Resolved:

In response to the current crisis, a government should prioritize the humanitarian

needs of refugees over its national interests.

125 Watson Street, PO Box 38, Ripon, WI 54971-0038

(920) 748-6206 www.speechandebate.org

TERMS DEFINED
The initial phrase in the resolution, in response to the current crisis, begs an examination
of what crisis the framers of the resolution may be focused on. Certainly, there are areas of the
country that have been harder hit by refugees, however, a great deal of countries are dealing with
refugees in one way or another. Similarly, individuals are leaving multiple countries and may carry
the designation as refugees. Moreover, the inclusion of the word current also adds an
interesting element to the debate. How does one decide what refugee crisis is current? In other
words, does the negative have the ability to argue that there is truly no current refugee crisis
because steps are already being taken? In a lot of ways, the initial phrase in this resolution makes it
a hard one to grapple with. Ultimately, this resolution will likely focus on refugees leaving the
middle east, namely Syria, to head to Western Europe, namely Germany.
The word prioritize is also a word that may spark debate. In most senses of the word,
prioritize assumes that government would place one over the over. To borrow a phrase from past
resolutions, to prioritize national interests over the current refugee crisis may mean that when in
conflict, governments would focus on their own national interests. However, this begs the
question, when might these two things be in conflict with one another? If the negative can
convincingly prove that these two things are never in conflict, which may represent a legitimate
reason to vote for the negative. However, this is a bit a tough sell especially since governments are
already complaining about the burden placed upon them by refugees entering the country.
Nevertheless, the negative may get away with arguing that a prioritization does not mean an
outright refusal of sheltering refugees which may work to eliminate some valuable affirmative
ground.
Lastly, the idea of humanitarian needs also brings up an interesting debate. Based on this
resolution, does a government have the responsibility to provide shelter or are humanitarian needs
more limited in nature. For some background, the United Nations has decided that individuals who
have legitimate reason to fear their current countries can leave and relocate themselves without
obtaining appropriate visa paperwork. Under this statute, it would seem that humanitarian needs
include accepting individuals into a new country. However, the affirmative certainly has the
potential to argue for a narrower definition of humanitarian which may allow them to make
arguments about the two are rarely in conflict.

PRO GROUND

Perhaps, the most compelling reason to vote for the affirmative is the opportunity to
provide basic human rights and dignity to refugees escaping less than ideal situations in their home
countries. Under this argument, the affirmative can spin a narrative about the need to provide
basic human rights that would supersede all other governmental obligations. Moreover,
empirically, refugee crises have acted as a catalyst for war when left untouched. Essentially,
without permanent homes being found elsewhere, refugees are forced to live in often crowded
refugee camps amongst individuals who may have previously been involved in feuds. Moreover,
refugee camps are less than optimal settings to create and enforce management schemes that may
allow refugees to lead safer existences. Instead, time and time again, a lack of permanent
settlement for refugees may literally mean a death sentence. Sarah Lishcher explains this in her
book, Dangerous Sanctuaries: Refugee Camps, Civil War, and the Dilemmas of Humanitarian Aid.
This book is not short at about two hundred pages, but she provides a holistic understanding of
how governments have previously reacted to humanitarian crises and outline the negative
outcomes associated with not dealing with refugee crisis in an expedient, efficient manner1. Most
notably, the dignity and lives of human beings are at stake.

In the short term, the threat of large scale migration from refugees is relatively easy to
observe. Refugees immediately require an increase in educational services, police services, and
even housing distribution. The problem here is not one of xenophobia, instead, refugees strain
countries because they inflate the population instantaneously rather than the slow population
increase often associated with increasing birth rates. However, in some countries, namely
Germany, the influx of young, foreign individuals may actually provide a boost to the economy in
the long run. The Guardian explains, Germany desperately needs migrants to fill a growing skills
shortage in the workplace amid its own pending demographic crisis, owing to an ageing population
and a chronically low birthrate. The average immigrant in Germany is a startling 29 years younger
than the average German, who is 462. Here, refugees can be touted as an economic benefit to the
country as a whole. This idea is certainly affirmative ground, however, it also begs the negative to
ask questions about how the affirmative may value refugee life. In other words, are refugees only
useful/beneficial to country as long as they provide economic benefit? Further, if that economic
benefit ceases to exist, are refugees than asked to leave the premises?

1
Sarah Lischer, Dangerous Sanctuaries: Refugee Camps, Civil War, and the Dilemmas of Humanitarian Aid,
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Nlkqmjkutc4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=humanitarian+needs+refugee+c
risis&ots=ZZtesu7WMv&sig=5FV0HMkglgmrVu0nEHcUtQYbAk#v=onepage&q=humanitarian%20needs%20refugee%20crisis&f=false
2
Kate Connolly, The Guardian, October 8, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/08/refugee-crisisgermany-creaks-under-strain-of-open-door-policy

CON GROUND

The negative may start with pondering what specific parts of a nations national interests
may be incompatible with granting refugees asylum. Is the problem that the country does not have
enough spots in school? Is housing availability limited? If these are the problems, one may argue
that a country should not disregard its national interests because the quality of life provided to
refugees is directly related to national interests. For example, the situation in Germany as of now
can be described as dismal at best. The Economist points out, Processing centers exceeded
capacity weeks ago. Local authorities are struggling to find housing, since temporary tent cities will
not suffice in winter. The government of Hamburg has begun seizing empty office buildings to
house refugees, raising constitutional questions. Berlin and Bremen are considering similar
measures. Schools are struggling to integrate refugee children who speak no German. Fights have
broken out inside overcrowded asylum centers, often between young men of different ethnic or
religious groups3. In other words, governments have lost their ability to adequately protect
refugees under government protection. Surely, it seems like a bad argument and even slightly
offensive to argue that these less than perfect conditions are worse than what refugees are
escaping from, but, one may argue that refugees would be comparatively better off relocating to
countries that would not have to sacrifice their national interests to welcome refugees.

The long term will of the populace is something that should also be heavily considered.
About a month ago, Angela Merkel (chancellor of Germany) initially made the decision to allow
entrance to individuals seeking refugee status. Initially, she face relatively small amounts of
opposition in comparison to what she is currently going through. However, now, individuals in her
own party as well as throughout the German political sphere are mobilizing to end the flow of
refugees into Germany. Even further, individuals are even calling for a stricter stance from the EU
as a whole to prevent the influx of refugees into Western Europe as a whole. The Economist
observes, Gerda Hasselfeldt, a CSU parliamentary leader, wants to erect transit zones along
Germanys borders like those in airports. Markus Sder, Bavarias finance minister, has called for a
fence4. In other words, politicians have now perceived that refugees are directly in conflict with
German national interests. In response, politicians are calling for stricter stance on refugees than
we would have seen absent Merkels insistence on bringing refugees into Germany. Thus, an
appropriate negative argument may play on this fact to argue that the affirmative world only
invariably leads to stricter policies against refugees that make finding suitable places to settle
nearly impossible. If it is truly a question of harboring refugees for a few months with laxed policies
versus finding homes for refugees that are permanent, it would seem that the permanent option
would be preferable.

3
The Economist, October 10, 2015, http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21672296-after-historic-embrace-refugeesgerman-public-opinion-turning-merkel-her-limit
4
The Economist, October 10, 2015, http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21672296-after-historic-embrace-refugeesgerman-public-opinion-turning-merkel-her-limit

The backlash from the citizens of the countries that refugees may ultimately occupy is also
something that should be examined by the negative. Much like politicians, citizens/residents of
countries that have taken in significant portions of refugees have not been happy. In fact, this
unhappiness may metastasize into something much bigger in the future if refugees continue to
enter into these countries without some due diligence to xenophobic citizens. US News and World
Report argues, But not all of the continent shares their history, and the EU's leaders are not in a
position to compel their peoples to accommodate fresh waves of refugees as the defeated
Germans were forced to accept their uprooted cousins after the war. Long before the limits of
Europe's demographic or economic absorptive capacities are reached, voters are likely to rebel
against open-ended commitments to find homes for the victims of collapsing states and civil wars
in the Middle East.5. In many ways, the rise of strong nationalism and ethnic tension not only
represents a problem for refugees attempting to enter the country, it also represents a problem for
countries attempting to create ethnic cohesion farther down the road. In fact, Europe, and
especially Germany, already has a history of a conflict like this. During World War II, which the
above quotation is referring to, Europe faced a refugee crisis which provides an interesting case
study for what may happen this time. The result of that refugee crisis was a genuine backlash
against refugees from citizens which created ethnic tension. This article makes the argument that
the result this time will be even worse because democratic governments dont have the power to
functionally compel their citizens to get along. Instead, votes may be the new arena for ethnic
tension with citizens still controlling the voting bloc and possibly forcing the electorate to make
uncomfortable decisions.

5
The Conversation, US News and World Report, October 6, 2015
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/06/europes-refugee-crisis-last-time-it-was-much-worse

ON THE WHOLE

This resolution is quite different from the one that we just grappled with in many ways.
While September and October were focused on events happening here in the United States, this
one will focus almost entirely away from the United States. However, a lot of the sensitivity
required to talk about reparations is required to talk about refugees. This resolution is still about
real people and will develop over the course of the month based on real policy based by the EU and
individual countries in response to the crisis as a whole. Moreover, this resolution is important.
How governments ultimately decide to answer the essential question of the resolution is
something that will alter how the world functions for some time.