This is where all download will be listed, utilizing the Page Add plugin.
File Name | S21-Policy-NCFCA-06-NEG-Dublin-1.docx |
File Size | 73.91 KB |
Date added | September 3, 2020 |
Category | Archived |
Tags | Debate, NCFCA, Policy, Season 21 |
The “Dublin Rule” sets the parameters for what country has to take primary responsibility for processing a migrant who shows up unexpectedly/illegally at one of the borders of the European Union. The default rule is that the first country the migrant comes to has primary responsibility, but this places an extraordinary burden on EU countries that happen to be geographically disadvantaged to be close to crisis zones exporting many migrants.
The affirmative makes a strong case that the Dublin regulation has some serious flaws. When looking at the state of the European Union’s immigration policy, it seems to make sense that Dublin should be improved. However, there’s a crucial question that you can’t lose sight of. Why has Dublin reform been discussed and debated for so long (the latest version of the regulation was passed 7 years ago) yet no reform has actually been made? Why is this so difficult? Because as broken as the status quo might be – as much as we might like to make things better – no one can come up with a solution that is better than the current situation. The EU Parliament’s proposal is no different. You may hear about “the Wikström report” from the Affirmative side. It is an EU study published recently that advocates the AFF plan, which was also was recommended by the EU Parliament (but never adopted).
This NEG brief focuses on Solvency and Disadvantages. The underlying philosophy behind much of these cards is that the problems are caused by something other than Dublin, usually individual member states’ policies and the way they treat asylum applicants. Therefore, changing the Dublin regulation won’t solve for these deeper issues. On top of this issue of solvency is the transfers disadvantage. Interestingly, this is actually promoted as a good thing in the affirmative plan, as it intends to help with responsibility-sharing. Unfortunately, this “advantage” is shortsighted, as the EU’s immigration system is unequipped to deal with even current attempts at relocation. It would be irresponsible to overwhelm the system even further. Other disadvantages stem from the fact mentioned above that there are good reasons the SQ hasn’t reformed Dublin yet: Such reforms would surely fracture and divide the EU. And we provide here several serious impacted DA’s on why it’s bad if the EU is fractured/weakened.