English Oral Help - Mass Migration to Europe

[n.a]

HELP!

For my Year 12 oral, my topic is the Mass Migration to Europe. Help me come up with ideas for arguments? I'm supporting the migration.

Thanks, guys!

[pi]

Split this as a new topic.

Interesting topic, can you tell us why are you in favour of the mass migration?

[n.a]

Well, to be honest, I chose my side on a purely emotional basis intitially. That is, anyone who is so afraid that they are ready to leave their own lives and people behind, must be desperate and needy enough for us to need to help them find new homes and futures.

We live in comfort and have freedom and luxury enough to be able to even choose whether we want to let people into our countries and homes, whereas these people fear for their lives daily. We could've been in their position, and if we're in the position to provide safety and opportunities for these people, why not?

I agree that those who seek to enter into a country illegally are in the wrong, sometimes when they're not even genuinely fleeing for their lives but rather from poverty  (both before and after the mass migration policies). But on the flip side, what is it that pushes these people to brave the treacherous seas and risk their lives, knowing that they will almost surely be sent back? Is it that they're simply ignorant and arrogant? Or are we the ones who make it that much harder for those of less fortune to find a better life? Why do we make it so hard on them to enter legally? And why are we so hesitant to share the safety and freedom that we enjoy with those who weren't fortunate enough to be born into luxury?

I can see why a sudden influx in population can be a huge burden on countries, and can lead to increases in crime rates, and general chaos. But isn't that the way all countries began? British colonists who entered the already peacefully occupied Australia were welcomed into the country, and the Indigenous Australians accepted the change as it came, albeit reluctantly and largely due to the weapons that these new people carried. But these migrants that we see today don't carry weapons or wish to take our land in their name, and yet we see British colonisation of Australia as development and today's migration as an invasion.

Why are we reluctant to provide at least basic homes and spaces for these people, in the hopes that they'll be able to improve our country, rather than take it away from us. They're not looking for five-star accomodation. They just want some peace and quiet and freedom.

I think if we stopped being afraid of change and stopped looking at these people as carriers of the terrorist disease, and saw them instead as a new chapter in our history, just like the people who changed the world we live in today, we'd be able to find a solution to the mass migration problem.

Problems are bound to arise, such as the aforementioned increase in crime rates, but as the chaos settles down, so will the people.

History repeats itself, and we've survived history so far. That's what I think anyway.

[n.a]

Also, we started this mess in the first place. Germany opening their borders gave all these unfortunate a light at the end of the tunnel, so we can't blame them for wanting to get out of the tunnel. If anyone should be blamed, it's us. So rather than panicking, we should be focusing on providing a solution to the problem we started.

[Alter]

Just be careful in justifying it with "we started this mess". It's a long bow to draw in saying that Australia precipitated Syrian civil war or terrorist attacks. By all means, say that we have a moral obligation to help them as a global citizen, but saying that we have to clean up our mess might make you lose some points on the content side of things.

It sounds like you're really interested in the topic, which is a great thing! Just do some research and draft your speech before editing it and you'll be able to smash the assessment.

If you'd like another argument, you should consider the line of logic that migrants help build economies where they flee to (sometimes) and can help contribute to sustainability by virtue of the fact that they will inevitably be consumers.

[n.a]

Just be careful in justifying it with "we started this mess". It's a long bow to draw in saying that Australia precipitated Syrian civil war or terrorist attacks. By all means, say that we have a moral obligation to help them as a global citizen, but saying that we have to clean up our mess might make you lose some points on the content side of things.

It sounds like you're really interested in the topic, which is a great thing! Just do some research and draft your speech before editing it and you'll be able to smash the assessment.

If you'd like another argument, you should consider the line of logic that migrants help build economies where they flee to (sometimes) and can help contribute to sustainability by virtue of the fact that they will inevitably be consumers.

Thank you, that point is great. Although when I said 'we started this mess', I wasn't referring to the Syrian civil war or terrorism, etc. Sorry if that was a bit unclear, I was actually talking about Germany's decision to open their borders to migrants without thinking the consequences through thoroughly. That is, we gave people the hope of a better land without accomodating for the issues they may bring with them. Now can we blame them for our lack of foresight and understanding? We should have seen this coming, and thought up solutions for them, rather than spontaneously opening borders.

[Alter]

Ah, cool. I just got confused by 'we' because I thought you were speaking from the perspective of Australia (and ergo saying it's Australia's fault for other countries opening up borders, if you get what I mean). Good luck with year 12!

[n.a]

Yup, gotcha, my bad. Should've phrased that better.

I was just reading an article that spoke about gender imbalance among the migrants. That is, there are more males than females , which studies show, can lead to higher crime rates. Is there an argument I could come up with against that?