Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work

Granting suffrage to those workers would reduce violence in the society by reducing intercultural tensions. The municipal government would recognise their position in the community by helping them participate in society. We the Proposition believe that our “embracing” policy, showing that the workers are welcome and that they are open to contribute to the society, would definitely ease out cultural tensions between the foreign workers and the society. In SQ, the limited worker rights of the foreign workers are enforcing the workers to resort to the solution of the desperate and disenfranchised – violent rebellion. In France, where granting foreign workers suffrage has been controversial for 30 years, urban violence initiated in late 1970’s and has broken out again recently, exacerbated by apartheid in suburban communities. On August16, 2010, in the Tebrau Industrial area in Malaysia, workers from Nepal, Myanmar, Vietnam, and India working in a factory destroyed a guard post and hurled stones and rubbish at bystanders. According to Johor state unity and human resources committee chairman M. Asojan, the death of a Nepalese factory worker was what triggered the riot, but the cause was the explosion of their frustration, anger and misery over the harsh environment they were forced to live in for a very long time. The issue is not simply about a riot by foreign workers, but a fight for reasonable treatment and basic human rights. [[http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/08/21/prospering-sweat-and-blood-foreign-workers.html]] Providing foreign workers the right to vote can easily avert such tragedies by allowing them legitimacy and a recognized place in local society. A say in local elections gives marginalized members of a society a healthy way to let their voices be heard. The opportunity to vote fosters social cohesion and a sense of belonging in local communities, reducing the pressures that lead to violent outbreak.

Because foreign workers don’t have a voice in the society, this makes them vulnerable to abuse. Offering foreign workers a “voice” in the society in which they live legitimizes their place within it, and makes them part of it. This gives a healthy outlet for foreign workers or even their children to express their opinions and participate as local citizens without posing any threat to national sovereignty. Such participation is empowering and will encourage people to be proactive in knowing their rights as workers. “Migrant workers are some of the most vulnerable groups in any society, especially those whose status is irregular. Documented, undocumented, in a weak bargaining position or in otherwise is dirty, dangerous or degrading employ…” says Lindsey Couronne, director of Amnesty International, Mauritius.[[http://www.howto.co.uk/abroad/living-in-paris/finding_employment_2/]] Giving the foreign workers a voting right acknowledges their position as members of a community, and their rights as humans. In affording them status and legitimacy, it also sends a message to those who would exploit their vulnerability.

Article 22 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states that: “Everyone, as a member of society…is entitled to realization through national effort and international cooperation in accordance with the organization and resources of each state, of the economic, social, and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Foreign workers are inherently vulnerable to exploitation “…Many live and work in conditions described as akin to “modern slavery”, apart from facing discrimination, the denial of labour rights and even violence…”[[http://allafrica.com/stories/201007020682.html]]

Regardless of their rights under the law, socio-political marginalization often leaves them in a position with no power. Is it surprising that so many are unwilling to come forward and accuse their employers

Compared to the past years where there was little interaction between nations, understanding of different cultures have grown significantly in the modern society. The world that we live has more interaction between different cultures. However, we still see conflicts between people of different races. By giving these people of different cultures – those with working visas- voting rights, the local government would help them feel welcome in the community. Granting them voting rights would include them in minor decisions that directly affect them would show them that the community cares about them and we are including them in community decisions. This means that we would be embracing these foreign workers and accepting them more into our society, increasing overall peace in the society.

As voting rights seemed to be aspect of national sovereignty, it appeared to be difficult to extend voting rights to non-national residents. Therefore, a theoretical and political work of disconnection of local citizenship from national sovereign elections aimed to advance through recognition of local suffrage for foreign residents. The majority of European countries have now advanced in that way, but some countries still resists extending local voting rights to non-European residents. [[http://www.migrationeducation.org]]

European countries like Ireland and Sweden have implemented political integration of foreign workers by granting local voting rights to foreign workers. French parties and human rights organizations began to discuss the possibility of extending voting rights to foreign residents. In the early 1970s, the most important argument was the claim for equality between foreigners and French people, a universal conception of equality suggested that there should be no difference between foreigners and nationals in the access to the political scene. The human equality is essential to the democratic principles, which the contemporary seems to value so much.

Currently, around 150,000 foreign workers come to Canada annually[1], and for the duration of their residence, they are shut off from local politics. As we have described, granting foreign workers voting rights will prevent marginalization, unnecessary violence and violation of human rights. Beyond these benefits, there is a very pragmatic one that informed citizens should consider: the great mutual economic benefits brought by foreign workers and the desirability of welcoming skilled workers to fill identified shortages.

Foreign workers have always been vulnerable to exploitation because they lack the rights of recognized citizens. Offering them a sanctioned place in the social and political fabric of their communities will no doubt go far to encouraging them to leave behind the rights and privileges of national citizenship in order to fill the demands of global job markets. This works as a double benefit for the countries that welcome them, by improving the economy and creating more jobs.

It is important to be clear that foreign workers are not “taking jobs” from national workers, because hiring laws require the companies hiring them to demonstrate that national workers with appropriate skills are not available for such jobs.
With the help of the skilled and motivated workers, businesses will grow. Business growth is desirable because it ultimately creates more openings for native workers as well as broader opportunities in general.

Rather than “taking jobs”, foreign workers are a valuable resource. They fill gaps in the market, and have the potential to create more jobs in the long term.
By offering foreign workers a legitimized place in society, we recognize the value of their skills, the important role they play, provide insurance against exploitation, and encourage their continued participation in markets where they are needed.

[1] http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/work/index.asp
 

Social security has nothing to do with our contention. Granting suffrage would peacefully quell social insurrections and keep our society STABLE

Opposition mentioned why foreigners go overseas to work. However, the workers pick fruit not for profit alone, but for better conditions than at home.

We all believe that it is unacceptable to take exploit humans. In order to protect the socially vulnerable workers, we must go beyond offering theoretical rights and empower them to look after themselves.
After all, they fill in the unattractive jobs to sustain private businesses like hotels. Skillful ones fill the high sectors that boost the host’s economy and reduce unemployment rate. Foreign workers bring a wide range of skills and experiences, and knowledge about different markets around the world. Keppel and SembCorp for instance, hire 20,000 people. These jobs wouldn’t exist without the foreign workers, and vice versa. [[http://barangaysingapore.com/immigration/singapore-needs-more-foreign-workers-in-order-to-grow/]]

Many who work overseas are frustrated with limited rights and little interaction in the society. The Opposition said the West enjoys flows of highly skilled Indian workers; but this won’t be true forever with India’s economic growth as the Indian workers prefer home with full rights to overseas where their voices are unheard

The Opposition then misconstrues that foreign workers would only vouch for their economic profits. However, it doesn’t matter if the workers want to discuss social issues. The point of giving them suffrage is to sanction their value by granting civil rights.

Our issue is not whether or not the foreign workers can win the elections. We should focus on how the workers need a voice in issues directly affecting their lives. This is like young Helen Keller struggling to communicate with her parents

Foreign workers, as the Opposition kindly noted, are a minority. Illegal and legal immigrants deplete more resources than foreign worke

Opp has stated that local elections do not include foreign workers in minor decisions, but let them make big policy decisions. We beg the opp to describe what “major policy decisions” are made at the local level in India, or any country at all, as we know of none. Their worry is that nationalistic values will not let foreign workers feel a sense of belonging, but by giving them voting rights, we will help them feel like they are included in the community.

They attempted to attack our speech by saying that voting rights will not lead to equality and that there are other means to achieve equality. However, they didn’t provide other ways to achieve this. They have also claimed that we need to keep the workforce happy. By providing foreign workers- a part of the workforce- with voting rights, we will make them happy and include them in small decision making. Once again, Prop solves for Opp’s avocations.

Opp stated that national sovereignty will be hurt by voting rights. Let us clear the fact that we are talking about local voting rights, not federal. This means that the things that affect the community, not the overall society will be voted by foreign workers. Lastly, we aren’t putting foreign workers “on a higher pedestal” because citizens get more benefits still, including federal voting rights.

In response to opp’s question, we would like to state that yes, we do believe that the resolution will ensure better rights for Mexicans in Texas. They have conceded the fact that their voices are not being heard in the SQ, yet haven’t explained why voting rights will not fix this, merely addressing a claim against our point with no substantiation. If these minorities such as the Mexicans were a part of the voting population, they can express their opinions and elect mayors that they believe will help ensure their rights. Having a say and a choice in how they want to be treated, better rights are ensured since they at least have freedom of choice.

Opp’s theme is granting foreign workers (FW) suffrage wouldn’t solve, but exacerbate the SQ. FW aren’t interested in society, and they’re only a minority. Also, representative gov’t is the only way to protect them from exploitation, which can’t be done. They attacked the morality issue, by that FW are intrinsically different and unequal to natives. Moreover, competition in resources, chaotic society, and harmed national sovereignty are the disads, and there are other ways to make foreign workers happy. Further, the sole goal of the FW is better chances in life, so they should be satisfied.

Prop explained that suffrage for FW will help maintain social stability, decrease human exploitation, enhance global equality, and benefit the economy. Violent protests had become a weapon against exploitation. The resolution will reduce social imbalance in SQ by including FW’s voices in the community. Suffrage will give them a voice in society to prevent more abuses and help different cultures understand each other and interact. FW fill the unattractive yet keystone jobs. Some also take up high skilled jobs that citizens can’t. This benefits the economy by creating more jobs.

When coming to a decision in a debate, we must consider what’s right and most sensible. In SQ, FW are exploited because they don’t have a voice or any clue how to claim their rights. In fact, some are fired for standing up for their rights, but don’t know how to deal with it; this leads to social instability like France, where violent protests are used to alert the society. FW can avoid these if they had a voice and the right tools. Giving FW suffrage wouldn’t cause hatred among natives, for many of them do understand FW’s situation and their contribution to the society.

Economic imbalance in SQ can be solved by suffrage, offering FW legitimized places in society, welcome their skills and existence, provide insurance against exploitation, and encourage participation in markets where they’re needed. This encourages FW to fill demands of global job markets in foreign states. In the utilitarian aspect, this works as a double benefit for the host nation since the FW improve the economy by filling job gaps while creating more jobs as the economy grows.

Thus suffrage is not simply an inherent say of a native. It’s a healthy way of communication in democratic society. Also, we don’t have to worry about national sovereignty since local elections are only parochial. Other disads such as political chaos or competitions in resources are insignificant as the Opp conceded that FWs are only a minority, and this shouldn’t dissuade us from creating a better society.

The resolution is a positive step towards global peace and prosperity. It ultimately stops exploitation, violent protests and promotes cultural interaction, while improving the economy and increasing employment rates. Hence, passing this resolution is not only a sensible thing, but also the right thing to do.

The Opposition claims that equality can only exist if there are two groups who form part of the same cult, but they do not realize how immigrants become “equal” with native citizens. For example, permanent residents of Canada should have lived there for 3 out of the last 4 years. According to the Opposition’s logic these people are technically citizens, yet they stated that foreign workers do not identify themselves with those characteristics. Since those immigrants and foreign workers differ only by their title and their reason of residence, who is to say that the immigrants possess those “characteristics” and the foreign workers do not? To be honest, Canadian society is a melting pot, composed of citizens who were all once immigrants themselves. Therefore, the division between citizens and foreign workers is not as distinct as side Opposition claims. Our underlying intention is to make those workers feel welcome in society and to respect their rights, as the contemporary seems to value democracy so much.

We do concede that the title “community citizenship” does not exist, but the concept does. Those foreign workers can be regarded as “community citizens” because they form the society and contribute to the community, as the Opposition acknowledged that “a foreign workforce is essential for any country’s economy.” Many countries offer legally-protected rights to foreign workers from countries that do not offer similar protection to workers, as many of them do not recruit foreign workers. This is not about reciprocity; it is about supply and demand. If we recruit foreign workers because we feel the need to, then we have the moral responsibility to protect them, as well as the practical motivation to attract them. Thus we the Proposition believe that granting suffrage to foreign workers, while also acknowledging that this would not implement definite global equality, but take a step toward the goal; the goal that we believe the Opposition should bear in mind too.

Immigration is irrelevant to this point. Immigrants are eligible for national citizenship, and would certainly have the right to vote in local elections. Nations do not allow foreign workers to take their own citizens’ jobs. Canada lacks staffs for certain jobs, in Fraser valley; there are 250 open spaces for nurses. Since we can’t find workers in Canada, we allow foreign workers to work in specific jobs. This is how foreign workers never “hamper the interest of the citizens of the country in terms of job employment”, but are actually benefits.

Suggesting that granting foreign workers the right to vote in local elections is linked to granting amnesty to criminals is absurd. We need to acknowledge that foreign workers have legally obtained temporary work visas in a country. As we are discussing people who have entered a country legally, criminal activity is therefore not an issue.

Is patriotism necessary to vote in local elections? Certainly, foreign workers want a voice in the community. The issues for which their votes would be casted directly link to their lives, not the country as a whole. Most of the time, foreign workers are alienated from the community. Giving them a vote in local elections would give them a voice for the issues that directly affect them. Granting foreign workers suffrage does not create a “short cut top the land of opportunity”. It creates a sense of belonging and equality with their coworkers; creating peace in the workspace and in the country as a whole.

Foreign workers’ goal is not to create “a state of political turmoil in the country”. Even if they were able to do so (which they are not, as it is only local elections they are allowed to vote), where would the desire come from? People who are working in a foreign country do so since they have chosen to be there. Whether it is temporary or permanent the country in which they are working in is their home.

We take that the opposition’s terms for the distinction between immigrants and natives is continued from their Montesquieu quote; “law should be determined by the characteristics of a nation.” However, not only should inherent characteristics NOT contribute to who can have suffrage, but also, this is the main reason why social instability is at large; people ignoring the ‘foreigners’ because they aren’t of equal national status. We agree that human rights and suffrage are different, yet believe they are linked; not giving them a voice in the society will make them vulnerable to exploitation, which is certainly violating human rights.

Firstly, we have proven theoretical rights on documents are not enough to protect the foreign workers from being exploited. Secondly we ask, how does preventing exploitation which leads to social instability have a negative effect on a state’s soft-power?

Their locals and foreigners ratio argument can be easily torn down by the fact that hiring laws prevent countries from “senselessly” inviting a wave of foreign workers, and if a state wants to bring in foreign workers, it needs to prove that no other nationals can do the job that needs to be filled. However, if the odd scenario of foreigners overpowering the locals was to happen, it would not cause civil strife or hamper the relations between countries. It would be another step towards global peace because more foreigners mean more understanding of diverse cultures. With this we can prevent discrimination and misunderstanding of cultures in the world.

Lastly, we would like to point out that the opposition failed to attack our rebuttals for their 2nd contention, thus our counter-arguments still stand, and their whole arguments on illegal immigration basically falls.