#DebateWise » Feed DebateWise » Comments Feed DebateWise » Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work Comments Feed alternate alternate alternate -- -- * Contact Us You are here: Home / Debates / Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work -- -- right to vote in local elections where they work Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work -- -- citizenry need not pose any threat to national sovereignty, as they involve themselves with local matters. There are a wide range of benefits that can be gained when voting rights are given to foreign workers. Beyond affirming the universality of human rights, this resolution will go far maintaining social stability, safeguarding economic growth, and promoting a peaceful global society. (It is -- -- important to recognize that it is not within the scope of the resolution we have been given to deal with the obvious problem of illegal migrant workers, other than to say that the Proposition will not contribute to this problem.) -- -- All the Yes points: 1. Allowing Foreign Workers to Vote in Local Elections would Help Maintain Social Stability -- Maintain Social Stability 2. Granting Foreign Workers Suffrage would Protect Them from Human Exploitation -- Exploitation 3. Giving Foreign Workers the Right to Vote would Foster Global Equality 4. Economic Benefits – A Win-Win Proposal -- -- 4. Summary Allowing Foreign Workers to Vote in Local Elections would Help Maintain Social Stability -- -- Yes because… 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 -- -- 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 -- 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. -- 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 -- -- 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 -- -- 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 -- -- 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-bl -- -- human rights. [[http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/08/21/prospering-sweat-and-bl ood-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 -- -- No because… Social security has nothing to do with the minute foreign population. Comparing small acts of violence to outburst for not having the citizenship of a particular country is a fallacy. Many countries face -- -- citizenship of a particular country is a fallacy. Many countries face problems such as terrorism and naxalism (for instance India). This does not mean that all of them are caused due to foreign hands who want to have the so called ‘equal’ status. Granting suffrage is a big task. It can’t be taken lightly. It is like most want to scale Mt. Everest -- -- can’t be taken lightly. It is like most want to scale Mt. Everest without realizing its magnitude. The basic fact that foreigners go to other countries is the need to make profits. As economics is the sole important factor on their mind, there seems to be no value in the proposition’s point that giving -- -- there seems to be no value in the proposition’s point that giving voting rights will enhance social cohesion. If given a say, the foreigners will press their point for only those laws which support their cause of making profits. No social issues will be pondered upon. It’s a problem-solution mismatch, as proposition clearly mentions such -- -- examples of violent rebellion that took place will still take place even if we ensure the right to vote. The move to provide suffrage for to the foreigners will remain an eye-wash as the foreigners will never be allowed to stand in the elections let alone win them. The point remains that they will still be a minority. Hence the granting of -- -- suffrage will do more harm than good, if any. The resources of a country are limited and have to fulfill the unlimited needs of the people. When foreigners come and settle in the country, the same amount of resources have to support a larger number of people. This leads to resentment among the people who feel deprived -- -- of what they believe belongs to them including jobs, land, etc. Japan’s example is worth quoting where the legislators have denied giving the voting rights to the foreigners.[1] [1] http://www.japantoday.com/category/lifestyle/view/japan-weighs-up-wheth -- -- [1] http://www.japantoday.com/category/lifestyle/view/japan-weighs-up-wheth er-to-give-foreign-residents-the-vote -- Granting Foreign Workers Suffrage would Protect Them from Human Exploitation Yes because… -- -- Yes because… 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 -- 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 -- -- 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 -- -- Couronne, director of Amnesty International, Mauritius.[[http://www.howto.co.uk/abroad/living-in-paris/finding_emplo yment_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 -- -- 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 -- -- to vote and election is mentioned and is only guaranteed to the citizen of the state and that to, not in electing all organs of the state. On the point of “gives a outlet for foreign workers to express their opinions and participate as local citizens without posing any threat to national sovereignty”. Well if that were to be the case then Canada, -- -- election for national security reasons. Another issue which arises is that many countries still don’t have dual citizenship and how many foreign workers would risk losing their citizenship just to earn the right to vote remains to be seen. Although all the foreign workers enjoy all the recognized basic human rights and still if they are marginalized and discriminated, the government should first take stern -- -- rather than extending voting rights which would hardly have an impact in such case. Protection from exploitation can only be achieved when immigrants have a representative government. That can never happen. The voter base would have to be greater than than the native population. There is -- -- suffrage clearly solves nothing. Giving Foreign Workers the Right to Vote would Foster Global Equality Yes because… -- -- 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 -- -- 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 -- 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 -- 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. -- -- making them accountable for major policy decisions which may have a significant bearing on the society in the future; a society which the foreign workers may never be able to call as their own (we all are aware of how deep rooted nationalistic tendencies can be, irrespective of the amount of leverages given in the host country). -- -- Voting rights, on the other hand, may hamper the whole peace equation which the proposition are so intently espousing. What if, in the process of making the foreign workers comfortable and at home, we end up igniting our own workforce? What if the reverse discrimination principle takes roots within our own people? What if they revolt on the -- -- which is inimical to any country’s economic, social and political interests. We totally agree on the point that a foreign workforce is essential for any country’s economy; however our basic stand remains that should they -- any country’s economy; however our basic stand remains that should they be given a higher pedestal than our local workers? And a higher pedestal it sure will be, if this voting rights question is affirmed in the positive by any government. -- -- their interests are all legitimate demands and can very well be incorporated, but so far as governance issues are concerned, lets keep these cocooned from foreigners. Economic Benefits – A Win-Win Proposal -- -- Yes because… Currently, around 150,000 foreign workers come to Canada annually[1], and for the duration of their residence, they are shut off from local -- 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 -- -- 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 -- -- 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. -- 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 -- grow. Business growth is desirable because it ultimately creates more openings for native workers as well as broader opportunities in general. -- 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. -- -- 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 -- -- the largest number of professionals, especially to the West. And it it the West which is crying out that their jobs are being ‘taken’ by foreigners. I just wish they had as open minds as our worthy opponents. No, wait a minute. Our worthy opponents are the West. They have just -- No, wait a minute. Our worthy opponents are the West. They have just made an argument so contrary to their foreign policy, I hope I might be forgiven for considering it a typographical error. -- forgiven for considering it a typographical error. The reason for granting jobs to foreigners is not as the proposition puts it, “to fill the demands of the global job markets.” It is done because in a capitalist economy cheap labour is a boon. An Asian, for -- -- example, will be willing to do the same work for a fraction of the salary. This is why they are hired so easily and in such large numbers. Now if voting rights are added to the benefits given to immigrants and foreigners, this will encourage even more immigration, thereby leading to further loss of jobs for natives. The proposition makes the argument that “hiring laws require the companies hiring them to demonstrate that -- -- to further loss of jobs for natives. The proposition makes the argument that “hiring laws require the companies hiring them to demonstrate that national workers with appropriate skill are not available for such jobs”. Does this mean that every foreign software engineer or human resource manager who is hired abroad possess some skill that domestic -- resource manager who is hired abroad possess some skill that domestic workers do not? The notion is absurd. Currently there are a large number of people living in nations other than their own. They are living , working and thriving. They continue -- -- 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 -- -- 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 -- -- 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 -- -- 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. -- 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 -- -- 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 -- 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. -- -- 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 -- -- 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 No because… -- -- ridiculous as stability is unimaginable without security. Further, the proposition has not explained as to how the granting of suffrage would peacefully quell social insurrections. The fact that foreigners are being granted voting rights will never go down well with the natives and they will surely oppose it wholeheartedly. The racist attacks -- -- students had begun to take away the jobs of the Australians and had started to replace them in their own State. In such a case will Australia ever grant voting rights to Indian workers? Will Indians crave to work in Australia in absence of security conformation by the -- crave to work in Australia in absence of security conformation by the State even if the voting rights are granted to Indian workers? The answer is a big no as no one will risk his life and stand in the queue to cast the vote. Right to life is a basic human right, not right to -- -- to cast the vote. Right to life is a basic human right, not right to vote. Workers surely go for the profit and not the fruit as the same will be available in their country as well. No one would spend money to go abroad and work unless remuneration issue is involved. -- -- available in their country as well. No one would spend money to go abroad and work unless remuneration issue is involved. The proposition pointlessly talks about “empowering the workers to look after themselves”. Even after granting the suffrage if the foreign workers have to look after themselves, then what is the use of granting suffrage? The government cannot shirk off its responsibility of providing security by granting suffrage and still asking people to look -- -- after them. The proposition has nowhere tried to explain as to how the issue of granting suffrage to foreign workers will help. It is out of proportion what the proposition is trying to mean by citing the issue of the -- what the proposition is trying to mean by citing the issue of the foreign workforce. True that the foreign workers bring wide range of skill and experience with them but how is it related to voting rights? The proposition is clueless regarding the after-effects of granting -- -- Yes because… 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 -- -- 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. -- -- 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. -- -- 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 -- -- The approach adopted by the proposition is too simplistic for believing that by granting voting rights to foreign workers everything will fall in place. Firstly, the governments of countries should stop racial profiling of -- -- Firstly, the governments of countries should stop racial profiling of people from Asia and Middle East and stop eying them through the prism of suspicion. The racist attacks directed against the foreign people should stop and the government should take stern action against the -- should stop and the government should take stern action against the perpetrators of these attacks. This will make the foreign workers content and instill a sense of belonging since they would be sure that the government of that country is taking steps to help them even though -- -- content and instill a sense of belonging since they would be sure that the government of that country is taking steps to help them even though they are not natives. If common prudence were to prevail, a foreign worker would first expect that there is no anti-foreign propaganda and that he is not tortured at the hands of the natives. The issue of Indian students being attacked in Australia and other European nations -- -- Indian students being attacked in Australia and other European nations has had racist angles. The proposition should understand the ground realities rather than assuming that “by providing foreign workers – with voting rights – we will make them happy”. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/indians-abroad/Another-Indian- -- -- Yes because… 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 -- -- 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 -- -- 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 -- -- The proposition begins by asking rhetorical questions regarding democracy and citizen. The proposition concedes that common prudence and legal codes provide no scope to foreigners as British legislation did in past. To the concept of equality, the opposition responds that it is out of proportion. Equality can only be considered if there are -- -- country, to the quality of soil, main occupation of the people and religion. Historical and economical factors are important. Hence it is aptly clear that foreigners, who are only a diminutive section of the society, do not identify themselves with all these characteristics. The proposition mentions that there is distinction between rights of -- -- the resolution. Giving of suffrage will be effective if all nations follow it; which cannot feasibly be done. If nation A gives foreigners of nation B this right and nation B doesn’t give the same to foreigners of A in B, then relations between the two are bound to be affect -- -- 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 -- -- 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 -- 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. -- -- 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 -- “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 -- 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 -- -- 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 -- -- Opposition would like to submit ‘immigration’ as point which cannot be ignored in the present context of the debate as foreign nationals who come without legal work permit and stay in the country and work there, hamoer the interest of the citizens of the country in terms of job -- -- bound to arise: a) it grants amnesty to criminals b) it disrespects all the legal immigrants who are still waiting for a legitimate citizenship c) legalized aliens are unlikely to be patriotic -- -- c) legalized aliens are unlikely to be patriotic Therefore giving right to vote whether it be local election or national elections to foreign nationals specially in case of immigrants is disrespect to all the citizens of that particular country who have -- disrespect to all the citizens of that particular country who have actually earned their citizenship rather than illegal immigrants who seek a short cut to land of opportunity. By providing them right to vote it will hamper national interest as they will misuse their votes -- -- Yes because… Immigration is irrelevant to this point. Immigrants are eligible for national citizenship, and would certainly have the right to vote in -- 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; -- 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. -- 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 -- 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. -- -- 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 -- 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 -- 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 -- opportunity”. It creates a sense of belonging and equality with their coworkers; creating peace in the workspace and in the country as a whole. -- 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 -- -- 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. -- -- No because… The proposition has rightly pointed out that immigrants are not on equal footing with the natives. Hence there arises no question of granting them with the most prized gift of a citizen i.e. the right to -- -- http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/coifiles/part.htm How can the proposition assume that only by giving voting rights the interest of the foreign workers are going to be protected? Each State strives to secure the rights of the immigrant workers by legislations and bilateral agreements. Going by the proposition’s take if voting -- and bilateral agreements. Going by the proposition’s take if voting rights are granted, no State would ever welcome any foreign workers as the politics of the local elections would gain an international outlook which could fare disastrous results. Local elections are to be kept out -- -- The proposition again concedes its point by saying that it is about supply and demand. Going by this it would seriously be a mockery of the pious institution of suffrage. One year the workers will come, exercise voting rights, and exit next year. Later, more workers will come, exercise their right and exit. It would be like adding in the resume that I have exercised my voting rights in these many countries and -- -- 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 -- -- 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 -- -- 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? -- -- 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 -- 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 -- -- 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. -- -- should understand that it is always better to fight a visible object than an invisible ghost. The proposition has just stated that granting the rights will bring social stability and keep the foreign workers “happy”. The burden of proof on the proposition was to prove the following -- -- (e) Why such a measure will not lead to encouraging illegal immigration? (f) How is voting by foreign workers part of the basic human right? (g) What is the rationale of deliberating on “community rights” without defining the same? -- -- defining the same? The opposition maintains its arguments and contends there would be no use of granting voting rights to the foreigners if the after-effects such as civil strife are overlooked. Further, stability can never be maintained in the absence of security. And if the basic security is not -- -- such as civil strife are overlooked. Further, stability can never be maintained in the absence of security. And if the basic security is not provided to the foreign workers it would be absurd to think that these foreign workers would want to live in the country just because they can vote. No foreigner would fancy the prospect of being abused while standing to cast the ballot. The foreign workers migrate for reaping the profits because the same is not available to them in their own country. Hence they will only bother about the money and the basic -- -- country. Hence they will only bother about the money and the basic security levels. For the simple reason that foreigners do not identify with the soul and culture of the the country, they do not deserve an equal footing with the natives on the point of voting rights. “The granting of such rights -- -- culture of the the country, they do not deserve an equal footing with the natives on the point of voting rights. “The granting of such rights to the foreign workers will devalue and dilute the institution of citizenship.” The sanctity of suffrage, which is the exclusive domain of the citizens, should be maintained and upheld.