The debate took place on Monday, 9th May. Adam Smith proposed the motion and Tom Warner opposed it.
The proposition supporting welcoming all refugees to the UK
The proposer outlined the wide range of refugees from around the world who seek entry to the UK. This includes Syria, Ukraine and others. The system here treats refugees on an individual case-by-case basis. In order to qualify, the person must enter as an asylum seeker. The 1951 UNHCR convention on the status of refugees forms the basis for this. If someone disagrees with Putin, they could come here.
People in France attempt to cross the Channel in boats / dinghies, and our Coast Guard rescues them. Once they set foot on land, do they become refugees? There’s no way to enter legally, and this means they may not be considered refugees. How can we then ‘welcome’ them? We like to think we look after our neighbours. Yet the majority of refugees are ethnic minorities and we treat them poorly – this could be a hate crime. Race-related hate crime in Britain has doubled to 80,000 per year in the last five years. Brexit partially derived from hatred towards immigrants, yet now we accept Ukrainian refugees. We send single male refugees to Rwanda, that’s our welcome. Even before that approach, our welcome was disgusting.
The opposition against the refugees debate motion
The opposer agreed with the proposer on a number of points. Small boats crossing the channel pose a significant problem. He stated that he would make a simple argument based on compassion. He proposed a new system to handle migrants. This well-ordered system would provide generosity. The UK’s foreign policy misadventures have caused a big problem. We also provide refugees with £5.30 per week in subsistence support – a small incentive to risk their lives, yet also half-hearted. Not allowing in talented refugees misses out on a large human opportunity. Am I trying to limit the numbers of refugees – no. Compassion is a high virtue. The most compassionate approach would comprise a generous and well-ordered system. He urged the audience to oppose the motion, which he argued is a recipe for more human trafficking.
Floor speeches from the audience of the refugee debate
Floor speakers attempted to define some of the key terms of the motion and interpret the main speakers’ positions. Several advocated for recognising the humanity of refugees and migrants and pointed out the unconscionability of sending them to Rwanda. Yet housing them all would be impractical. We should stop using them as a political football and recognise their rights. Some noted the outpouring of support for Ukrainians, in marked contrast to those from other places.
One speaker argued that the bulk of the British people do not wish to welcome refugees. Their illegal entry should be punished. They have no basis to leave France for the UK. We should stop the £5 per week payment.
Other speakers disagreed. Economic migrants differ significantly from refugees. The catch-22 faced by refugees that there is no legal route to enter Britain causes them to take large risks. Controlling migration parallels the drug trade, with few feasible options. Some speakers did call for a more ordered and tighter system of controls. The main speakers had largely similar positions. Our welcome cannot be as bad as described by the proposer. The issue centres on the volume of refugees, not whether we welcome them. One argued that we actually do have the resources and space to be able to provide basic needs for refugees. Some refugees have gone on to terrorism and have cultural differences. Strengthening our welcome would put a target on Britain’s back.
The opposer’s rebuttal in the refugee debate
In rebuttal, the opposer attempted to draw a clear distinction with the proposer. We need a well-organised and generous system. This will not provide an incentive for refugees to risk their lives in small boats. It is simply not compassionate to lure people to their deaths. He would love to see investment in the relevant infrastructure. Where real wars occur across the world, assess the situation on the ground and provide a truly warm welcome for those deserving refugees. The government talks tough and then lets people in.
The proposer’s closing speech
In closing, the proposer pointed out that we don’t have an open policy – if you arrive here, we still don’t like you. Should we put hatred forward – some people do. There are regions in Yorkshire, Suffolk, Lincolnshire that don’t like immigrants. They view immigrants as taking the jobs of locals. Government policy reflects this. Our welcome is not entirely welcome, it is disgusting they get only £5.30 per week. We need to think carefully about this welcome, though we can’t let everyone in either.
Result: in the final vote, the refugees debate motion carried
The Sylvans concluded through the refugee debate that the UK should welcome all refugees and asylum seekers, irrespective of how they arrived.
See information on other Sylvan debates here.
