Immigration Debate at the Oxford Union

This House believes That No One can be illegal on stolen land.

Above- Debate Motion Paper

Nothing ever happens was the fun emergency debate before which was defeated following an entertaining discussion amongst a full chamber, which is not the norm with oxford union emergencies debates. A stream of keen sixth formers spoke during the emergency debate, with one making a verbal stab at all the bitter oldies present. If the emergency debate was fun, surely the immigration main debate by its content would be serious? An undergraduate from Exeter college opened for the FOR side. First illegals were invaders 500 years ago. Borders are artificial, all built on stolen land was the thrust of logic justifying the creation of such a motion. 60 per cent of borders were determined by invaders at gunpoint. Invite, exploit then hunt we see in Palestine. Berlin conference of 1844, stated lands can be colonised by those willing to assert their authority and take land by force. We can see this in effect in Palestine where land has been stolen by Israel in Palestine, same with Aberigines in Australia, Maries in New Zealand, native blacks in Africa etc.

We need to think with our heads, when addressing the powerful slogan of today’s debate, the proposer against the motion argued. Open border idealism is the belief of the proposers which clash with the reality of the world, The proposers hold luxury beliefs which challenge everyday life. Laws need to be upheld you can’t discredit them by simply arguing the government have no right to pass them because they govern stolen land. Replacing governance with grievance is a non void argument.

We live in a current world where Movement is criminalised whereas conquest isn’t were the opening remarks of the seconded proposer. There is no such thing as an illegal human being. Migration today is linked to colonial destruction. Migration today could be viewed as unfinished colonisation. No one can be illegal on stolen land.

In the case of Ireland, when was it legal or illegal land? Was it when the celts came? Or was it when Cromwell arrived? Or was when he left? Were the opening remarks of the seconder against. Dispossed people, why would migration make their lives any better? When they face the same threats and discrimination in the lands they are migrating too. The logic of the for side simply does not hold up. This undemocratic motion must fall. You must defeat this motion. Love Trump or hate him, his anti migration policy main reason why he was elected. The stolen land argument is the same argument used by Hitler when he invaded the Sudetenland or Putin when he invaded the Ukraine. Floor debate followed, accusations that those in favour are left wing, while another argued, what we want is the rights of the rich for everyone. Indigenous law does create a legal on right.

In the return to the main debate, Illegal is a colonial term , another for speaker argued. All born people have a legal right to exist, it is the act or acts which they commit which makes them illegal, not the person. This type of migration is neo colonialism or post colonialism. Is the world made of free self determined borders based upon abstract liberalism? In us, large number of us migrants are indigenous people, decimated against.

The next against argued, talked about countries being destroyed by immigrants. Western people are under siege. They don’t want to share but possess it. First in time ownership. Who stole Britain, was it the celts, the Romans, the vikings or was it the Normans? Nations form, expand or they fall. Borders are a cruelty, we are here to protect our people and keep threats and dangers out. Borders are not evil.