Should we accept immigration?

From Wikidebates
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Balance of reason weighing pros and cons
This article aims to expose all the pros and cons of the debate “Should we accept immigration?”, to allow everyone to form a critical and informed opinion.
Searchtool.svg
 Further reading: Founding Principles
Hammer symbolizing construction
This debate is under construction
The debates under construction are the debates that contain at least:
  • a coherent plan;
  • the most well-known “for” and “against” arguments;
  • a beginning of writing.
Unlike constructed debates, it may lack: arguments, justifications, objections; an accomplished introduction, an adequate bibliography, webliography or videography.
. Arguments are missing or not written. The introduction and bibliography need improvement.
Feel free to complete them.
Warning danger sign
This debate is sensitive. Arguments relayed on this page may shock.
Reminder: these arguments are only relayed insofar as their presence can be attested in the public space. They are endorsed neither by the editors of the site, nor by the association which administers Wikidebates.
Duplicate
This debate is redundant. It duplicates another debate on the site.
Choose the more comprehensive of the two and add interesting content from the other.
PROS
Argument forWelcoming migrants is a humanist duty
Argument forPopulist solutions to limit immigration are inhumane, barbaric and ineffective
Argument forWe owe it to the people of the South
Argument forWelcoming migrants is good for European economies
Argument forWelcoming migrants is a cultural and social asset
Argument forWe can't stop immigration
Argument forEuropean and American imperialism have created the conditions for mass immigration as a result of the various bombings that have taken place.
Argument forFrance and Europe welcome few migrants in proportion to their population
Argument forRejection of immigration is the hallmark of the racist far right
Argument forThe West practices a double standard depending on the origin of migrants
Argument forSome countries have been rendered uninhabitable by the climate crisis
Argument forRejection of immigration is a form of resignation that absolves those truly responsible for France's economic and social crisis.
CONS
Argument againstWe can't take in all the world's misery
Argument againstInflux of migrants lowers quality of life and increases violence
Argument againstMigrants risk destabilizing social cohesion
Argument againstMigration is a problem for migrants themselves
Argument againstWe can't control immigration
Argument againstWelcoming migrants goes against the will of the people
Argument againstMigrants are not the ones in need, because you need enough money to leave your country.
Argument againstGiven the number of immigrants already present, migrants won't be able to integrate well.
Argument againstImmigration fuels terrorism to a certain extent
Argument againstImmigration often conveys retrograde or even obscurantist values and lifestyles (homophobia, sexism, etc.).
Argument againstMigrants significantly change the culture of the host country
Keywords : Migrants, Borders, Welcoming, Immigration, gender equality[ edit ].

To understand the debateTo understand the debate

[ edit ]

No introduction has been entered yet.

Wikipedia.svg[ + Add a link ] to a useful Wikipedia page to complement this introduction.

Arguments forPros

[ edit ]
What are the pros of immigration in France?
  • Argument forWelcoming migrants is a humanist duty
  • Argument forPopulist solutions to limit immigration are inhumane, barbaric and ineffective
  • Argument forWe owe it to the people of the South
  • Argument forWelcoming migrants is good for European economies
  • Argument forWelcoming migrants is a cultural and social asset
  • Argument forWe can't stop immigration
  • Argument forEuropean and American imperialism have created the conditions for mass immigration as a result of the various bombings that have taken place.
  • Argument forFrance and Europe welcome few migrants in proportion to their population
  • Argument forRejection of immigration is the hallmark of the racist far right
  • Argument forThe West practices a double standard depending on the origin of migrants
  • Argument forSome countries have been rendered uninhabitable by the climate crisis
  • Argument forRejection of immigration is a form of resignation that absolves those truly responsible for France's economic and social crisis.

Arguments againstCons

[ edit ]
What are the cons of immigration in France?
  • Argument againstWe can't take in all the world's misery
  • Argument againstInflux of migrants lowers quality of life and increases violence
  • Argument againstMigrants risk destabilizing social cohesion
  • Argument againstMigration is a problem for migrants themselves
  • Argument againstWe can't control immigration
  • Argument againstWelcoming migrants goes against the will of the people
  • Argument againstMigrants are not the ones in need, because you need enough money to leave your country.
  • Argument againstGiven the number of immigrants already present, migrants won't be able to integrate well.
  • Argument againstImmigration fuels terrorism to a certain extent
  • Argument againstImmigration often conveys retrograde or even obscurantist values and lifestyles (homophobia, sexism, etc.).
  • Argument againstMigrants significantly change the culture of the host country

To go furtherTo go further

BibliographyBibliography

For“Pro” side [ edit ]
Against“Con” side [ edit ]
Neither for nor againstNeither “pro” nor “con” [ edit ]

WebliographyWebliography

For“Pro” side [ edit ]
Against“Con” side [ edit ]
Neither for nor againstNeither “pro” nor “con” [ edit ]

VideographyVideography

For“Pro” side [ edit ]
Against“Con” side [ edit ]
Neither for nor againstNeither “pro” nor “con” [ edit ]
[ edit ]
Show the latest changes in the debate
Retrieved from "https://en.wikidebates.org/w/index.php?title=Should_we_accept_immigration%3F&oldid=6060"