female role-models. Although not an exact match single parents provide a similar case where there has not been someone of the other gender as a role model. Although the evidence is not nearly as conclusive as is often claimed1 there have been many studies that have shown that two parents from different genders is beneficial to the child in its development2. Similarly it is often claimed that boys develop negative attitudes to study because there are very few male teachers in primary schools3.  1 Flood, Michael, Fatherhood and fatherlessness, The Australia institute, Discussion Paper Number 59, (November 2003), p.xi ,(accessed 2nd August 2011)  2 Sarkadi, Anna et al., 'Father's involvemen and children's developmental outcomes: a systematic review of longitudinal studies, ActaPaediatrica, 97 (2008) pp.153-158, p.155 (accessed 2nd August 2011)  3 Gerver, Richard, 'Lack of male role models a primary concern', The Telegraph, 22nd March 2009, (accessed 2nd August 2011)


These studies often confuse correlation and causation. The reason why children do best in these unions is not because there is some type of magical component to traditional marriage. It is the quality of the relationship not the form of it that benefits children. The government should encourage people to be stable, committed, loving parents, regardless of their marital status or gender. The stability of a relationship is what causes children to thrive, and it is merely usually correlated to heterosexual marriage, not produced by it. Also, there are more children up for adoption than there are opposite-sex couples willing to adopt, in this sort of a world it is clearly better for children to get out of the foster care system and into a loving home. Gay parents have also faced more discrimination and exclusion than most straight parents, which makes them especially able to help children who feel unwanted or out of place in the world.


The glass ceiling is extremely variable. The two deciding and overlapping factors, being whether women have children and which profession they are in. Higher numbers of women now going to university may change the number of lawyers, judges, doctors etc in the future. Doctors, barristers, leading scientists, all now contain a significant female percentage. Since 2001 there are more women called to the bar than men. [1] Huge advancements have been made and given positive intervention in the past statistics are now changing. Therefore, the feminist movement has achieved its objective.  [1]


Males Still Dominate the Top Positions  Out of over 250 countries, only a few are currently headed by women. [1] Women still account for only about 14% of members of parliament worldwide in 2002. [2] Some argue that gender quotas should be established to ensure equal input of men and women in parliament. Therefore, the feminist movement is still needed to fight this battle.  Woman still hold lower position in business, the legal profession and in the world of politics. It is therefore hard to argue that the glass ceiling has disintegrated. Until women hold higher positions in these fields the feminist cause has still not achieved its goals- in seeking to create a world where, amongst other things women can advance up the ladder in their career without being blocked by a glass ceiling and held back in lower positions.  [1]   [2]


Most corporations, in almost every country on the earth will not even offer their male employees something close to paternity. [1] But, most countries mandate by law, that women get a set amount of maternity leave. The truth is that, the lack of any kind of paternity leave for the male, indicates that there is a "glass ceiling" hovering over fathers heads, and is preventing them from being good parents. It would benefit every family, if fathers were allowed to spend time with their new borns, like women can.  This is not a battle for the feminist cause.  [1]


Feminism Has Plenty More To Achieve  Feminism is still of relevance today, and is indeed needed. In the UK, one in four women suffers domestic violence, and an increase in the reporting of rape in the last thirty years has gone alongside a threefold drop in conviction rates. In countries such as Ireland and Malta abortion is still not legal for all women, this can be seen as an important part of equality for woman that has not been achieved yet and needs to be fought for. If we take feminism as a global movement then the movement is still of huge importance. That's because U.S. women still earned only 77 cents on the male dollar in 2008, according to the latest census statistics. (That number drops to 68% for African-American women and 58% for Latinas.) [1] These are all real problems, on which feminists continue to campaign - as they should.  [1]


Feminism has no more battles left to fight. Victories such as gaining the vote, the right to an abortion(in most of the northern hemisphere) and the right to equal pay were important and worth winning. But given that sexual equality is now - rightly - enshrined and protected in law, there is nothing left for the feminist movement to do in most western countries. It may still be useful in parts of the world where women still lack basic democratic and other rights. However, in western society the feminist cause in no longer needed.


Maternity and Paternity Leave Are Not Yet Equal  Employers worry when they hire young/middle aged women. They fear that after hiring a woman, she will only cost the company money by getting pregnant and going on maternity leave. To combat this attitude, maternity and paternity leave should be equal. Currently, paternity leave is a maximum of two consecutive weeks. These two weeks must be taken within 56 days of the child’s birth. This can be contrasted with the long maternity leave that is allowed for. Women are entitled to 52 weeks of maternity leave from day one of employment. Women are entitled to maternity pay for 39 weeks if they have been working for their employer for 26 weeks.  Father’s also do not have the right to take time off work to attend antenatal classes, this allowance is for pregnant employees only. The feminist cause still has this issue to resolve. Until paternity leave is offered an employer can safely assume that a woman will be the partner to burden the care of the child and the employer will be the one to bear these costs of maternity leave. This gives men an unfair advantage in the workplace as they are a “safer bet” for employment.


Feminism is not about judging women for choices they make. It is about allowing women to make that choice. If we haven’t got to a point where all woman are given the choice either to stay in the home or advance equally in their career or do both then this is a point to indicate that feminism is still needed and relevant. In many ways women are still dictated to about the way they should act or what should interest them. Girls are told in school that science is more of a “boys subject”, while subjects such as wood work are rarely offered in all girls schools. In the media magazines tell girls how to “please your man” further cementing the idea, that women have long fought to remove, that women are solely the object of a man’s desire.  Stereotypes of women still exist and as long as they still exist in the minds of many, feminism still has an active role to play in dispelling these stereotypes. Take rape for an example. There are definitely legislative parts that need to be drastically improved and also better policing, but one way to challenge the cause of rape is to challenge traditional perceptions of the role of men. Why do men rape? Is it something to do with a certain perception of domination, a need to feel powerful? If this is the case can we challenge the traditional pressures and perceptions placed on men that they are the powerful ones. We may have challenged stereotypes about women, but it is still very difficult for men to feel comfortable expressing a 'feminine side.' All of these male stereotypes must also be tackled if we want to establish equality, which is what feminism has always been about.


There are two responses to this. First, many of the ways in which men suffer inequality are relatively minor when compared to the ongoing subordination of women in many areas of private and public life such as pay, childcare and sexuality. Second, where such inequality does exist, feminism possesses the resources to offer a distinctive and useful critique of the causes and consequences of sexual inequality, whether it is men or women who suffer as a result - men and women should be joining forces to offer feminist responses to discrimination, not blaming feminism where men have problems disconnected from the feminist cause.  Additionally, Feminism is a rights movement to place the female sex on equal footing as males. This naturally means that when an inequality exists it needs to be corrected. Yes, even when women have an apparent advantage in something over men it needs to be fixed. It is true men are given lower rights in certain cases. The results of divorce with children involved comes to mind. However, this, like many issues, will be solved in time through feminism. The main issue with this particular example is that women are seen as primary caregivers and are given the responsibility to be in that position. By showing women can succeed in traditionally male dominated areas it also opens the oppurtunity for men to step into female dominated areas. When men and women are seen as equal caregivers then there is less bias to grant custody to a mother over an equal father.


The Feminist Cause No Longer Appeals to Women  Many women no longer identify themselves as feminists, associating feminism with man-hating, sex-hating humourlessness, and seeing it as a relic of the 1970s. Modern women are perfectly capable of competing with men on equal terms, and they resent suggestions that they need special treatment.  Some women would question where the line between feminism and positive sexism begins. Women no longer want to associate themselves with a cause that is outdated and outmoded.


Now Damaging Gender Roles?  There is certainly a case to be made that women, in modern-western society have completely shattered the traditional values and roles that are best suited to them.  For example, it has always been the case that men have been the providers, the defenders of themselves, the household and the family. Women have been the maintainers of these things. These things are not unfair. They are not unequal. They are simply what each gender is best suited for.  Women should not feel lesser than men simply because they are "supposed" to do "motherly things". The feminist movement has gone beyond its cause in beginning to deem what role in life is more appropriate.


Men Have Big Problems Too  By focusing on women and their problems, feminism fails to recognise that there are inequality issues in which men are the victims. For example: boys are falling behind girls in academic achievement; far less money is spent on combating ‘male’ than ‘female’ diseases (the difference between the amount of research into breast cancer and prostate cancer is a striking.) [1] Single fathers are discriminated against over child custody and child support; fear of being accused of sexism is so widespread that it often leads to unfair discrimination against men. [2] Even the way men are portrayed in the media is a cause for concern. Last year, an oven cleaner ad drew a thousand-plus complaints for the slogan, “So easy, even a man can use it.” These can only be tackled by recognising that feminism has gone too far. The battle for equality is no longer needed but rather, we must remember feminism was never a tool for women to get their own back.  [1]   [2] www.mens-rights.net


Opponents of the feminist movement have always sought to stereotype feminists in order to reduce their support. That this enterprise is often successful is not an argument against feminism; in any case, many of the women who dislike the label ‘feminist’ turn out to hold what would until recently have been seen as extreme feminist views, such as the belief that women are perfectly capable of competing with men on equal terms. Feminists have always argued that women are just as capable of men; they have campaigned against legal, cultural and social barriers which have worked against women, preventing them from achieving equality.


Paying housewives would not make much difference to images of women and family life, and could even make things worse rather than better. By paying housewives, monetizing the position of housewife and home-keeper, the state re-affirms the idea that the only true value a person can hold is an economic one and that the only way to assess and quantify the value of an individual or their impact is through financial means. Re-enforcing such a financial-centric version of worth and value is dangerous to housewives, who, by any reasonable expectation, will never make as much as private-sector professionals such as CEOs. It simply re-enforces the inferiority of house-keeping and the role of the family unit in society.  This pay gap simply re-affirms prejudice and bias of the inferiority of home-keeping as a profession and gives tangible evidence to support this by placing a monetary value on what housewives do and inevitably not including the non-monetary benefits, such as the children having their mother to take them home from school.  Keeping a division between the money-led economic world and the love-driven family world is beneficial to the family dynamic and the perceptions of all those involved.


Paying housewives promotes more positive images of women and family life  Gender stereotypes dictate that the woman’s place is in the home and that that is an inferior position in the social hierarchy than that of the male’s corporate bread-winner status. The stereotype is particularly damaging to women’s expectations for themselves and the way society treats women.  By paying housewives for their work, a greater emphasis is placed on the role of the home-keeper and on the women that tend to this job. It elevates the position of women in the household by economically empowering them and giving them the very thing that usually implies the greater importance of the bread-winners in the family (economic power and status). Moreover, it elevates societal views of housewives and home-keepers by valuing their contributions to the household and society in a tangible, monetary way that society cares about.  Paying housewives for their work grants greater social status and power to women and family lives, which improves views of women and the roles they take in the family.


It is highly unlikely that this can be implemented in any country where female empowerment is as restricted as is discussed. If women are as dependent and oppressed as the proposition suggests, the political will to pass such legislation will not exist. Even if a law were passed, the pay would be very low, and so the wife would still rely on the husband’s income.


Housewives are entitled to pay  The philosophical basis of entitlement for pay is derived from the notion that if something comes into being as the product of an individual’s labor, then that individual is entitled to the profit and benefit of such a product because its existence was resultant of that individual’s labor [1] . That in this case the labor is on services does not make any difference, the product of the housewife’s labor is that the children are looked after and domestic matters are all sorted. This is beneficial to society as housewives in addition to helping their own family are likely to have the time to help out others – through volunteering, through looking after other’s children after school etc.  It is estimated that the value of a housemaker’s services would be equivalent to approximately £30,000 per year [2] . In the same way that any product or service is created, offered or manufactured by individual workers, the services of home-keeping are delivered by the labor of the home-keeper. Just as all workers are entitled to remuneration for the goods and services they create, so is a housewife is so entitled for the house-keeping services they offer.  [1] "Locke's Political Philosophy." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2010. Web. <  .  [2] "'Housewives should be paid £30,000 for doing the cooking, laundry and childcare'." Daily Mail 19 Feb 2008, Print.


Not all labor is rewarded with wages or pay despite the fact that goods and services are products of said labor. For example, voluntary and charity work are both types of labor that is not paid. The distinction is where the work is done and the obligations owed to people as a result. Home-keeping is a voluntary job that has its own forms of remuneration (family connections etc.) in the same way that volunteering and charity work do (e.g. feeling as though you are part of something larger).


Paying housewives for their work is an important form of economic empowerment.  One of the most important factors of oppression of women’s rights, particularly in the developing world, is dependence [1] . Women are often confined to the home by force, lack of opportunity or social stigma, on behalf of their husbands. When she is not paid, a housewife must rely on her husband for money, especially if she has children she is expected to take care of. Economic empowerment allows further freedom for women in countries where women are confined to the home [2] . By making women economic actors, you empower them to engage in different social structures and hold a stake and position in the centres of economic power. This is the most empowering tool one can offer women in most countries around the world [3] .  By paying housewives for their work, you offer one of the most powerful forms of social empowerment for women around the world.  [1] United Nations. Women's Work and Economic Empowerment. Accessed July 1, 2011.  .  [2] United Nations. Women's Work and Economic Empowerment. Accessed July 1, 2011.  .  [3] United Nations. Women's Work and Economic Empowerment. Accessed July 1, 2011.  .


There are many ways to implement this on a practical level. Wages can be created through tax exemptions as opposed to the creation of new streams of wages and wealth.  Moreover, the prohibitive expense can be paid for by an increase in taxation. Home-keeping can be seen as a public good as it create good, strong homes and helps create constructive bases of support that help create productive future members of society, it can qualify as a public good that would therefore be a legitimate expense to tax the public for.


The job of housewives provides an essential service to society—to raise a healthy family—and so those who perform the job should be paid. Even if a product or service is not economically quantifiable, the person who provides it may have created something that otherwise would not exist through the exertion of their labor. Moreover, simply because they never had an option to opt into a monetized agreement or exchange does not mean that they do not deserve such an option in the future or that their services are not economically valuable, and thus, entitles them to wages.


Paying housewives reduces social mobility  By paying housewives for their work, you create negative stereotypes about families and women by commodifying the role of home-keeper. Paying housewives for their work re-enforces the very framework that is seen as oppressive on home-keepers. It creates a system in which women are even more strongly expected to be housewives than they are now, rather than seeking out career jobs with upward mobility. The result is that women are discouraged from seeking to fulfil their own dreams by creating their own careers as they are more firmly chained to their traditional role. This is damaging to societal views of women and the family.  As a result the full potential of many more women will not be reached. As is the case in Saudi Arabia women are likely to be very well educated but then have their education and talents wasted by being expected to remain in the home. [1] This would neither be good for the individuals involved or the economy as a whole.  [1] Saner, Emine, “Saudi Arabia opens the world’s largest university for women”, The Guardian, 27 May 2011, <


Paying housewives is financially impractical.  On a very practical level, this policy could never be implemented. As much as housewives are valuable members of society, it is economically impossible to pay them wages. It is only possible to increase somebody’s pay if that person creates increased wealth. There is no direct increase in wealth creation caused by housewives and therefore it would be impossible to gain a direct or accurate valuation or mechanism of exchange for housewife pay.  Even if there was no market mechanism needed, and assuming that there is no interest in getting an accurate valuation of housewife economic contribution, there is no way for a government to finance this. Without the creation of a product or service that has a consumer who would be able to use the money to purchase such services, there is no method of capital accumulation to reimburse the home-keeper with. The baby or child who is receiving the service does not have the ability to pay. Should the government attempt to fill this void, it would be prohibitively expensive to create wages for every single housewife in a country.


Payment and obligation works differently in public and in private.  The economic sphere and the private (family) sphere have separate obligations and systems of contracts. The way in which the economic system works is that generally people are paid for their labor by those who benefit from it, either directly or indirectly. This is a mutual relationship of monetary-labor exchange. In the family sphere, the contracts are based on personal obligation and the family unit as opposed to individual contraction of services. The family unit is a pre-existing relationship not created on labor-pay agreements. Individuals opt into being a parent in a family unit on a voluntary basis and with no expectation or pretence of return for their services, except perhaps from their children in the future. Remuneration is created in the form of a functioning, rewarding family unit and family life and the products and services produced are of no quantifiable monetary value nor can they be sold or do they create wealth. Because housewives do not labor for anybody outside of their household, they should not be paid by anybody outside of their family. Moreover most of the work that housewives do would have to be done by a member of the family unit regardless of whether everyone was also engaged in monetized work – there would still need to be washing, cleaning, shopping etc done.  Housewives do not exist as workers in the economic sphere as they do not create a monetized product with their labor and opt into the agreement on voluntary non-monetary bases. As such, they are not entitled to pay.


Paying housewives a wage would improve not reduce social mobility. Many women would still choose to go to university and the vast majority who do will still want to work. Paying housewives will not prevent any women who wants to work from working. Rather it will simply provide another option for those who wish to devote themselves full time to their family. This will give these women some financial freedom giving them more opportunities to educate themselves and their children so that they can get a better job than they otherwise would when they no longer wish to just be a housewife.


What is best for the economy is making sure that government money is spent as efficiently as possible. This may mean taking some money away from spending on youth as well as providing more in some areas. Education for example can be changed to focus more specifically on skills needed for the workplace rather than learning for learning’s sake or could be made more efficient by transferring some learning online. This need not involve more spending on youth but better spending on youth.


Spending on youth is best for the economy  Spending on young people is an investment. While there may be other objectives too, such as taking young people off the street to prevent trouble, when there is spending on young people this is almost always to ensure they have either a broader, or more focused skill base. This is done through education, training, and apprenticeships. Having a better skilled workforce has a beneficial effect on economic growth. This means that there are several economic benefits to spending on youth; there is the initial fiscal benefit from the spending on youth followed over years and decades by a return on the investment from having higher skilled workers. This higher skilled workforce will then over time pay back the initial investment through paying more tax as a result of being more productive (so earning more). There is then a change from the unemployed youth being a burden on the state and the economy to a contributor.  A study in the US suggests that a 25 year old with little education past 16 and no job will cost the taxpayer $258,000 over their lifetime. [1] If trained and given a job this can clearly be turned into a gain for the taxpayer and society. This is similar to why it is more beneficial to the economy to spend on infrastructure than simply handing cash out. Both will give a fiscal boost from the money being spent but handing money out won’t bring a return decades later.  [1] Belfield, Clive R., ‘The Economic Value of Opportunity Youth’, Kellogg Foundation, January 2012,  , p.2


It seems a little unfair to blame baby boomers for their fortune in terms of demographics. They were simply lucky to be born when they were. Most countries are already considering the impact of aging; the pension age for example is being raised almost everywhere. And of course it is wrong to suggest that the youth are getting a raw deal in every possible area; for example they have much more technology to play with, and average incomes are much higher than they were when the boomers were young. While the government may not pay for as much for the youth parents and grandparents step in, in the UK £470million is contributed to child trust funds each year by grandparents and they provide an estimated £4billion worth of childcare each year. [1]  [1] Mitchell, Michelle, ‘Debate: Is the baby-boomer generation selfish?’, totalpolitics,


The government must do what is in the long term interest of the county  Typically businesses, and most people, think about the short term; how they are going to live or produce a profit over the next few years. This leaves the role of thinking across broader horizons to the government. Governments need to plan to ensure the prosperity of the nation in twenty or even fifty years’ time because many of their current citizens will still be alive. This planning is also necessary because of the length of time that large scale construction projects or social changes take. For example “In the energy sector, investments are made for a period between 20 and 60 years.” [1] Decisions on what kind of power to support, coal, gas, nuclear, or renewables, will still be making an impact in half a century. Clearly when thinking longer term it simply makes sense to focus on younger people as they are going to have an impact for longer. Just the same as in energy policy if a nation makes mistakes with its treatment of its youth it will be feeling the consequences for half a century. It is clearly in the long term interest of the state to invest in its youth.  [1] ‘The Commission's Energy Roadmap 2050’, Europa, 15 December 2011, MEMO/11/914,


It is unclear that the long term interest of the country really means investing in youth. Instead it should mean anticipating the changes that are necessary to ensure future security, health, and prosperity for every citizen. This is what happens with investing in energy; we anticipate that if we don’t invest in it for the future the lights will go out. But we also need to change along with changing circumstances so taking the comparison with energy further that means not just investing in power generation but in renewable power generation. Considering current demographics this should mean spending more to ensure that health services are ready for an older population and ensuring that pensions are on a stable long term footing rather than more on youth.


Scaremongering is not the best way to create policy. Clearly leaving large numbers of unemployed young people could be dangerous but so could large numbers of unemployed of any age. Every government wants more economic growth and to solve unemployment but they should be focusing on how to bring the economy as a whole back to growth rather than specifically on youth unemployment. When this happens unemployment will begin to fall. Artificially focusing on reducing youth unemployment will simply prevent broader action to regain competitiveness. It should be remembered from communist states that it is possible for government action to create full employment while destroying the foundations of the economy.


The youth are getting a raw deal  In most western countries the ‘baby boomers’ (those who were born between the end of the second world war and the mid-1960s) could be considered to have led a charmed life. They were the beneficiaries of free schooling and university education, then of an expanding economy that provided enough jobs, and finally high pensions. David Willetts, the UK Minister for Universities and Science, estimates that the boomers are set to take out about 118% of what they put in to the welfare state. [1] The current generation on the other hand in some countries are having to pay more for their education and then find there is no job available. To make matters worse they are likely to be paying more for their elders’ pensions (which come out of current workers national insurance not that which was paid in by the boomers themselves) and healthcare and then will have to work longer for a smaller pension themselves. This means that if spending remains on its current trajectory most spending will remain directed at the baby boomers for decades to come.  [1] Reeves, Richard, ‘The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Stole Their Children’s Future by David Willetts’, The Observer, 7 February 2010,


Leaving large numbers of young people unemployed could be dangerous  Allowing high rates of youth unemployment and underemployment to continue could be disastrous. When people lose hope they are much more likely to turn to violence, or towards crime and drugs. There are clearly extreme examples of this; one cause of the second world war was the great depression and feeble recovery that preceded it, similarly in Africa according to the World Bank 40% of those who join rebel movements are motivating by a lack of jobs. [1] A new World War, or succession conflicts, are unlikely, though not impossible, in Europe. [2] Much more likely however are riots and social unrest aimed at government; youth unemployment was a spark for the Arab Spring. In the west youth protests such as the occupy movement or indignados have so far mostly been peaceful [3] but they may not remain that way without hope of improvement.  [1] Ighobor, Kingsley, ‘Africa’s youth: a “ticking time bomb” or an opportunity?’, Africa Renewal, May 2013,   [2] See the debatabase debate ‘This House believes the Euro is a threat to peace’   [3] ‘The youth employment crisis: Time for action’, International Labour Conference, 101st Session, 2012,  , Pp.2-3


In health services where much care is provided for free there has always been a question of balancing resources. Some treatments are just too expensive, when this is the case the individuals are free to pay for private healthcare. Clearly then if there is less money to be spent on healthcare there just needs to be a rethink about which treatments are affordable as a part of free healthcare. In the United States deciding what treatments are worth the cost is left to the market, in more centrally organised health systems as is the case in Europe there is a regulator or commission that decides. In the UK this is NICE (the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) which decides what drugs are worthwhile based upon quality-adjusted life years and usually does not recommend treatments that cost more than £20-30,000 per QALY. [1] The answer then would be to drop this down to a lower figure.  [1] Dreaper, Jane, ‘Researchers claim NHS drug decisions ‘are flawed’’, BBC News, 24 January 2013,


In theory it is great to say that government should treat all people equally, but we all know that in practice this does not happen. Government spending is determined by what programs already exist and where there spending is regardless of current need while new spending is based on where the government thinks it will get votes. Because older people are more likely to vote, and there are more of them, the political system is clearly prejudiced against providing for youth.


Older people have paid into the system.  Those who are retiring today were promised good pensions that they could draw from their early sixties. They paid into national insurance, and other pension schemes on the assumption that they would get a good pension at the end of it. Doctors are a good example of a group that have paid a large amount into their pensions and expect to get a large pension in return. At the moment the UK’s NHS pension scheme pays more than £2billion per year into the treasury than it takes out. [1] The public purse has gained from boomers payments for pensions for years and they are responsible to pay the boomers back with what they were told they would be entitled to.  [1] ‘Our response to government claims about the NHS pensions dispute’, British Medical Association,


The youth already have a lot of spending focused on them  It may be true that there is little spending specifically on ‘youth’ but that does not mean there is not a lot of spending young people more generally. Government education budgets in Europe vary but are generally between 10-15% of government spending, [1] added to this should be the 2.3% of GDP spent on family/child benefit [2] (since European governments typically spend about 50% of GDP this generally means about 5% of spending). While this may not seem like much compared to 26.89% of the population being under 25 [3] we need to remember that most other government spending (with the exception of pensions) is not age targeted and so also goes pretty proportionally on youth; children and youth are as likely to use healthcare, young people use roads and public transport, many in the military are under 25 etc. Since young people are more likely to be unemployed they are also getting a larger proportion of welfare spending on them. Added to this there are areas of government spending which don’t really go on any age group, such as interest repayments on European government’s debts. It is difficult to see why the government should be spending yet more on youth when they already receive a large amount of spending.  [1] UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Public spending on education, total (% of government expenditure), The World Bank,   [2] Mossuti, Giuseppe, and Asero, Gemma, ‘In 2009 a 6.5% rise in per capita social protection expenditure matched a 6.1% drop in EU-27 GDP’, Eurostat, 14/2012,  , p.5  [3] European Union, The World Factbook, 6 May 2013,


Aging means we will be spending more on the old, not less  There is simply no room to be increasing spending on young people as an Ageing population means that western nations are going to have to focus more resources on the elderly. A larger elderly population will mean less tax take for the government as there will be less people working, at the same time there will many unavoidable costs. The average cost of retires households to health services is £5200, compares to just £2800 for those who are not retired. [1] The expansion and progress of medical science has been amazing, we can treat many conditions that were incurable. But this means many more are living longer with medical support, which is costly. A US study estimates total healthcare expenditures “increase substantially with longevity, from $36,000 for persons who die at the age of 65 to more than $230,000 for those who die at the age of 90”. [2] Clearly the government cannot both increase spending on youth and pay more on healthcare for the elderly at the same time. With healthcare a matter of life and death it seems clear which should be prioritised.  [1] ‘The ageing population’, parliament.uk,   [2] Alemayehu, Berhanu, and Warner, Kenneth E., ‘The Lifetime Distribution of Health Care Costs’, Health Services Researech, vol.39, no.3, June 2004, pp.627-642,  (does not show pages but near the end)


The government should not prioritise one age group over another  The government should not be playing favourites when it comes to government spending. It should not prioritise one age group over another, just as it should not prioritise one ethnic group or religion over another. The government has just as much responsibility to the middle aged or elderly as it does to the young. Rather than artificially deciding to spend more on certain age groups government spending should clearly just be based on what provides the most value for taxpayers’ money. In some cases this may mean spending on youth but it could also mean spending on the elderly.


It is difficult to see why there should be large amounts of public spending on ‘youth’ directed through the education system that then simply stops as soon as education is left behind. When young people are finished university or particularly school when they are not going on to university they are suddenly left on their own with no clear path to transition into work. [1] Those not in the education system get very little spending on them and this is clearly where the problem lies. There needs to be much more spent on ensuring that young people get a first job both in ensuring that they have the right skills and ensuring a good standard of living until they get a job.  [1] ACEVO Commission on Youth Unemployment, ‘Youth unemployment: the crisis we cannot afford’, ACEVO, 2012,  , p.46


Pensions are not paid by what the retiree paid in during their lifetime but by those who are earning and paying taxes and national insurance while the pensioner is drawing their pension. Current pensioners did not pay for their pension but for their parents’ pensions. In the UK “In 2008 there were 3.2 people of working age for every person of pensionable age. This ratio is projected to fall to 2.8 by 2033.” [1] With fewer workers for every pensioner pensions are clearly unsustainable and so should be reduced.  [1] ‘The ageing population’, parliament.uk,


The principle reason some countries have higher ages of consent for males compared to females [1] is simply because of the medical evidence that males reach sexual maturity at a later age than females. [2] This has nothing to do with discriminating against homosexual sex. However it is true that when it comes to children, some countries do view underage homosexual as slightly more dangerous than underage heterosexual sex. Largely because there is the higher risk of HIV infection in the case of the former. [3]  [1] Canadian Department of Justice, ‘Age of Consent to Sexual Activity’, justice.gc.ca,   [2] Neinstein, Lawrence S., ‘Puberty: Normal Growth and Development’, Adolescent Health Curriculum: University of Southern California,   [3] HIV, AIDS and Young Gay Men, AVERT: Averting HIV & AIDS,


Consent Laws are discriminatory.  Some countries have one age of consent for young females (say 16) and a different, higher age of consent for young males or for having anal sex (say 18). This means that a heterosexual adult male who wants to have sex with a 17-year-old female is free to do so, but a homosexual adult male cannot have intercourse with a young man who is 17. [1] Not only are such laws clearly discriminatory, they entrench and perpetuate the myths, stereotypes, and prejudices against homosexuals and homosexual sex. Age of consent laws, if we are to have them at all, should be equalised across the genders.  [1] HIV, AIDS and Young Gay Men, AVERT: Averting HIV & AIDS,  , ‘Worldwide ages of Consent’, AVERT: averting HIV & AIDS,  , HIV, AIDS and Young Gay Men, AVERT: Averting HIV & AIDS,


Liberals tend to assume that many young boys and girls would want to have sex if not for age of consent laws. In reality many boys and girls themselves actually do not want to have sex or sexual contact, but lack the social and emotional confidence to say ‘no’. Age of consent laws protect such children, by preventing others from putting them in such a difficult position and help them against peer pressure.


We should defend children’s freedom of expression.  The freedom of sexual expression (and exploration) is not only a matter of choice which is fundamental to the individual – it is also particularly important to young people as they proceed through the stage of adolescence into young adulthood. Age of consent laws place artificial limits on this freedom. Sex is entirely natural and should be celebrated in the context of loving relationships, not criminalised and put under the prying eye of an authoritarian state. Violence, coercion and exploitation in sexual relationships should still be punished, but not consensual activity. Such restrictions go against the human rights to privacy and of freedom of expression.  The concept that young people do not know what they are doing is flawed, because every person who has gone through sexual development has learnt by doing. There is no process of suddenly coming into full knowledge without acting and exploration. Such exploration would be more safely done in an environment that doesn't criminalize it. Such criminalization can actaully lead to the very harm that the law ostensibly seeks to avoid, coercion and exploitation, for it is people who are naturally more inclined to coercion and exploitation that will disregard the law anyway. This feeds the lambs to the wolves.


Those who are underage are not 'expressing' themselves through sex. They are unlikely to fully know what they are doing so this is not an area where they are going to be expressing themselves. Children have freedom of expression in many other areas and through technology gaining more and more options. This is therefore a step that is unnecessary if all it is about is 'freedom of expression'.


It seems important to note that the age of consent could be maintained – or raised- while allowing people who need advice on or access to contraceptives, or other services to access them. The idea would be that school students are still taught about sex, contraceptives and consequences, and doctors are to give free, impartial and –most importantly- confidential advice, and contraception to be readily available to all


The censorship laws are a relic from the past.  The idea that young people should not be having sex is a leftover relic from the past: its justifications are anachronistic and have little place in modern times. Age of consent laws were the product of a ‘purity campaign’ in Britain in the 1800s, when it was believed that sex was a ‘male privilege’, that it led to the sexual ruin of young women, that it meant the loss of their virtue, which was a fate worse than death, and that it contributed to women’s second class citizenship. [1] In the UK the age of 16 was chosen and set in 1885, more than 100 years ago, and has remained ever since. [2] Today these ideas would offend both men and women.  [1] Harman, Lillian, ‘Understanding the Age of Consent in the Context of the 1800’s’, Liberty No. 235, pp.3-4 from Age Of Consent,   [2] Bullough, Vern L, ‘The Age of Consent’, Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality Volume 16, Issue 2-3, 2005


Age of consent laws prevent the most vulnerable receiving contraceptives.  Age of consent laws are in fact dangerous because they drive underground the very people who should be, and are in most need of, receiving contraceptives, advice on safe sex, and access to health and other educational services. This is true both of the ‘statutory rapist’ as well as the under-16 consenting ‘victim’, who may worry about having assisted in the commission of a crime. Both parties then become real victims as they are put at greater risk of contracting STDs or unwanted pregnancies.


Liberalising age of consent laws will not encourage paedophilia or make sexual exploitation any easier. That is simply a false nightmare scenario propagated by scaremongers. Many countries have lowered the basic age of consent while strengthening their ‘plus elements’. For example, by making ‘sexual grooming’ an offence (to stop rings of internet paedophiles); by making it an offence to have sex with a young child if you are above a certain age or if the age differential between the partners is above a certain limit (to target adult paedophiles while allowing teens their sexual freedom); and by making it an offence to have sex with someone who is in a relationship of trust of dependency with you (to stop sexual exploitation).


Even if we can accept that children need protection from sex, is it right to use the full force of the criminal law – which includes the threat of criminal prosecution and the prospect of a criminal sentence – to do it? It is contrary to both justice and common sense for people who have merely had consensual sex with a teen who happens to be under-16 to be arrested, tried, branded with a criminal label (‘statutory rapist’, ‘sex offender’), thrown in prison, and thereby treated on the same footing as real (sometimes violent) rapists, arsonists and kidnappers.  The debate surrounding the age of consent raises the broader point of the role of the criminal law. The function of the criminal law is to preserve public order and decency, not to intervene in the lives of citizens, especially those who have mutually consented to taking part in a harmless activity in private. To accept otherwise would be to disregard the crucial notion of human autonomy and the free will of the individual, which are expressed, regardless of one’s age, each time a person presents his or her consent. This is why it is so important that the law recognises the sanctity of consent.


We must protect the vulnerable from themselves.  It is undeniable that young children form a special and vulnerable group in society. Nowhere is this truer than in the context of sex – so much so that we often need to protect them by placing limitations on what they do sexually. Below a certain minimum age, children are at risk of not having the physiological, biological and, most importantly, emotional development to cope with sex, and with the many possible consequences of having sex, which include teen pregnancy, illegal or legal abortion, childbirth, parental and societal disapproval, unsupported parenthood, legal consequences and increased risk of cervical cancer. [1]  Unfortunately everyone matures a different age. That does not mean that choosing an average, approximate age for consensual sex, such as 16, is arbitrary or wrong. There is no great harm in asking “early developers” to wait for a year or two before they begin to have sex. Especially young people are not always as mature as they believe they are.  [1] BBC News, ‘Cervical cancer link to early sex’, 21 December 2009,  ,


Lowering the age of consent will cause criminal dangers.  Lowering the age of consent (or worse, getting rid of it entirely) legalises, legitimises and brings above ground the many problems that we are fighting underground. It will provide an opportunity for paedophile networks to expand, by allowing them to target even younger children – now lawfully. The problem of paedophilia is already a rapidly growing one, made worse by its expansion into ‘related’ avenues such as child pornography. In addition to the obvious problem of paedophilia, the problem of the sexual predation of young children also encompasses the problem of youth prostitution (since prostitution is itself already legal in many countries), and the international traffic in boys and girls.


We must protect the vulnerable in society.  Even without resorting to a moralistic view of the criminal law (i.e. that its function is to stem moral disintegration and to uphold the ‘shared morality’ of society), there is adequate justification for age of consent laws. Society has a vital interest in ensuring that its naturally weaker members are protected from harm, and doing so is precisely the function of the persuasive and coercive powers of the criminal law. It is therefore legitimate for the law to aim to prevent sexual harm to children by criminalising sex with them. Indeed, age of consent sex laws are not the only laws dependent on age. In many countries it is also an offence, for example, to sell tobacco to children, or to employ children below a certain age in the entertainment industry, whether or not the child ‘consents’. Society must recognise the reality that the apparent expression of ‘consent’ by a child is often different from consent expressed an adult. In the case of the former, therefore, it is not always true that saying ‘yes’ is a true expression of human autonomy.  The argument that these laws may cause injustice to someone who truly thought his partner was above the legal age is also a poor one – many countries already provide a defence for such situations


Age of consent laws are also arbitrary as children become sexually and emotionally mature at very different rates, so any artificially imposed limit will be too high for many and too low for others.


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,


Migrants benefit the economy  Migrants, including illegal migrants, are necessary for the economies of rich countries. There are schemes run by these countries that allow the migration of skilled workers for jobs where there is a skills shortage in the native population, for example the United Kingdom takes in a lot of migrants to work as doctors and migrants. However these schemes fail to acknowledge that migrants are also vital for unskilled jobs which native workers are often unwilling to take; for example jobs in catering, picking crops and cleaning. Approximately 6.3 million illegal immigrants are working in the USA, and these are benefiting the economy. [1] The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas says “The pace of recent U.S. economic growth would have been impossible without immigration. Since 1990, immigrants have contributed to job growth in three main ways: They fill an increasing share of jobs overall, they take jobs in labor-scarce regions, and they fill the types of jobs native workers often shun.” [2] Amnesties are necessary to ensure the economy keeps benefiting from these workers.  [1] Goyle, Rajeev, and Jaeger, David A., ‘Deporting the Undocumented: A Cost Assessment’, Center for American Progress, July 2005, p.9.   [2] Orrenius, Pia M., ‘U.S. Immigration and Economic Growth: Putting Policy on Hold’, Southwest Economy, Issue 6, Nov./Dec. 2003,


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,


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,   [2] The World Factbook, ‘Mexico’, Central Intelligence Agency, 21 February 2012,   [3] The World Factbook, ‘Guatemala’, Central Intelligence Agency, 21 February 2012,   [4] United Nations Development Programme, ‘Human Development Index’, 2011,


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,


Immigrants are needed to make up for aging populations  Much of the rich world is aging, and in a few cases is close to having a declining population. As a result the size of the available workforce will decrease. For example in Germany by 2050 a third of the population will be over 60, [1] and over the next 15 years will as a result loose five million workers from the current workforce of 41 million. [2] While increasing retirement age can mean that these reductions in the size of the workforce come later to maintain the size of the workforce immigration or a rapid increase in birth rate is necessary. These countries in order to maintain the size of their economies will therefore either have to rapidly increase productivity, which itself may not be easy as they are already the most productive nations, or else allow migrants to fill the gaps in the labour force. At the same time there will be an increase in some jobs that rely on migrants such as care workers to help look after the increasing number of elderly. [3]  [1] Ripperger, Sabine, ‘The Challenge of Demographic Change in Old, Shrivelling Europe’, Deutche-Welle,   [2] Elliott, Larry, and Kollewe, Julia, ‘Germany faces up to problem of ageing workforce’, guardian.co.uk, 17 March 2011,   [3] Martin, Susan, et al., ‘The Role of Migrant Care Workers in Aging Societies: Report on Research Findings in the United States’, Institute for the Study of International Migration, December 2009, p.vii,


Amnesties do not increase immigration. For examples it is not the case that the Immigration Reform and Control Act encouraged immigration. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas concluded “it appears that amnesty programs do not encourage illegal immigration. If anything, IRCA reduced the number of illegal immigrants in the short run, perhaps because potential migrants thought that it would be more difficult to cross the border or to get a job in the United States after the law was passed.” And also over the long term illegal immigration did not increase. “apprehensions [at the Mexico-US border] were about 11 percent lower during the pre-filing period than prior to IRCA’s passage, controlling for other factors.” While there was little change overall between the periods before and after the amnesty. [1]  [1] Orrenius, Pia M., and Zavodny, Madeline, ‘Do Amnesty Programs Encourage Illegal Immigration? Evidence from IRCA’, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Oct. 2001, pp.11, 14.


An amnesty is not a reward for breaking the law, and any illegal immigrant who has committed crimes other than entering the country illegally could be excluded. Instead amnesty should be seen as acknowledging those who live and work in a country but are nonetheless ignored. An amnesty would mean the state would get to collect more money in taxes from immigrants and they would be subject to all the requirements that all citizens are expected to abide by. They could also be expected to pay a processing fee to cover town or government expenditure for the amnesty amongst other things. So an amnesty wouldn't be a reward in its entirety as much as an acknowledgment and a way to balance the books. [1] The government would also be free to impose strict restrictions on any amnesty. For example the one proposed by the liberal democrats in 2010 was only to allow those who had been in the UK for ten years, spoke English and wished to work towards earning citizenship. There would also have been a probationary period and some form of voluntary service. [2]  [1] Barney, Katherine, ‘Mayor Wants Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants’, London Evening Standard, 9 March 2009,   [2] Standford, Daniel, ‘Illegal immigration: Is an amnesty the answer’, BBC News, 19 April 2010,


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,   [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.   [3] Department of Labor and Workforce Development, ‘Illegal Alien Employment Act Frequently Asked Questions’, Tn.gov,


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,   [2] Maas, Willem. "The Politics of Immigration, Employment, and Amnesty in Spain" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Town & Country Resort and Convention Center, San Diego, California, USA, Mar 22, 2006.  pp.10, 14  [3] Tremlett, Giles, ‘Spain grants amnesty to 700,000 migrants’, The Guardian, 9th May 2009,


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.


The question is what happens then? Do we immediately deport all these newly found immigrants despite the large cost? Would the occupation they are engaged in or having made a family make a difference? Finding or knowing where illegal immigrants are is not the same as getting them out of the country, in the UK in 2006/7 20,700 people were recorded as failing in asylum requests but the UK only managed to deport 18,280. [1] Finding more illegal immigrants would mean the deportation systems could not cope.  [1] Johnston, Philip, ‘Number of failed asylum seeker removals falls’, The Telegraph, 21st August 2007,


Just because many people are in favour of a policy does not mean it is normatively justified. Policies that have little to no efficacy and actually even create the opposite outcome than is desired are certainly not justified by this logic. People only want a fence because they think that it will protect American jobs and border security. If a closer examination of the economics of illegal immigration demonstrates that immigration actually grows the economy, it seems nonsensical to continue maintaining the fence. This just perpetuates racist attitudes.


A state has a fundamental right to set immigration policies and take the necessary steps to make them work.  Ironically, even Mexico recognizes this when it attempts to increase border enforcement along its own southern border with Guatemala1,2. If those policies are lawfully set by the people and legislature, then regardless of how efficacious a particular tool is, it is justified. It is clear that the fence is wildly popular – well over half of the United States supports it3 , and many individuals are so adamant about increasing border security that they are willing to make donations for these purposes4. The social contract of the United States means that the government is democratically elected and therefore accountable to its people. If they want to focus on securing the borders instead of providing more extensive welfare programs or reforming education or anything else they could be spending money on, that is their prerogative.  1Thompson, Ginger. “Mexico Worries About Its Own Southern Border.”  2Cutler, Michael. “Hypocrisy: Mexico Building Security Fence Against Guatemala.”  3Rasmussen Reports. “Support for Mexican Border Fence Up to 68%.”  4Crawford, Amanda. “Arizona’s State-Owned Mexico Border Fence Attracts Donors From Across U.S.”


Safety arguments are a red herring; terrorism will not be effectively prevented by the erection of the border fence. We need a proactive strategy that gathers intelligence and works with counterterrorism officials abroad to disrupt recruitment and training centers for terrorist groups.1 If some immigrants can slip through, so can some terrorists. At any rate, the 9/11 hijackers and other Al-Qaeda terrorists traditionally have not come through the Mexican border but rather from abroad and by airplanes or seaports, or they are homegrown radicals. Spending billions of dollars in a vain series of attempts to seal ourselves in an impenetrable fortress simply helps terrorists fulfill their goals of making us live in a culture of perpetual fear. As for drug trafficking, this problem is largely born of the tremendous market for it that still exists in the United States. If the demand dried up, so would the suppliers; on the other hand, if there is still an incredibly lucrative market, no fence will stop them from ferrying large amounts of drugs over the border, and most of the weapons the narcotics traffickers use actually come from the United States as well.2 We need to look to other solutions besides simplistic fences.  1 Bruguire, Jean-Louis. "The holes in America's anti-terror fence."  2McGreal, Chris. "The battle of the US-Mexico frontier."


The fence is a practical way to stop immigration and large parts of it have been built.  The Secure Fence Act of 2006 authorized the construction of at least two layers of reinforced fencing in high-crossing and high-risk sections along the border. This includes around the border town of Tecate, Calif., and a huge expanse stretching from Calexico, Calif., to Douglas, Ariz., which is virtually the entire length of Arizona's border with Mexico. Another section would stretch over most of the southern border of New Mexico. An additional section will wind through Texas, from Del Rio to Eagle Pass, and from Laredo to Brownsville. This would not only be a fence but will include technology to secure "operational control" of the border by using unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, radar, satellites and cameras.1  1Weisman, Jonathan. "With Senate Vote, Congress Passes Border Fence Bill."


A fence would help defend the economy of the United States.  A fence would help defend the economy of the United States during difficult times by protecting American jobs. It is a popular misconception that immigrants only do the types of jobs that native-born Americans will not take. Many professions encompassing construction, grounds-maintenance, housekeeping, and janitorial services actually have the majority of jobs performed by native-born Americans.1 Furthermore, illegal immigrants constitute a tremendous drain on various public benefits. These include medical treatment (because no one who is seriously injured or sick can be turned away from the emergency room as a result of a law called EMTALA)2 , municipal services like fire and police protection, food stamps, and education in public schools. Every dollar that gets spent on illegal immigrants is a dollar that could have been spent on law-abiding American citizens, who need all the help they can get during these difficult times.  1 Camarota, Steven and Jensenius, Karen. "Jobs Americans Won't Do?"  2Jordan, Miriam. "Illegal Immigration Enters the Health-Care Debate."


This assumes the fence is efficacious and therefore the cause of the reduction. It is not – there are numerous bypasses, ranging from simple ladders on pickup trucks to complex tunnels for the movement of people and drugs.1 While it may seem to be the case that the fence has caused the reduced numbers of illegal immigrants attempting to cross, in actuality this is because of the economic downturn in the United States.2,3 If there are no jobs, it stands to reason there is not going to be an influx of workers.  Even if it were efficacious, however, the idea that immigrants steal jobs is fundamentally flawed. Immigrants fill gaps in the domestic labour market.4 They are non-competitive for most types of jobs, such as supervisor positions.5 And anyways, most economists say that immigration grows the economy by expanding demand for goods and services that immigrants consume, and consequently this actually creates more jobs. While immigrants certainly may push down wages for some occupations, the net effect is to increase average wages for non-immigrant Americans.  Finally, the economies of many border towns on the United States’ side of the fence will suffer because of decreased demand for their goods and services.  1McGreal, Chris. “The battle of the US-Mexico frontier.”  2Associated Press. “U.S.-Mexico border fence almost complete.”  3Archibold, Randal and Preston, Julia. “Homeland Security Stands by Its Fence.”  4Cowen, Tyler. “How Immigrants Create More Jobs.”  5Novak, Viveca. “Does Immigration Cost Jobs?”


The border fence is a waste of money. It and the associated measures was given a budget of $1.2billion [i] and it is not likely to be a comprehensive fix. If the fence just covers current high crossing areas then these areas will simply move to more inhospitable areas or migrants will find other ways around – such as travelling through the gulf of Mexico by boat as occurs between in the Mediterranean for migrants travelling from North Africa to Europe.  [i] Weisman, Jonathan. "With Senate Vote, Congress Passes Border Fence Bill."


Just because something is a law does not mean that it is justified or morally correct. There have been many bad and unjustified laws on the books of the legal codes of many countries. Any means of carrying out the ends of a just law that will have terrible impacts are themselves also unjustified. When there are hundreds of people who have died in attempts to cross deserts or dangerous terrain to go around the fence in order to find gainful employment, that is a good indication that a policy is failing.


A fence would dramatically increase American safety.  Mexican violence between drug cartels frequently spills over and threatens the lives and peace-of-mind of Americans as well. The Council on Foreign Relations has said that Mexico's levels of violence and lawlessness over the past few years exceed even those in Iraq or Afghanistan.1 That has forced a costly increased police presence in border areas, and even that often proves insufficient to quell the killings. But even if the violent common criminals were somehow suppressed because of stepped up actions by the Mexican government, an easily penetrated border presents a national security threat. The FBI has warned that it is likely that Al Qaeda operatives and other terrorist groups will use the porous Mexican border as a means of infiltrating the country and launching deadly plots against American citizens in future. To prevent the carrying out of attacks, America needs secure borders.  1 McGreal, Chris. "The battle of the US-Mexico frontier."


It is important to maintain and enforce the principle of the rule of law, and a fence does that.  Illegal immigrants are openly flaunting the law, and permitting them to enter the country in this way demeans the hard-working individuals who immigrated legally. If people become angrier about illegal immigrants because more of them are coming in without a fence, this may also lead to the negative outcome of poorer treatment of Latinos who live and work legally in the United States. If there were no or very few illegal immigrants, there would be much less tension in communities since everyone would know that all the inhabitants had come there legally.


The United States has consistently demonstrated that it is a true partner in the war on organized crime in Northern Mexico. For instance, it has used unmanned drones like the ones in Pakistan to gather intelligence on Mexican drug lords.1 The relationship is healthy and Mexican officials frequently cooperate; it is certainly possible that there are underlying domestic political motivations for those politicians to be making such strong statements, and we should not necessarily take them at face value as representing the best picture of Mexican-American relations.  1 Defense News. "US Drones Track Drug Lords Over Mexic


While environmental concerns are certainly serious and warrant consideration, we need to balance the competing interests here. It is only a handful of species that would be threatened by this project, and any such endangered species can be moved into specially-designed preservation facilities that mimic the natural habitat. On the other hand, there is no other truly effective way to stop illegal immigrant crossings. In this sense, the local environment is a sacrifice of necessity. A related environmental concern is the pollution border-crossers leave in the desert and surrounding habitats, which would actually be reduced if fewer of them were crossing.


The fence is morally wrong and inhumane  Because it does not create an airtight border, it simply forces crossings at more dangerous locales like the hot, snake-infested deserts. Thousands of Mexicans have died since 2000 attempting the crossing, while less than 300 people died attempting to cross the Berlin Wall in almost three decades.1 The bodies of at least four hundred people were found in 2010.2 Simply put, barriers do not diminish the desire for a better life.3 That sort of catastrophic disregard for the fundamental humanity of these people demeans America as a nation. It is hard to reconcile this disregard with our considerable humanitarian support for starving people in Somalia and all over the world. We should work together to help hard-working individuals provide for their families. Most border-crossers are not drug runners, but people who just want legitimate jobs so they can feed their families.  1 Defense News. "US Drones Track Drug Lords Over Mexico."  2McGreal, Chris. "The battle of the US-Mexico frontier."  3McFadyen, Jennifer. "Immigration Issues: US-Mexico Border Fence Pros and Cons."


The fence only seems to solve the problem and detracts from dialogue about real solutions.  The fence serves as a band-aid fix, seemingly solving the problem while not really advancing comprehensive immigration reform. Maintenance of the fence and stringent border patrol contingents drains money that could be used to facilitate better solutions to the supposed problems immigration creates.1Additionally, the perception that something is already being done about illegal immigration saps the political will to find better solutions to the problem. This enables us to ignore the need to investigate shady business practices by employers, for instance.  1 Emmott, Robin. "A costly U.S.-Mexico border wall, in both dollars and deaths."


The fence is ineffective at carrying out its stated goals.  Not all illegal immigrants who are in the United States arrive by means of crossing the border; some overstay legally-acquired work visas. Attempts to implement "virtual" components of the fence have failed on several grounds. Images were too blurry, the systems performed poorly in bad weather, and there were false detections because of the inability to distinguish between animals and people.1 The technology also suffered from software bugs, and ultimately squandered billions of dollars.2 Because not all of the approximately 2000 mile border is covered by actual fencing, and even the physical fencing that exists is not continuous and relied on virtual components to cover the gaps, immigrants can easily go around the fence or through the weak points.3 In the past, immigrants have also used ladders or deception techniques (like cars with hollowed out dashboards) to bypass the fence. Additionally, drug runners have developed extensive and sophisticated tunnels to duck the wall and clear any sort of security checkpoints, rendering this defense mechanism with a price tag in the billions of USD4 (and expensive upkeep costs to boot) virtually useless.5 Finally, many individuals who cross the border looking for employment do so repeatedly, even when they are deported or turned back at the border by agents.6 In jurisdictions where these individuals are held in detention on misdemeanour charges, they contribute to overcrowding in prison facilities and consume valuable prosecutorial resources.7  1Ryan, Jason. "Homeland Security Axes Bush-Era 'Virtual Fence' Project."  2NYT Editors. "Virtual Failure on the Border."  3The Economist. "Good neighbours make fences." 4McFadyen, Jennifer. "Immigration Issues: US-Mexico Border Fence Pros and Cons."  5Global Security. "US-Mexico Border Fence."  6Federation for American Immigration Reform. "US Mexico Border Fence and Patrol Operations."  7Archibold, Randal and Preston, Julia. "Homeland Security Stands by Its Fence."


A fence hurts our political relationship with Mexico.  The United States needs to demonstrate that it is interested in being a true partner with Mexico in efforts to reduce drug trafficking and the pervasive cartel-driven violence of northern Mexico. Trying to simply keep all the Mexicans out is offensive; the governor of the Mexican state Coahuila has called the fence a "wall of hate",1 and in 2005 Mexican President Vincente Fox called the situation "disgraceful and shameful."2 Many individuals in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas have family and friends on the Mexican side and speak fluent Spanish, and don't support the wall. On the other hand, Arizona's demographics reflect population growth as the result of many Midwestern "snowbirds" with little experience of Latino culture moving there, and thus Arizona has much harsher prejudices against Mexicans.3 If we do not cooperate with Mexico, they will be less likely to share information valuable to our national security or cooperate with us on foreign policy initiatives.  1Hylton, Hillary. "Opponents of the Border Fence Look to Obama."  2Global Security. "US-Mexico Border Fence."  3The Economist. "Good neighbours make fences."


This argument is based on drastically different goals than the one that would support the fence being raised. While some individuals may want to take in illegal immigrants and provide them with generous welfare benefits and call that "comprehensive immigration reform", that is not what the majority of Americans want. They want illegal immigrants kept out of the country, and that in and of itself is a solution from their perspective, so to say that a fence distracts from the goal is just a straw-man. In the sense that it helps keep people out, it is working just as intended.  Erecting the fence and taking other measures (such as investigating employers who hire illegal immigrants) are by no means mutually exclusive, and we can do both to ensure that American jobs are going to people who are in America legally.


The fence is a serious environmental threat and endangers wildlife.  By cutting off components of the habitat, the fence diminishes gene flow and reduces the ability for survival, or creates remnant populations that are too small to sustain the species.1 Counter-intuitively, even certain winged species which fly low to the ground would be at risk. Climate change is forcing more migrations, and this would also prevent animals from carrying those out.2 This has been so lightly regarded by U.S. officials that at one point Mexico actually threatened to file a claim with the International Court of Justice.3  1Goldstein, Rob. "US-Mexico border fence putting wildlife at risk of extinction."  2Marshall, Jessica. "U.S.-Mexico Border Fence May Snag Wildlife."  3Magee, Megan. "The U.S.-Mexico Border Wall: An Environmental And Human Rights Disaster."


The role of concentrated fencing around urban areas in particular is to prevent immigrants from blending immediately into a town population, and in that sense, it is effective.1Even if you divert some illegal immigrant traffic elsewhere along the border, fencing still reduces overall rates of crossing by forcing those who would cross to go through more dangerous and barren territory; this is a significant deterrent. 2 Additionally, you can step up border patrols in the areas that do not cover the fence to catch drug smugglers and other illegal border crossers.3 This reduces the numbers of border patrol agents necessary to create an effective net to catch would-be illegal immigrants, and consequently reduces the long-term costs of border protection measures. The fence is meant to be merely a tool in the tool box, not a comprehensive solution to the problem of illegal immigration.4  1Associated Press. "U.S.-Mexico border fence almost complete."  2Wood, Daniel. "Where U.S.-Mexico border fence is tall, border crossings fall."  3Hendricks, Tyche. "Border security or boondoggle?"  4Archibold, Randal and Preston, Julia. "Homeland Security Stands by Its Fence."


We have no absolute moral obligation to everyone in the world. Many individuals are now calling for serious reductions in foreign aid and in foreign interventions in order to help Americans who are also suffering. That suffering is no less worthy of support just because it is not as highly publicized or televised on international news. Times may be difficult in Mexico, but they are difficult in America as well, and a country has an obligation to its citizens first, and then everyone else. It is legitimate and justified to build a fence to protect the American economy.


In the case of foxes, most of the alternative ways of killing them are crueler - e.g. trapping, snaring, or shooting, which often have the end result of maiming the fox and leaving it to die slowly of starvation and infection. A fox killed by hounds dies very quickly. In the case of killing animals to eat - such as fish, or game birds such as pheasants and grouse - the justification is even more straightforward; it is the most natural activity in the world to hunt and eat. And given the controversy surrounding the welfare of animals in modern farms, it would seem preferable to eat an animal that had had a free and happy life in the wild than one that had been reared in a factory farm, as many examples of secret filming (Warning: may find disturbing) in abattoirs show far more cruelty than you see on your standard deer or rabbit hunt. In the case of fishing, many anglers who fish for sport throw their catches back in, so the fish come to no lasting harm.