Intellectual property rights allow individuals to release their inventions into the public domain  Without the protection of intellectual property, artists, inventors, and innovators may develop ideas without ever releasing them to the public because they lack the ability to market them successfully, or to profit by their endeavours. After all, no one likes to see others profit by their hard work, and leaving them nothing; such is tantamount to slavery. The recognition of intellectual property rights encourages the release of ideas, inventions, and art to be released to the public, which serves to benefit society generally. Furthermore, the disclosure of ideas and inventions to the public allows firms to try to make the product better by "inventing around" the initial design, or by exploiting it once the term of the intellectual property right expires1. If the idea never enters the public, it might never do so, leaving society bereft of a potentially valuable asset. 1 Business Line. 2007. "Patents Grant Freedom to Invent Around". Hindu Business Line.


The salable and conferrable nature of intellectual property allows for the efficient and just distribution of ideas  Intellectual property rights are extremely important in the efficient and equitable allocation of ideas to firms and individuals1. The ability to sell intellectual property rights allows the price mechanism to assign ownership to the firms most likely to make a profit, and that are thus most likely to produce the product most efficiently, which will benefit all consumers. Furthermore, the ability to confer intellectual property rights on others is important, as often intellectual property, like licensing and patents, can support inventors' and artists' families after they are incapacitated or die. This is no different from the fact that ownership of physical property can be conferred for the betterment of dependents and family. It is only just that intellectual property be recognized and protected by law, so that it may be efficiently and fairly sold and transferred between parties.


Intellectual property rights incentivize investment of time and money in developing new products  When a real chance of profit exists in the development of a new product, or writing a new song, people put the effort into developing and creating them. The incentive to profit drives a great deal of people’s intellectual endeavors. Research and development, for example, forms a major part of industries’ investment, as they seek to create new products and inventions that will benefit consumers, and thus society as a whole. Research and development is extremely costly, however. The 2000 largest global companies invest more than €430 billion a year in researching new products1. The fear of theft, or of lack of profit stemming from such research, will serve as a powerful disincentive to investment, which is why countries with less robust intellectual property rights schemes are not home to research and development firms. Without the protection of intellectual property rights, new inventions lose much of their value, since a second-comer on the field can simply take the invention and develop the same product without the heavy costs of research involved, leaving the innovative company worse off than its copycat competitor. This will lead to far less innovation, and will hamper companies currently geared toward innovative and progressive products. Furthermore, intellectual property is particularly important to firms with high fixed costs and low marginal costs, or with low reverse engineering costs, such as computer, software, and pharmaceutical firms. The costs of commercialization, which include building factories, developing markets, etc., are often much higher than the costs of the initial conception of an idea2. Without the guarantee of ownership over intellectual products, the incentive to invest in their development is diminished. Within a robust intellectual property rights system, firms and individuals compete to produce the best product for patenting and licensing that will give them a higher market share and allow them to reap high profits. These incentives lead firms to “invent around” one another’s patents, leading to gradual improvements in technologies, benefiting consumers. Clearly, intellectual property is essential for a dynamic, progressive business world.  1 Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. 2009. “The 2009 EU Industrial R&D Investment Socreboard”. Economics of Industrial Research and Innovation  2Markey, Justice Howard. 1975. Special Problems in Patent Cases, 66 F.R.D. 529.


More ideas are not released into the public when there is intellectual property. The release of ideas is most bountiful when there is active and constant competition to produce newer and better products and ideas. This is only possible in the absence of constricting intellectual property rights. The ideas circulating in the public domain are only expanded by the constant competition and innovation essential for firms to succeed in the absence of intellectual property protections.


Policing intellectual property rights is self-sustaining  While there is a cost to implementing intellectual property rights and policing them this cost is mostly met by those who apply for the patents. Each country’s patent office charges for the patent application, in the case of the UK this is between £230-280.1 It also costs to renew the patent year on year with the cost often rising. This means that the government offices that process intellectual property meet their costs through the user fees.2 Much of the costs of enforcement are also met by those who own the intellectual property as their patents enable them to go to court against those who they believe are infringing their intellectual property rights.  1 Intellectual Property Office, How much does it cost?  2 Inventors Digest, Patent Office Unveils New, Bigger Budget, 2011


It is no more just that an individual's family benefit from a monopoly over an idea, than the individual who created it. There remains no inherent right to an idea. As for the sale of patents and licenses, firms will waste precious resources in fighting amongst each other for monopoly control over intellectual property, and will even buy the rights to products with no intention of using them, planning simply to prevent any competitors from doing so. The most efficient system is to have ideas be public and accessible and usable by everyone. When they are, more innovation will occur.


No one can own an idea. Thus creating something like a property right over intangible assets is a meaningless endeavour. Doing so gives monopoly power to individuals who may not make efficient or equitable use of their inventions or products. Physical property is a tangible asset, and thus can be protected by tangible safeguards. Ideas do not share this right to protection, because an idea, once spoken, enters the public domain and belongs to anyone who can use it.


This is simply wishful thinking on the basis of current technology getting a manned mission to another planet is simply not on the radar – or even close. In the light of this sobering fact there is no reason to go to the moon as some sort of test run for something we’re never going to do. Even if one were to think that it may one day be possible to travel to other planets, surely the sensible thing would be to spend the money developing that technology rather than blowing it on a manned trip to the moon we may well never need.


The technology required for colonizing ‘a second Earth’ would be easier to develop on the moon  The idea of colonizing another planet as either a contingency against a future extinction event or simply as an area for growth. Extinction events are considered to be any event which destroys over 50 per cent of life on Earth and there are believed to have been five of them in the last 540 million years. [i] It is in the nature of such an event that the warning we would have of such an event would not be sufficient to develop the technology required to relocate to another planet and so, by definition that technology needs to be developed when there is not the need. Taking global warming as an analogy, we now know that we should have been changing our lifestyles and economic models back at a time when virtually nobody believed that it was a reality. The moon could be used to develop biosphere and other technology which could be used in such a future colonization.  [i] Sanders, Robert, ‘Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?’, UC Berkeley News Center, 2 March 2011,


The modern world is vastly different to either of the periods Prop mentions both in terms of our capacity for the retention of existing knowledge and the speed of developing new solutions to old problems.  In addition to which this is comparing two completely different things the technology required here is to keep people alive for extended periods of time.  Equally the technology required for a colonization would need to be permanent and designed to be used many times, quite different from the disposable, one-time-only technology of the 1960s. As a result knowledge of those earlier missions may well be a disadvantage.  We still have the ability to launch and fly spaceships and that knowledge is vastly improved on those early attempts.  As far as the issue of spinoff technology is concerned, if you’re looking to develop products designed for Earth, developing materials and technologies for extra-terrestrial environments is a very odd way to go about it.


It would be the first step in colonizing space – the moon is preferential to Earth as a base for investigating life elsewhere in the universe  Colonizing the Moon should not be seen as an end goal in and of itself but rather a platform for reaching out further into the universe. The moon makes a better base than Earth for a number of reasons.  Any civilization that is serious about space exploration would probably have to start with the moon. It’s a comparatively simple mission which would allow us to learn the pitfalls and problems while staying within a few days of earth.  The moon also provides a better base for SETI than Earth as Radio telescopes on the far side of the moon would be shielded from the interference of Earth. Equally the Moon’s slow rotation would allow light-based observatories to undertake experiments lasting for days at a time.  Most experts are agreed that it is statistically unlikely that Earth is the only life-bearing planet, to date we have not been serious investigating this issue despite the enormous implications it has for almost every area of human thought and activity.


Whatever the merits of the search for ET, none of this requires a human presence on the moon all of the observational technology required to undertake the research could be controlled from Earth.  It doesn’t require a human presence on the moon, indeed if the purpose is for scientific research, there seems to be a strong argument for not having a human presence.  A human presence on the dark side of the Moon provides extra complications – and therefore extra costs – to simply keep the scientists alive. It seems likely that anybody based in such a situation would have to spend a large amount of their time and effort simply staying alive and performing monitoring functions that could as easily be provided from Huston.


The idea of a mining community on the moon is even more absurd than that of a scientific one. However valuable the minerals found the cost of extraction would never be covered. Furthermore the quantities required to meet the cost of extraction, let alone make a profit, would have a downward effect on the price of the commodity on earth. The whole exercise would become self-defeating. Equally, although chemicals such as Helium 3 would be useful if thermonuclear fusion was being used to produce energy it is a technology that does not yet exist. [i] Once again it would seem to make sense to invest the money in fusion technology first, then, if it happens, we how where to find Helium 3 – after there’s a practical use for it, not before.  [i] Lasker, John, ‘Race to the Moon for Nuclear Fuel’, Wired, 15 December 2006


We are already losing the technology and knowledge necessary for manned extra-terrestrial travel – critically that required to land people, we owe it to future generations to retain it.  If we compare the dual experience of Columbus and the Chinese Treasure Fleet of the fifteenth century, the Chinese decided not to pursue exploration and the technology of how to build and sail ships was lost until they were themselves colonized by sea-faring nations. Columbus’ voyages, by contrast were followed up with further expeditions, leading to the largest expansion in the history of humanity.  The technology required to land human beings on the surface of another planetary body is comparable.  All of those involved in the original moon landing are now elderly it seems sensible to deploy that expertise before it is lost. Recorded knowledge is all well and good but experience is also valuable.  Equally, one of the biggest justifications for NASA’s relatively modest budget – roughly nine billion dollars at the moment – is the trickledown technology from its innovations. Developing technology for survival in hostile alien environments may have applications on Earth such as inhabiting Antarctica or using resources vastly more efficiently


We already know something about it and so have a clearer idea of what to look for  In many ways our trips to the moon so far tell us which questions we need to ask, the next stage is to find the answers. It also has the advantage of being close enough to earth that samples and data can be relatively easily sent between the two.  The moon functions as a sort of attic for the Earth, a repository of rocks than are no longer found on earth. There are also resources, such as lunar glass and Helium3, which could be potentially very valuable if they are there in sufficient quantities, human beings can simply cover more territory than Robots and make assessments like these more easily. If these rare minerals exist in sufficient quantity they could potentially fund the whole project [i] .  [i] "Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008


There are many worthy projects that could benefit from this funding, however that doesn’t defeat the importance of returning to the moon and developing a base there. There is absolutely nothing in the history of other manned projects into space that suggests that humanity as a whole is poorer, hungrier, sicker or more stupid because we did so.  Rather, we received those remarkable pictures of the Earth from space confirming what we look like in a way no map ever could. The various detritus of the mission in terms of solid rocks as well as ephemeral experience to prove that there is a universe out there waiting for us to find it.  A reminder, even in the darkest of times economically, that humanity has an astonishing capacity for exploration – both of the universe around us and within our own minds. Likewise the capacity of scientists and others to inspire us by showing our place in an extraordinary universe is beyond price.  We left the cave, went over the hill, crossed the Atlantic, circumnavigated the globe, went into space, went to the Moon…  And then stopped.  It’s time to start again.


Our fascination with discovery and exploration – especially anything to do with space – is one of the enduring aspects of the human condition. There are many areas of scientific development for which there is little popular support as people don’t really see the point, however space exploration is one which retains support [i] .  Polling levels no are at broadly the same level they were in the 1960s, receiving support from about forty per cent of the electorate. However, it’s worth noting that NASA has consistently higher public approvals than other federal agencies. It seems that, unsurprisingly, people aren’t that happy about the government spending any of their money but, if they’re going to do it, NASA gets more votes than the Environmental Protection Agency or the Internal Revenue Service.  [i] Public Opinion Polls and Perceptions of US Human Space Flight, Roger Launius, Space Policy 19 (2003) 163-175


There’s nothing more to find out, at least nothing that can’t be done with much cheaper unmanned missions  There are simply no good scientific reasons to send a manned flight to the moon. The desire to do so may have good justification in science fiction but not science fact [i] .  This research is simply not related to the reality of modern cosmology, it will tell us nothing about how the universe works or, frankly, anything we don’t even know already or could find out through unmanned missions.  The idea that there is serious research to be done is simply untrue. Cosmology is being conducted at the edge of the universe and the beginning of time. It’s not about collecting moon rocks.  [i] “Brave New World”, Editorial, Nature, 1 February 2007


There are simply better things to be spending money on  Whichever argument you pursue for going to the moon there are better and cheaper ways to achieve those designated goals. Whether it’s scientific, business-related, or as a ‘practice’ for exploration of deep space, there are better ways of spending the money and deploying the scientists, engineers and technicians. To waste not only the money but, more importantly, the time and expertise in the name of extending a national mythology or a political ego-fix is absurd. The cost of a moon landing, let alone an extended colonization, is foolish when there are other projects in all of those fields that are crying out for public funding.


It is impossibly expensive and lacks the kind of popular support required to get the 1969 mission of the ground  To make the kind of funding this project would require available, massive public and political will would be needed. This simply doesn’t exist.  The Cold War mentality of the ‘60s provided a justification. Having been beaten to get a man into space, there was an imperative for the American people to beat the USSR to the Moon.  No such justification exists for going the at all now, let alone going back. The only country in the world with both the technical and financial resources to do this, the United States, simply doesn’t have the political stomach to do it.


Clearly there is more than one way to skin a cat and there is research that can be done away from work that cannot be done here. The benefits that could come from a low-gravity, non-atmospheric research facility are not about ‘collecting moon rocks’ there would be benefits in, for example, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) would benefit greatly from small radio telescopes based away from the distractions and interferences based on Earth [i] . As has been shown by the International Space Station, there is useful medical research that can be conducted in low or zero gravity, notably research based on aging.  [i] "Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008


Secular scientists extrapolate the age of the earth backwards from examining current natural processes, but they assume that they have always taken place at the same speed and for the same reasons, but this is not necessarily the case.  There are a number of possible solutions to the distant starlight problem: God could have created the light in transit; the speed of light may have been much greater in the past; Einstein’s theory of general relativity indicates that time is relative, and so a few thousand years on Earth could be millions elsewhere in the universe. [1]  The volcanic eruption at Mount St Helens, Washington State in 1980 shows how catastrophic events can very quickly lay down geological formations that appear to have formed slowly. The Genesis flood would account for the rapid formation of geographical features that evolutionists interpret as old. [2]  [1] James Upton ‘Beyond Distant Starlight: Next Steps For Creationist Cosmology’, Answers Research Journal 4 (2011) www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/distant-starlight-cosmology Accessed 31/5/2011  [2] ‘Mount St Helens in Washington State’, Answers in Genesis,  Accessed 1/6/2011


The Age of the Earth  Evidence from many different disciplines shows that the Earth is very old, allowing enough time for life as it exists today to evolve and contradicting a Creationist belief in a young earth.  For example, most of the stars in the sky are thousands and millions of lightyears away, which means that light took thousands and millions of years to reach us. [1]  Similarly, there are many geographic features that took thousands or millions of years to form. For example, ice cores such as those from Vostok, Antartica, give evidence of changes in climate going back 400,000 years, [2] far older than the 6,000 or so calculated from a literal reading of Genesis.  All the evidence points this way, from archaeology, geology, physics, astronomy and more. There are many different indicators that all point to an old age of the Earth.  [1] Björn Feuerbacher, ‘Determining Distances to Astronomical Objects’, Talk.Origins,  Accessed 1/6/2011  [2] ‘Vostok Ice Core’, National Climactic Data Centre,  Accessed 2/6/2011


Creationism makes empirical claims, such as that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. The use of scientific arguments against these claims shows that Creationism is in fact falsifiable. [1]  Scientific Creationism is a relatively new discipline which only really started in the 20th century. It has not had the same time or resources put into developing it as has evolutionary science, because of broader cultural prejudices and philosophical assumptions against it.  Recent Creationist research has focused not on reacting to evolutionary theory, but building its own research and models working from Biblical presuppositions. Many earlier Creationist theories, models and arguments have been modified or abandoned, showing that Creationism is able to adapt in light of new research. [2]  Creationism is actually more open-minded than evolutionary theory, because evolutionary scientists exclude the possibility of the supernatural on principle, not because of lack of evidence.  [1] Larry Laudan, ‘Commentary: Science at the Bar – Causes for Concern’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 7, No. 41, Autumn, 1982  , Accessed 31/5/2011  [2] Paul Garner, ‘The New Creationism’, Evangelicals Now, June 2009,  Accessed 2/6/2011


The fossil evidence  Fossils allow us a glimpse into the development of life on Earth. Fossils show a development from earlier, less complex forms of life, through to newer, more complex forms of life, with characteristics developed from earlier organisms. This progression is strong evidence for evolution. Since fossilization is a rare event, there are some gaps in the fossil record, but all the available evidence is consistent with, and fully explained by, evolution. [1]  There are many examples of transitional fossils, including of our own ancestors, showing how humans evolved from apelike creatures. For example, scientists discovered the skeleton of Ardipithecus ramidus, nicknamed “Ardi”. Ardi is the oldest fossil of a human ancestor, and the last common ancestor of humans and modern apes. Ardi shows a mixture of advanced characteristics and primitive traits. [2]  If fossils had been laid down by a catastrophe such as the Genesis flood, as Creationists argue, then complex and simple lifeforms should be mixed together, with no clear order or progression. But the fossil record shows a clear progression in complexity.  [1] Austin Cline, Fossil Evidence Supports Evolution,  Accessed 1/6/2011  [2] Jamie Shrieve, ‘Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found’, National Geographic,  , Accessed 1/6/2011


There is an absence of transitional fossils. The evidence for ‘missing links’ between different species is itself missing. Fossils are jumbled up, rather than ordered from simple to complex. [1]  Supposed transitional species will often be wildly extrapolated from small fragments to fit with evolutionary theory. Supposed human ancestors are either extinct apes, actual human beings, or accidental mix-ups of human and ape bones. There are no clear anatomical markers separating homo erectus and homo sapiens, for example. [2]  The fossil record is better explained by a global catastrophic flood, as described in the story of Noah in Genesis. The massive geological upheaval which would take place in such an event would leave the remains of millions of dead animals and plants in layers across the world, which is exactly what we find. [3]  [1] John D Morris, ‘What’s a missing link?’, Institute for Creation Research,  Accessed 1/6/2011  [2] ‘People were always people!’ Answers in Genesis,  Accessed 1/6/2011  [3] Andrew A. Snelling, ‘Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood’,


Falsifiability  Evolutionary theory is open to change and is in principle falsifiable: if enough evidence was found, scientists would change their views. Scientists make their reputations by making new discoveries, so if evolution could be disproved, someone would have done it, but it is still standing after over 150 years of research since Darwin, showing how strong it is. [1]  Although Creationism is falsifiable scientifically, with plenty of evidence to disprove it, it is non-falsifiable on its own terms. Any scientific evidence against it can be explained away by Creationists by saying ‘God did it’ – for example, by claiming dinosaur fossils were put there to test people’s faith. Science is able to change in light of new evidence, unlike Creationism, which is a matter of dogma.  Even if evolutionary theory cannot yet explain every detail, this does not give any support to Creationism. If something cannot yet be explained by science, it does not mean that God did it; it means we need to investigate further to find a better scientific explanation. Creationism discourages scientific investigation and encourages blind faith.  [1] ‘Evolution Falsifiable’, Talk.Origins,  Accessed 2/6/2011


Evolution is not just a matter of chance. Mutations can add, change or remove genetic information. Natural selection acts as a feedback mechanism to filter those mutations to pass on useful changes in organisms to adapt them to their environment.  Beneficial mutations have been observed. For example, gene duplication is a common mechanism for introducing new information. When a long stretch of DNA is copied, then mutations often occur in one or both of the copies. This is the likely origin of some proteins. [1]  The argument from irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance: if we cannot currently explain how a complex system arose naturally, it must have been God who created it. But the development of supposedly ‘irreducibly complex’ systems can be explained: different parts in biological systems often have multiple and changing useful functions, and apparently irreducibly complex systems arise when these interlock in new ways. [2]  [1] ‘Mutations Adding Information’, Talk.Origins,  Accessed 3/6/2011  [2] Pete Dunkelberg, ‘Irreducible Complexity Demystified’,  Accessed 3/6/2011


Most scientists are not Christians and do not accept the Bible as God’s word: in 1996, only 40% of US scientists believed in God. [1]  Many Christians interpret the Creation account symbolically and have done so since long before Darwin. For example, in the 5th century, the theologian Augustine argued that the account in Genesis was not a literal, chronological account. [2] Even if Genesis was inspired by God, it could not have been intended to be a literal, scientific account, because it would have made no sense to the people of the time. It must be interpreted according to its original genre and purpose. [3]  When the Bible says death entered the world through Adam, it could refer exclusively to humans rather than the animal kingdom as a whole. Alternatively, it may refer to spiritual death, which is separation from God, rather than physical death, the separation of soul from body. [4]  Science proceeds by reason, evidence and observation, not by arguments from religious authority. If science contradicts the Bible, we should accept the findings of science, which is based on reason and evidence, rather than the Bible, which is based on faith.  [1] Edward J. Larson, Larry Witham, ‘Leading Scientists Still Reject God’, Nature, 23rd July 1998, p. 313  , accessed 24/5/11.  [2] Alister McGrath, ‘Augustine’s Origin of Species’, Christianity Today, May 2009,  Accessed 3/6/2011  [3] Ernest Lucas, Science and the Bible: Are they Incompatible? The Creation story as a test case,  Accessed 31/5/11  [4] ‘Was there Death before the Fall?’, Biologos Forum,  Accessed 2/6/2011


Naturalistic assumptions  Evolutionary science rules out the possibility of God on principle, rather than on the basis of evidence. On an unbiased assessment, without the presupposition of naturalism, Creationism offers a better interpretation of the evidence. But most scientists refuse to allow the possibility of God creating the world, blinding them to the facts.  Secular science is committed to only looking for natural explanations (methodological naturalism), but this only makes sense if you already know that nothing supernatural exists (ontological naturalism). If God intervenes in the natural world, then this can be investigated empirically and scientifically.  Evolutionists assume that “the present is the key to the past”, otherwise known as uniformitarianism. They are attempting to reconstruct the past after the event from fragmentary evidence. But God was there in the beginning and so can tell us what actually happened. We should believe God’s revelation, not human speculation. [1]  [1] Jason Lisle, ‘Is the Present the Key to the Past?’, Answers in Genesis,  Accessed 1/6/2011


Evolution undermines meaning and morality  Evolution gives no basis for morality or human dignity. If we evolved from animals rather than being uniquely created in the image of God, then humanity should be accorded no more status than an animal, plant or amoeba. Acceptance of evolution leads to Social Darwinism and eugenics.  If we are only the product of time plus chance plus impersonal forces, there is no objective standard of right and wrong, only what benefits the survival of our genes or not. For example, rape may have an adaptive benefit in enabling the passing on of genes of the rapist. An evolutionary worldview has no rational basis for condemning such an action. [1]  [1] Frank Turek, ‘Evolution Cannot Explain Morality’, CrossExamined.Org,  Accessed 3/6/2011


Chance cannot produce complexity  Evolution depends on chance mutations in genes producing changes that make it more complex and introduce survival benefits. Mutations do not increase the complexity of organisms, but damages them: for example, cancer. Mutants might gain new powers in comic books, but not in real life. [1]  Mutations may have beneficial side-effects, but do not add new information. For example, sickle-cell anemia increases resistance to malaria. [2] However, it does this because the normal functioning of the blood cells is impaired, not by evolving into something more complex, which is necessary for evolution to take place.  Many biological systems are irreducibly complex: you need all the parts to work, or they will not work at all, like a mousetrap. They cannot have arisen by step-by-step changes.  [1] Daniel W. McShea, ‘Complexity and Evolution: What Everyone Knows’, Biology and Philosophy, 6: 303-324, 1991.  Accessed 1/6/2011  [2] Michael Aidoo et al., ‘Protective effects of the sickle cell gene against malaria morbidity and mortality’, Lancet 2002; 359: 1311-12  Accessed 3/6/2011


The Bible says God created the world  The Bible is God’s Word, inspired and infallible, and it reveals that the world was created by him in 6 days within recent history (Genesis 1-2). God says it, so we should accept what he reveals as truth. [1]  If the Bible is true at all, it cannot just be ‘symbolically’ true about spiritual matters, but must be true in matters of fact and science as well. You cannot divide meaning from facts. Theologically, the Bible teaches that death entered the world through Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12), which contradicts evolution because death is necessary for natural selection. [2]  There is no neutral interpretation of the evidence. Evolutionists interpret the scientific evidence in light of the presupposition that there is no God, while Creationists interpret it on the presupposition there is a God. Christians who accept evolution have bought into secular assumptions that are inconsistent with their faith and what the Bible teaches.  [1] Don Landis, ‘“And God Said”’, Answers in Genesis,  Accessed 31/5/11  [2] Fred Van Dyke, ‘Theological Problems of Theistic Evolution’, Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation,  Accessed 1/6/2011


Evolution has nothing to do with morality. Science simply describes what is, not what ought to be. Social Darwinism and eugenics are misapplications of science. We have evolved the capacity for higher reasoning, and so we can develop ethical and moral systems to suit us, rather than following the principle of ‘survival of the fittest’. [1]  Social studies indicate that secularised societies in which evolutionary science is widely accepted enjoy lower rates of societal dysfunction, whereas the USA, which is much more religious and anti-evolution, has worse social health. [2]  Morality may have an evolutionary basis. People who look after their relatives, those who share many of their genes, are maximising the likelihood those genes will be passed on. Altruism benefits the survival of the group as a whole.  [1] ‘Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview’, Talk.Origins,  Accessed 3/6/2011  [2] Gregory S. Paul, ‘Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies’, Journal of Religion and Society (Volume 7, 2005)  Accessed 31/5/2011


Theists and atheists alike use ‘methodological naturalism’ when doing science, because scientific method depends on understanding and explaining the natural world in natural terms. It does not assume that God does not exist. Many Christians do not believe that the evidence supports Creationism despite believing in God, and instead believe that God is the one who sustains and upholds the natural order as understood by science.  Uniformitarianism is a necessary assumption for understanding the world. If the laws of nature changed on a whim, so that science worked one way on Tuesday and another on Wednesday, we would not be able to make observations and predictions that worked. But all our observations indicate that the world does operate consistently. The success of science in providing accurate models and explanations of the world shows that its presuppositions are correct.  Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, since that is a metaphysical question outside the scope of science. But science can show that evolution explains the origins of life, and there is no need to invoke a God of the Gaps to explain it. The supernatural is outside the scope of scientific enquiry, and therefore a matter of faith.


This idea is rather flawed if you decide to take into consideration the whole aspect of one’s life. This just kicks the communication problem down the road when it needs to be dealt with early rather than essentially discouraging the child from learning the language until they have to get a job.  It is also in many cases likely to be wrong; the child will already have started learning the language of the country in which they are living. Even if the father and the mother are only able to talk their first language, kids go to nursery school or have child minders because their parents have to work. A perfect example would be the one of Mexicans in the United States. Two-thirds of Mexican-origin Hispanics ages 5 and older speak English proficiently. More than that, about nine-in-then native-born Mexicans speak English proficiently. [1] The whole idea of parents not being able to talk the local language might be true for first generation immigrants, but not for others. Even when the grasp of the language is less than perfect school is the obvious place to learn it.  [1] Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana, and Lopez, Mark Hugo, ‘A Demographic Portrait of Mexican Origin Hispanics in the United States’, PewResearch, 1 May 2013,


Educating in their mother tongue is the best option for children’s education  Because parents that are immigrants teach their kids only the mother tongue, at the age in which they should go to school they barely know the local language. Their parents sometimes don’t know the language of the country that they live in and other times they choose not to use it at home. Therefore, at the age when children have to go to school, they have little or no interaction with the language of the country they live in. In the United States, 72% of immigrant families speak a language other than English at home and 26% live in households where no one has a strong command of the English language. [1] This simply hands over the problem of language to the school damaging education across all subjects. This is because the children will not be able to communicate with other kids in school or understand what the teacher is saying. Because of the exclusion that the immigrants feel when going to school and the fact that they are not able to understand much of what is taught, they choose to leave school early. 70% of Turkish children in Germany have no General Certificate of Secondary Education [2] ; as they leave before completing secondary school. By far the most sensible way to solve this problem is to send these children to a school where they do understand the language in which they are being taught.  [1] Shields, Margie K., and Behrman, Richard E., ‘Challenges Faced by Children of Immigrants’, Children of Immigrant Families, Vol.14, No.2, Summer 2004,   [2] Greenfield, Daniel, ‘80% of Turkish Muslim Settlers in Germany Live off Welfare’, Frontpage Mag, 31 March 2013,


The idea that immigrants that are part of large groups are not able to conserve their language and culture without the help of the foreign state is flawed.  First of all, on the broadest level large immigrant groups come from countries with big population and their culture or language is not in danger of any kind. Just to take a couple of examples, Turkey has almost a 76 million population, while Mexico has a population of almost 120 million.  Secondly, there is no clear link between education in the mother tongue and the willingness of the people to conserve their own culture. Those who are educated in the language of the culture in which they are living are just as likely to be interested about their roots and culture as those in their mother tongue.  Thirdly while there may be a link between language and thought does this extend on to culture; are Japanese unable to enjoy and take part in Taiko drumming if they don’t speak the language as well as the language of their host nation? Only in a few areas, like literature is it vital and if someone is interested in the literature of their mother country they will learn the language as a part of that interest.  Finally this assumes that all immigrants should desire to preserve their own culture rather than partake in the culture of the country to which they have migrated. Integration is the best solution. In order to achieve integration for large immigrant groups you need to convince them to be opened towards your national culture and language and not make them learn in their mother tongue.


Minorities deserve linguistic rights  Everyone should have the right to communicate in their own mother tongue so enabling them to maintain their roots with their mother country. In a world of change, where people are able to move their residence from a country to another country, protecting minority rights becomes necessary. Some migrations are historically and economically driven, take place over decades, and involve large numbers. For example, an estimated 33.7 million Hispanics of Mexican origin live in the United States, with 11.4 million immigrants born in Mexico, accounting for almost 3.5% of the US population [1] . In Europe, a lot of migration there have been successive waves of migration, as a result of World War II, the end of empires, economic boom and the European Union. To take Germany first there was an influx from lands Germany lost as a result of the war, of Turks to help power the economic miracle meaning that now more that 2.6 million Turks live in Germany [2] , and recently there has been an influx from Eastern and Southern Europe as Germany’s economy has held up in the Economic crisis. Each wave, or group of immigrants, forms a distinct community within their host nation. There is no reason why these groups should be forced to entirely give up their old identity as they embrace a new identity as a part of their host nation. Just as every human has rights so does every immigrant. Part of these rights should be education in the mother tongue. Language is what connects people and makes them able to communicate their feelings, emotions and ideas. A person should be able to communicate and express ideas in its own mother tongue in order to be able to create a connection with their family and the immigrant community that they live in.  [1] Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana, and Lopez, Mark Hugo, ‘A Demographic Portrait of Mexican Origin Hispanics in the United States’, PewResearch, 1 May 2013,   [2] The Economist, ‘Two unamalgamated worlds’, 3 April 2008,


The state has indeed certain obligations towards the immigrant groups both to individuals and if they represent a large part of the population to the group. Once you leave your country, you are no longer under the legislation of the country. You decide to sign a new social contract with the country that you emigrated to and therefore you are under their jurisdiction, obliged to respect their laws. Minority rights are respected in the sense that immigrants are not obliged to use the local language everywhere and at any time. You are still able to use your mother tongue language to talk to your family, your foreign friends and other people from the same country. These are the fundamentals and there are cases where linguistic rights are not respected, where the minority population is forbidden to talk or write in their mother tongue. This was the case if Turkey which forbade Kurds to speak their native language until 1991. [1] While these rights should be respected there is not ‘right’ for the state to provide, or subsidize, education in languages that are not the official language of the state. If large minority groups wish to provide such education that is their prerogative.  [1] Akreyi, Minhaj, ‘19th Century mentality in 21st Century: Kurdish language still banned in Turkey’, Alliance for Kurdish Rights, 12 March 2011,


Actively promoting mother-tongue education for immigrants that are part of a large group will create a segregated society in which people are not able to communicate and relate one to another. Integration will be harder to achieve in these conditions - the state may gain some goodwill from the concession but it is unlikely to last. The difficulty in communicating with the state, even for everyday tasks such a doctor’s appointment, will surely sour relations more. Different languages create a segregated society in which foreigners are not able to integrate.  Secondly, diplomacy and trade matters have no connection with the way immigrants are treated on a minor issue like this. Those immigrants who want to trade and promote links between their old home and their new one will continue to do so regardless.


Conserving languages and immigrant community cultures  Being able to learn and teach in our own language will preserve the culture of large immigrant groups as part of another state, this is both good for that community and for the nation. For the community and the individual speaking and learning their own language will give immigrants a sense of belonging. They are part of a community that they know and understand because it speaks the same language even before they come to know the rest of the country. This provides security, belonging, and close contact with relatives. For the community it means keeping their own customs and identity alive, in a few cases this may actually be contributing to conserving a language. For the country as a whole this does not represent a threat as there can be many different levels of identity that all intermix. Instead it provides an opportunity; it diversifies the country. It gains the benefit of a different perspective on problems and new ideas as people who speak different languages think about things in different ways so it is useful for innovation to have many different communities brought up in different languages interacting. [1] It also gains from having another culture add diversity to its own; there are new festivals, concerts, art, and perhaps most commonly encountered a greater diversity of cuisines to be sampled through restaurants.  [1] Bordoditsky, Lera, ‘Lost in Translation’, The Wall St Journal, 23 July 2010,


This policy would benefit the state and provide trade  If the government decides to promote mother tongue education for large immigrant groups it will be enhancing mutual understanding between its own population and another nation as the immigrants provide a go between. The state will send a positive message towards the large immigrant groups by allowing them to study in their first language. It will acknowledge the importance of such groups in the national society by providing this additional opportunity. The importance of cooperation between immigrant groups and the state is often recognized, for example in combating extremism, this kind of measure encourages such cooperation as it brings with it the good will of the immigrant community.  On the other hand, promoting diversity will promote understanding between countries. A favorable treatment towards the large immigrant groups will be seen positively by the country the immigrants come from. Having migrants creates a link between the two countries. This may produce clear advantages for both parties, in the form of collaboration, diplomacy and trade. The effect of migrants on trade is often ignored but studies have shown that in the case of Spain from 1995-2008 exports are boosted by having immigrant communities; “doubling the number of immigrants from a certain country in a province leads to an increase of the export values from the destination province to the country of the immigrants’ origin by around 10%.” The reason was because new exporting firms are created – immigrants know the conditions in their own country so can access that market, something that would be impossible without a native understanding of the language. [1]  [1] Peri, Giovanni, and Requena-Silvente, Francisco, ‘Do immigrants create exports? Evidence from Spain’, VOX, 26 January 2010,


The simple premise of this argument is wrong. Immigrants are not discriminated by the fact that they don’t know the language. Discrimination is much more often a matter of skin color, religion and social background. Mexicans in the United States, at least American citizens of Mexican origins know very well how to speak English but they are still discriminated by the majority population. This shows in the unemployment statistics. In 2011, while the rate of unemployment for Whites was 7.9%, the jobless rate was 11.5% for Hispanics. [1]  The link between language and low skilled jobs is also open to question. Immigrants are not finding these jobs because they don’t speak the native language but because these are the jobs the natives don’t want. There is a demand for labor that the native population will not fulfill. Less fussy migrants however are more willing. These are also likely to be the jobs that the migrants have done in the past if coming from less developed countries so they have the relevant skillset. On the other hand where the migrant is skilled they will go into a job that suits those skills.  [1] ‘Labour Force Characteristics by Race and Ethnicity, 2011’, U.S. Bureau of Labor, August 2012,


The premise that states that second generation immigrants lack incentive to learn the local language is flawed. Although they might choose to learn in their mother tongue, they will still have a big incentive to learn the local language. Learning the language of the country in which they live will provide to them more opportunities and better integration. Those who find they don’t know the language will take courses to learn the language of the country in which they reside. Most certainly, their friends will not only be from their own community so they will feel obliged to talk German, or English or French. The example of Papua simply shows this is the case; promoting a national language is not incompatible with learning in another language.


Services offered the government cannot be used if the user does not know the language  Anyone who does not know the native of the place where they reside will find themselves having problems with health-care, job centers or the taxman because they are not able to understand or communicate with these people. It doesn’t matter where you live, as a citizen you will have to use different services provided by the government. A good example will be hospitals. Hospital staff are unlikely to know the immigrant’s language so making communication difficult, a problem exacerbated by all the specialized language that may be required. Being incapable of telling your doctor what the problem is or not being able to tell a police officer what happened may have devastating consequences. Sarah Bowen, a professor at the University of Alberta and expert on access to health care believes that language is the most important barrier preventing some immigrants from staying healthy. [1] This is a barrier that remains if a little of the native language has been learnt because it is still unclear if there is mutual understanding when communicating. It is therefore clear that second generation immigrants need to be taught in the language of everyday life in the country in which they live rather than just learning it on the side as a ‘foreign’ language.  [1] ‘For newcomers, language is the most important barrier to staying healthy’, Canadian Immigrant, 27 February 2012,


Migrants need to learn the language to improve job prospects  An immigrant that studies in the local language will be a citizen that is better integrated in the society, respected by the natives and with more economic opportunities. First of all, we have to acknowledge that going to a school for natives will permit the development of personal relations with people that are not from the same community community. Interaction will be possible with everybody in school and in the country. The first step towards becoming friends with someone is by understanding them. This is only possible if they can communicate properly in a single language. Secondly, the native language is necessary for most jobs. Jobs require interaction with natives and ability to discuss and work alongside co-workers. Immigrants are forced most of the time to do low-skilled jobs like working in constructions or agriculture because they are not able to speak the local language, though even in these sectors language skills would be useful. By promoting mother tongue education this problem will exacerbated. Language proficiency for immigrants that are trying to find a job in the United Kingdom increases employment probabilities by 17% to 22% and gives them an earning advantage of 18-20%. [1] Getting a new job is already hard, so why should the state through its education policy wish to damage the chances of immigrants of finding one that requires them to know the language of the country they are in?  [1] Dustmann. Christian, and Fabbri, Francesca, ‘Language proficiency and labour market performance of immigrants in the UK’, The Economic Journal, Vol.113, July 2003, pp.695-717  , p.707


A common language is necessary for a unified national community  The moment when the governments starts subsidizing mother tongue education for large immigrant groups is the moment when they will lose any incentive to learn the local language. Because most of these children do not interact with the local language until the age they should go to school, under the proposition plan they will not interact with it at all and therefore creating a major gap between native population and immigrants. A common language represents a unifying framework under which a state can function properly by promoting mutual help and understanding inside the population. [1] When people talk different languages, there is no unifying framework and the state as a whole loses its ability to promote unity within its borders. This is the case of Papua New Guinea where there is no central authority. The tribes live separately and are not able to one with another because there are over 800 different languages spoken at this moment in the country. [2] As a result during the post-colonization era efforts were made to create and promote a common language to help trade and understanding between tribes. The language that was called Tok Plsin is now the most widely spoken language in the country and one of the three official languages. [3] Because mutual-help and overall social stability can be achieved only with a strong communication between different parties, promoting mother tongue language for immigrants will only slow the road towards progress.  [1] Center for Child Well Being, ‘The Importance of Language’, education.com, 15 July 2013,   [2] ‘Papua New Guinea’s tribes and traditions’, The Telegraph,   [3] Siegel, Jeff, ‘Tok Pisin’, Hawaii.edu,


It is wrong to assume that people who can’t speak the language will not be able to access government services; the government also provides interpreters. For example in the United States and Canada, interpreters are trained and paid by the health authority to address the problems of large immigrant groups. In Ottawa, you additionally have the option of hiring interpreters from local agencies. [1]  [1] Taylor, Louisa, ‘For immigrants, language barrier is a health barrier’, The Ottowa Citizen, 27 April 2012,


Only idealists believe that prisons have rehabilitative role; we have to look at the reality. Juveniles sent to prison are less employable afterwards, and thus more likely to resort to crime. They meet established criminals in prison who both encourage the lifestyle and teach necessary skills for criminal behaviour. Prison often fosters resentment of the police and the courts and anyway the harassment of juveniles associated with zero tolerance already creates an extremely antagonistic relationship with the police.  If punishment is not proportionate it simply breeds resentment. [1]  [1] Maiese, Michelle, ‘Retributive Justice’, Knowledge Base, May 2004, www.beyondintractability.org/essay/retributive_justice/ , accessed 20 September 2011


Zero tolerance also allows for a sound rehabilitative role  A custodial sentence, particularly for juveniles, takes them out of the atmosphere (often surrounded by drug use and living in poverty and or abusive homes) that encourages criminality. Rehabilitation through the prison system is not just a possibility but a central tenet of many penal codes. Education and discipline are both vital to our prisons. The large number of police on the ground also allows for a supervisory role in the community after the prisoner is released to reduce re-offending.  The earlier on in the chain of criminality that people are given help, the greater chance there is of success that a cycle of re-offending will not develop. [1]  [1] Petersila, Joan, ‘When Prisoners Return to the Community: Political, Economic, and Social Consequences’, Sentencing & Corrections, No.9, November 2000, www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/184253.pdf , accessed 20 September 2011


They are able to stop and search, and harass individuals constantly. Everyone who carries marijuana cannot be arrested so in reality certain vulnerable groups, usually ethnic minorities, are targeted and labelled as criminals. New York saw a vast growth in complaints over police racism and harassment after zero tolerance Sydney’s has been similarly racist [1] and Liverpool’s system was closed down because of corruption and unacceptable aggression by police officers.  If the police are to be fully respected they should behave in a courteous and fair manner. While treating all citizens in a respectable and decent manner – never using unnecessary force. Zero tolerance policing reduces police accountability, openness to the public, and community cooperation.  [1] Kennedy, Michael Hartley, ‘Zero tolerance policing and Arabic-speaking young people’, New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, 2001


Zero tolerance policing provides a powerful deterrent to criminals.  Zero tolerance creates a far greater awareness of police presence because there are more officers on the ground. If people perceive that they have a greater chance of being caught, they are less likely to commit an offence. Strict punishments provide another firm deterrent because they make it clear that the consequences of detection will not be a minor irritant. Convicts are less likely to re-offend because zero tolerance catches them early on in the escalating cycle of crimes and provides the ‘short, sharp shock.’ There is a clear message that crime will not be tolerated. If a law is to exist at all then it ought to be enforced. Otherwise they will be held in contempt. [1]  There has to be a meaningful mechanism in place to punish actions that don’t merit criminal punishment, but that damage the quality of life of others, especially through constant repetition. In this way a slide into more serious lawlessness and criminality can be prevented, and the rights of the law-abiding majority to walk the streets and live peacefully with their neighbours can be secured. It is the law-abiding majority who should be the prime focus of the protection the State offers.  [1] Marshall, Jayne, ‘Zero Tolerance Policing’, Information Bulletin, Issue 9, March 1999, www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/information_bulletins/IB9.pdf , accessed 20 September 2011


Minor offenders, gang members, and the poor are extremely unlikely to be aware of the punishments for the crimes which they commit so deterrence doesn’t have much effect there. Many crimes are a product of necessity (through poverty and drugs) and therefore can be reduced only by structural changes to the society, not by threatening punishment. The idea of a ‘short sharp shock’ is unconvincing. Labeling people as criminals at an early age actually causes them to perceive themselves as such and gives them fewer other options by placing them outside mainstream society. This leads to ‘deviance amplification’ where convicts increasingly commit more serious crimes as a result of their contact with law enforcement. [1]  [1] Becker, Howard S., ‘Labeling Theory’, from Becker Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, The Free Press, 1963,  , accessed 20 September 2011


Zero tolerance improves the standard of policing  They are able to stop and search, and harass individuals constantly. Everyone who carries marijuana cannot be arrested so in reality certain vulnerable groups, usually ethnic minorities, are targeted and labelled as criminals. New York saw a vast growth in complaints over police racism and harassment after zero tolerance Sydney’s has been similarly racist [1] and Liverpool’s system was closed down because of corruption and unacceptable aggression by police officers.  If the police are to be fully respected they should behave in a courteous and fair manner. While treating all citizens in a respectable and decent manner – never using unnecessary force. Zero tolerance policing reduces police accountability, openness to the public, and community cooperation.  [1] Kennedy, Michael Hartley, ‘Zero tolerance policing and Arabic-speaking young people’, New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, 2001


Economic and demographic changes will always impact crime rates and of course, these factors would have played their part in the noticeable improvement in New York. However, zero tolerance has proved successful in many instances and provides a more stable promise of crime reduction less susceptible to transient factors (such as economic and demographic ones).  For example, the Swedish parliament introduced its ‘drug-free society’ as the official goal for the drug policy in 1978. Long before such policies were called ‘zero tolerance. The Attorney General in 1980 stopped allowing for waivers for possession of drugs for personal use. Meanwhile, police were to prioritize the crack down on those in possession of drugs. In 1988 all non-medicinally prescribed usage became illegal. Finally, in 1993 the police were permitted to take blood or urine samples from suspects. [1]  This zero tolerance approach is now cited by the UN as one the main reason for Sweden's relatively low drug prevalence rates. [2]  [1] Wikipedia, ‘Zero Tolerance’,  , accessed 21 September 2011  [2] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Sweden’s Successful Drug Policy: A Review of the Evidence, February 2007,  , accessed 21 September 2011


There is no point building in inner cities if we don’t protect these resources from graffiti and vandalism by concrete and certain means. Zero tolerance reduces the amount of dead ground used for drug dealing and so returns parks and open spaces to the community. Unless businesses are protected from vandalism and petty crime, it is usually uneconomic for them to return to the worst areas. It is these businesses which are vital to raising the standard of living. Zero tolerance policing is often seen to lead to the return of public transport and services to deprived areas because it can be protected through a guaranteed means. [1]  [1] Kurki, Leena, ‘Restorative and Community Justice in the United States’, 2000, 27 Crime & Just. 235, www.julianhermida.com/polnotesbrokenwindows.htm , accessed 21 September 2011


Zero tolerance policing is enormously expensive  The enormous expense of zero tolerance in money and manpower and prisons actually makes policing worse. Either we have to throw limitless money at doubling the number of officers (it is almost impossible to recruit and train so many even if we could afford it). Or we have to divert officers away from investigations and serious crime prevention in order to put them back on the pavement. This reduces detection of important crimes in return for catching graffiti artists. Even when reported crime rates drop this does not prove that zero tolerance achieves anything because it is corporate crime, large scale drug dealing that is ignored and these are rarely reported. [1]  [1] Croall, Hazel, Understanding white collar crime, Open University Press 2001, www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/openup/chapters/0335204279.pdf , accessed 21 September 2011


There is no concrete proof that a zero tolerance approach to crime exists0  There is no proof that zero tolerance is effective and yet it comes at the great expense of full police accountability and practical financial outlay.  An examination of the main ‘success stories’ of zero tolerance reveal that not all success can be attributed to the zero tolerance approach. In fact, the vast majority of the improvement in these circumstances were largely attributed to simultaneous social and economic changes.  In New York, the decline of crime rate started prior to 1993 and the arrival of Rudy Giuliani to his post. During Giuliani’s time in power a similar decrease in crime was happening in other major US cities. The main factors that can be attributed to this decrease in crime were economic and demographic ones. With huge economic growth millions of jobs were being created and taken by young people. Simultaneously, there was a move from cocaine to other drugs and this also reduced street crime. The economists Steven Levitt and John Donahue even famously argued that the primary cause of the decrease in crime in New York during the 1990s was actually the legalization of abortion in 1973. [1]  Therefore, it is these social and economic problems which should be targeted if we are to see a successful reduction in crime.  [1] Donohue, John J., and Levitt, Steven D., ‘The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2000,  , accessed 21


Urban regeneration is one of the most powerful ways of targeting crime  Urban regeneration is one of the most powerful ways of targeting crime, and zero tolerance policing detracts from that effort. The most important element of urban regeneration is the way individuals come to take pride in their area. This is far more likely when it is not associated with police persecution, antagonism with the government and constant fear of arrest. No police presence is sufficient to properly defend a business which has not fostered good relations with the local community. Regeneration has worked on its own to solve crime problems; this can be seen in Hong Kong and Brixton in London.


Protecting businesses and creating a reputation for low crime and sound policing attracts inward investment and immigration both to a country as a whole and to individual areas. The cost to a country of theft and vandalism per year is a significant chunk of GDP, in the United States for example a 1994 report estimated the annual cost at $674 billion. [1] Deterrence reduces the number of crimes that police are forced to investigate and although prisons are expensive the reduction in recidivism should start to empty them in time. [2]  However, with economic hardship comes higher likelihood of petty crime. It is for this reason that those in the lower classes are more likely to commit crime than those in higher classes. This effect is heightened in the aftermath of a recession. As people feel less and less willing to pay and put the blame on society, they are more likely to steal. It is cost effective in as much as it is less expensive than prison and is ultimately less expensive to society than ignoring the criminality.  [1] Shapiro, Emily, ‘Cost of Crime: A Review of the Research Studies’, Information Brief Minnesota House of Representatives, August 1999, p. 15, www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/costcrime.pdf , accessed 21 September 2011  [2] Friedman David D., ‘Rational Criminals and Profit-Maximizing Police: Gary Becker's Contribution to the Economic Analysis of Law and Law Enforcement’, Cambridge University Press 1995,  , accessed 21 September 2011


This is a marginal impact at best. The vast majority of illegal immigrants will try to flee the scene of a crash because they would be worried that the police might be called in to investigate the crash and find out they are illegal and therefore deport them. Although this isn’t always a realistic expectation, it is an expectation that most people in the illegal immigrant community have because of their paranoia over the state pursuing them and wanting to deport them. This fear is only exacerbated by the anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric that permeates American society at present and makes them feel that the state will try to seek them out however they can to get rid of them.


This allows illegal immigrants to get drivers insurance, which makes safer and fairer roads.  Insurance is a key component in making the streets safe for all drivers on the road. Allowing illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses allows them to gain driver’s insurance.  Driving absent insurance means that there is an incentive to drive off if you cause an accident to avoid having to pay for the damages you have caused and being criminally punished for driving without insurance. This leaves the other driver having to foot their own bill for the repairs to their vehicles [1] . Moreover, even if the uninsured driver stays at the scene, illegal immigrants are characteristically very poor as they must engage in exploitative work to make a wage because they must hide from the state and do not get the same protections from the state, so would still be unable to pay for the damages they have caused. Moreover, having uninsured drivers on the road increases insurance premiums for all insured drivers on the road, as they have to de-facto pay for the risk and damage these uninsured drivers cause [2] .  Therefore, offering illegal immigrants driver’s licenses allows for more fair and accountable systems of insurance and driving conditions on the road.  [1] Confessore, Nicholas, and Danny Hakim. "Licenses for Immigrants Find Suppot." New York Times 09 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.   [2] Confessore, Nicholas, and Danny Hakim. "Licenses for Immigrants Find Suppot." New York Times 09 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.


These people do not deserve to use the services of the USA. They are not citizens, they are law-breakers and society has no obligation to make life easier or more comfortable for those who break the law. Regardless of their contributions to society or the economy, illegal immigrants have broken the law. The consequences of their breaches of the law should be remedied. If necessary, illegal immigrants should be punished in proportion to the harm that their act has caused. Under no circumstances should illegal acts allow these individuals to gain access to the status and legal privileges that citizenship confers.


The provision of driver’s licenses makes the streets safer.  Offering drivers licenses to illegal immigrants makes the streets safer by giving drivers training to people who would otherwise be driving on the streets without adequate education. Unlicensed drivers are five times more likely to get into a fatal crash than licensed drivers [1] .  A fact that needs to be acknowledged is that illegal immigrants have a necessity to drive and the vast majority will do so regardless of if they are given licenses or not. This is very dangerous both for them and for those who they share the road with as they are operating motor vehicles with a proper education on the rules of the road or any form of driving instruction or test to ensure that they can competently and safely drive on the streets [2] .  Illegal immigrants are very likely to opt into this system of driver’s education and licensing because it is in their own interest to avoid breaking the law to avoid detection, but also because it is very much in their interest to get instruction on how to drive as they are as much a danger to themselves as they are to the rest of society when they drive without instruction [3] .  Therefore, offering illegal immigrants driver’s licenses will help make the streets safer by giving drivers access to the education and instruction they need to be safe and competent drivers.  [1] "Immigration: Let them drive." Economist 25 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.   [2] "Immigration: Let them drive." Economist 25 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.   [3] "Driver's Licenses for Undocumented Aliens." Institute of Governmental Studies. UC Berkeley, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.


It is very unlikely that illegal immigrants will even opt into this scheme. Illegal immigrants are notoriously paranoid about going to the state for any form of assistance as they are afraid of deportation. The vast majority of them would rather risk getting caught driving without a license then they would risk going to the state as an illegal to receive a license in the first place.


This is a gateway privilege that allows these people to integrate into American society.  Drivers licenses are used a major form of identification in America and so granting illegal immigrants these forms of identification can help enfranchise one of the most exploited minorities in America.  Despite American feelings on illegal immigrants, they are there in their society, contribute to their communities and are a group of people that are routinely and unjustly exploited because of their lack of access to state protection. Despite popular opinion of this being a punishment for breaking their laws, these people operate like any other citizen in American society and are human beings who deserve to be treated as such and to be offered at least some level of protection for the fact that they are human and for what they contribute to America communities and society.  Providing these people with a proper form of identification, especially a driver’s license, which is almost universally accepted as an adequate form of identification to access services from the state and to interact with the rest of society. Specifically, this allows immigrant communities to not feel as though they are confined to an isolated area as they now can travel further distances to gain better employment without fear of being caught and thrown into jail [1] . Moreover, this allows them access to all services offered by the state that require identification such as voter registration.  Therefore, this helps enfranchise a group that is normally exploited in America society.  [1] "Driver's Licenses for Undocumented Aliens." Institute of Governmental Studies. UC Berkeley, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.


The first problem with this argument is that it assumes that illegal immigrants are easily identifiable without a driver’s license. It is not like illegal immigrants walk around with a giant red sign that says “Potential Security Threat” at present, and that when we give them licenses they will finally get to put down their signs.  On this basis, the security risk presented by this policy is minimal. Moreover, for what security risk might exist, it is very easily mitigated or gotten rid of all together. For example, if identification is needed for access to something that is vulnerable to security threat, it is very easy for the government or relevant officials to say that the only sufficient form of ID is a passport instead of a license, due to the risk people may pose.  The additional harms identified by side opposition are the result of service providers’ discriminatory practices. Federal and state race equality laws prevent businesses and government employees from refusing service to individuals based on their physical characteristics or ethnicity. Therefore, official discrimination cannot exist. At best, this will simply be soft discrimination.


There is a very big difference between rewarding people for breaking the law and taking positive action to prevent them being exploited and financially marginalised. The United States’ legal system supposedly exists to protect everyone resident within its borders – not just individuals possessing citizenship. Giving illegal immigrants basic access to very rudimentary things such as the driver’s education does not reward law-breaking or undermine the rule of law. Even if side opposition disagree with granting illegal immigrants any rights, this argument is still defeated by the beneficial consequences of ensuring that a much larger number of drivers have received training on the rules of the road. Under the resolution, America’s highways and cities will generally safer for both pedestrians and other drivers.  On the point of deterrence, there are already very large deterrents to trying to immigrate illegally. The trek is long, dangerous and controlled by violent groups on either side of the border. Bandits and people smugglers engage in robberies and people trafficking on the Mexican side; extremist groups such as the minutemen attempt to assault or shoot immigrants in transit from the American side. Not being able to get a driver’s license once here is not in any way a deterrent that holds any weight when put in context.  Being able to drive is a necessary skill in the US, where under-investment in public transport infrastructure has led to workers developing a dependence on private transport. The weak bargaining position of an immigrant seeking work would be completely undermined if she were unwilling to drive for or to her job. Even the most risk averse migrant labourer accepts that the possibility of being caught driving without a licence is a risk that they have no choice but to take.


This will foster further resentment of the Hispanic community in America.  This policy will only further the resentment that exists for illegal immigrants in America, and will make life harder for the entire Hispanic community as a result.  It is no secret that the idea of granting illegal immigrants driver’s licenses is a very unpopular idea. In New York, for example, 70% of the electorate is against this policy [1] . Looking to California, not only are drivers licenses out of the question, but in 1994 the state passed a bill denying illegals access to welfare, healthcare and education by a 59% margin [2] . Resentment for the community is high and it is undeniable that this policy will be wildly unpopular with the vast majority of Americans.  The issue with Americans being unhappy with this policy is that they will channel their unhappiness toward all immigrant communities and the Hispanic community more generally. The concept of driver’s licenses especially fuels this hatred because Americans believe that this will allow them to “masquerade” as normal Americans and therefore will assume all Hispanics are these illegals that are masquerading as legal immigrants in their communities. This will only engender more hate and discrimination against these communities.  Therefore, this will seriously harm the Hispanic-American community by fuelling hatred against them in the American majority.  [1] "Immigration: Let them drive." Economist 25 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.   [2] "Driver's Licenses for Undocumented Aliens." Institute of Governmental Studies. UC Berkeley, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.


This allows illegals to masquerade as normal immigrants.  Allowing illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses is a security issue for America.  Illegal immigrants are a threat to the US because they have not gone through the necessary background checks that all immigrants are supposed to go through before being allowed into the US to ensure that they are not going to harm American citizens.  Giving illegal immigrants documents that- as proposition argument three says- could grant them access to state services and to a wider range of private services is dangerous [1] . There is no way for frontline state and business staff to determine whether drivers licence holders are migrants who have undergone appropriate police screening, or criminals with a history of dishonest or exploitative behaviour. The resolution may, therefore, allow disreputable individuals to falsely claim to be normalised American citizens.  Alternatively, and more likely, the resolution will undermine the value and utility of state drivers licences – for Latin-American US citizens at the very least. As it becomes known that immigrants from the south bearing licences might be more likely to be dishonest, banks, stores and hospitals will become less willing to accept drivers licences as conclusive proof of a Latin-American individual’s identity.  If the degree to which service providers will trust a driving licence is reduced, the improvements to illegal immigrants’ quality of life that the resolution brings about will be short lived. Moreover, legally resident Latin-Americans will find that their lives become much more difficult. Service providers will adopt a stance of suspicion toward Latin-American individuals, assuming that a Latino-American’s driving licence offers no useful indication as to his immigration status and background. Therefore, this policy constitutes a large security threat to America and its citizens, and a significant danger to the integration and lifestyles of thousands of Latino-American individuals.  [1] "Position Paper: No Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens." News Blaze. Realtime News, 23 Sep 2001. Web. 30 Nov. 2011.


This rewards law-breaking.  This policy rewards those who break the law and therefore is unjustified.  There are immigration policies for a reason, and to skirt them because you do not want to wait in line like everyone else does not entitle you to be treated on the same level as those who adhere to American laws and immigration procedures. Allowing illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses simply because they made it here is just rewarding them for being good at breaking our laws.  We have a moral obligation to continue to deny illegal immigrants the perks of citizenship because they have undermined the very laws and processes that citizenship relies on in America. Moreover, if we simply treat them the same as legal immigrants in our country, there is no deterrent left to stop people from just ignoring our immigrant processes and trying to immigrate illegally to avoid the queue.  Therefore, we shouldn’t give illegal immigrants drivers licenses because that simply rewards law-breaking and undermines the legal system and immigration policy we rely on.


The state should never allow mob mentality to govern its policies and specifically should never let prejudice of its people allow the state to let exploitation and abuse of human beings go unaddressed. This resentment and assumption that all Hispanics are illegal immigrants leeching from the state is something that is already a perception that permeates US thought. This policy will at worst marginally increase that sentiment, and even if it does, the state has a duty to ignore blind hate and not let it drive state policy.


The policy itself has no malicious intent and is not aimed to harm different communities to a different level. An argument about the rich ignoring the one child policy is an argument for better regulation of the current policy, which is meant to be completely fair no matter a family’s status or wealth, not the abolition of the policy itself.


The one child policy is ignored by Chinas elite  The one child policy is a policy that can be ignored fairly easily by richer people within China. Through their ability to bribe officials as well as their ability to hide extra children using foster parents and the like, it is easily possible for richer people to flout the one child policy. This has shown itself in the form of many wealthy Chinese officials, entrepreneurs and celebrities who have been caught ignoring the one child policy. For example between 2000 and 2005 1968 government officials in Hunan violated the one child policy.1  Given that this is true, the one child policy serves to create social division in China. It is perceived by the poorest Chinese communities as an obstacle to prosperity. By imposing harsh penalties (both moral and fiscal) on parents who attempt to maximise not only their future welfare, but also their family’s economic prosperity by trying for a son, the one child policy undermines social development within China’s rural and working classes. Moreover, it serves to entrench negative perceptions of Chinese officials and business owners as corrupt tyrants. How else will marginalised communities relate to a law that undermines the cohesion of their families and that the wealthy can exempt themselves from? 2  1 Liu, Melinda, ‘China’s One Child Left Behind’, Newsweek, 19 January 2008,   2 ibid


The Chinese authorities outlaw forced abortions. The violations of human rights are outliers and rarely occur. When they do they are punished badly.  Such violations are regrettable; however the one child policy carries a number of benefits for the vast majority of Chinese families. Since the implementation of the policy family planning in China has become significantly better and thus the overall benefit to all of China outweighs the harm that is incurred by a tiny minority of people. 1  Without population control measures, quality of life in China would decline for all citizens who must compete for limited jobs, healthcare resources, and access to social services, particularly in rural areas.2  1 Associated Press. “China Will Outlaw Selective Abortions.” MSNBC. 07-01-2005.   2 "Family Planning in China." Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China.


The one child policy skews gender demographics  Many Asian cultures have a preference for sons over daughters due to traditions involving inheritance. Further, in rural communities a son is often preferable to a daughter simply because of the amount of work that they can do for the family. As well as this, sons act as primary caregivers for the parents when they go into retirement and the son’s parents are often treated better than the daughter’s.  It is for these reasons that often when a Chinese family finds out that they are set to have a daughter they attempt to selectively abort it and try again for a son. This is technically illegal in China, however, this has only led to back alley abortions which often carry a much higher chance of mortality for the mother. Further, it has also led to parents abandoning female children or leaving them to starve so that they may try again with a son. In China’s rural provinces it is much more difficult for the authorities to deal with every case given the sheer number of people over such a large area and as such these crimes often go unprosecuted or punished.  This process not only leads to human rights violations, as mentioned, but it also skews the gender balance of the Chinese population. Specifically, since the implementation of the policy in 1979 many men are finding there are simply no women to marry. By 2020 it is estimated there will be 40 million men unable to marry in China simply because of the lack of females.1  1 Baculino, Eric. “China Grapples with legacy of its ‘missing girls.” MSNBC. 09-14-2004.


The Chinese authorities are getting better at preventing selective abortion of females since it was banned in 2005. Whilst the demographic changes resulting from the one child policy are regrettable, they are ultimately what the Chinese authorities are seeking from the one child policy. 40 million men who cannot marry are unlikely to have children and contribute to China’s population problems.  Whilst there is harm to society from these men being unable to marry, the problem of overpopulation in China’s future which is being prevented by the one child policy outweighs this harm significantly.1  1 Associated Press. “China Will Outlaw Selective Abortions.” MSNBC. 07-01-2005.


The one child policy results in sweeping human rights violations  The One Child policy is often strictly enforced in China and many parents are given information about contraception to prevent any chance of an unplanned pregnancy. However a large number of pregnancies- within any population- are inevitable, despite the precautions that parents may take. Whether as a result of defective medication, irresponsible behaviour, or simple bad luck, sufficiently frequent sexual activity will always lead to pregnancy.  Reports from human rights workers indicate that the Chinese states deals with such eventualities by forcing women to have abortions against their will. By some accounts, the state directly detains and punishes women who resist family planning policies.1 The psychological trauma caused by this is almost indescribable. Not only does a forced abortion represent a significant attack on a woman’s bodily autonomy, procedures of this type are officially contextualised as correcting the results of wrongdoing. The woman is not counselled or assured that she is not morally culpable for her actions; she is placed in a position where the destruction of her foetus is portrayed as the inevitable result of her own lack of responsibility. Chinese women are made to feel directly responsible for the loss of their unborn children or for the circumstances that gave rise to their pregnancy.  Further the Chinese authorities often force people to be sterilised against their will. This has happened in some cases almost immediately after birth, which is incredibly traumatic for the people involved. Further, should these people ever leave China it prevents them from raising a family in the future with more than a single child. Again, forced sterilisation in this way causes large psychological harms due to the manner in which the person’s body is violated.2  1 Life Site News. "Forced Abortion Still a Reality in China Says New Amnesty Report." Life Site News. 27-05-2005.   2 Elegant, Simon. “Why Forced Abortions Persist in China.” Time. 30-04-2007.


The Chinese economy may well have grown anyway; correlation is not causation. It was not the one child policy that has caused China’s incredible economic growth but the opening up of the Chinese economy to the market.  Moreover the economic benefits from the one child policy do not come without costs.  “An associate professor of economics at Columbia University, Lena Edlund, found that a 1% increase in the ratio of males to females equates to an increase in violent and property crime of as much as 6%, "suggesting that male sex ratios may account for 28% to 38% of the rise in crime.”  Further to this, the economic benefits of the one child policy do not outweigh the harms to human rights that the one child policy causes.1  1 “One-Child Policy, Chine Crime Rise Linked by Study.” New Yorks Sun. 19-11-2007.


Interventions and contraceptive techniques such as condoms and sex education have proven to be more effective than the one child policy in aiding population control. Thailand and Indonesia for example achieved the same ends as China in reduction of their population just using these methods of birth control and family planning.  Further, the benefits of one child in population control are often exaggerated. From 1970 to 1979, through education and an emphasis on having smaller families and more time between pregnancy the Chinese government was able to reduce its birth rate from 5.2 to 2.9.  Population growth within China at a stable rate, which a replacement fertility level of 2.1 would bring, might actually be beneficial. The extra man power will be useful to China, it would mean that instead of having its population decline from 1. 341 billion today to 941 million by 21001 as is currently projected there would be a more stable population which would result in less problems with an aging population.2  Other critics question the assertion that the One-Child policy is effective at achieving population control in the first place. Fertility levels dropped between 1970 and 1979 due to government policies that pushed for later marriages and fewer births.3 Additionally, economic growth and social programs are likely to encourage smaller family sizes -- this phenomena has been observed in other countries without similar government policies.4 In cities and wealthier rural areas, surveys indicated that women on average wanted to have fewer than two children, which is below the "replacement rate" of 2.1 children per couple.5 It is difficult to isolate the One-Child policy as the primary cause of declining birth rates when other socioeconomic factors also affect families' decisions.  1 ‘China Population (thousands) Medium variant 2010-2100’, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2010 revision,   2 “The most surprising demographic crisis.” The Economist. 05-05-2011.   3 Feng, Wang. "Can China Afford to Continue its One-Child Policy?" Analysis from the East-West Center. No. 77. March 2005.   4 Engelman, Robert. "What happens if China's 'one child' is left behind?" Worldwatch Institute. 03-03-2008.   5 The Economist. "The child in time." 10-08-2010.


One child benefits women  It is reported that the focus of China on population control helps provide a better health services for women and a reduction in the risks of death and injury associated with pregnancy. At family planning offices, women receive free contraception and pre-natal classes. Help is provided for pregnant women to closely monitor their health. In various places in China, the government rolled out a ‘Care for Girls’ programme, which aims at eliminating cultural discrimination against girls in rural and underdeveloped areas through subsidies and education.  Within many Chinese communities, women have traditionally been the primary caregivers for children; however, with fewer children, they have more time to invest in their careers, increasing both their personal earnings and the national GDP.1,2  1 “Family Planning in China.” Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China. 1995.   2 Taylor, John. “China-One Child Policy,” Foreign Correspondent. 02-08-2005.


Single child families are economically efficient  The one child policy is economically beneficial because it allows China to push its population growth rate well below its growth rate in GDP.  This has allowed the standard of living in China for the average Chinese citizen to improve significantly since the policy was implemented. Specifically speaking, since 1978 the income of the urban population in China has increased tenfold. Per capita housing space has also increased both in towns and in rural areas allowing Chinese people to enjoy a higher standard of living.  Further, the individual savings rate has increased since the introduction of the One Child Policy. This has been partially attributed to the policy in two respects. First, the average Chinese household expends fewer resources, both in terms of time and money, on children, which gives many Chinese more money with which to invest. Second, since young Chinese can no longer rely on children to care for them in their old age, there is an impetus to save money for the future.  On top of this, the one child policy has also been instrumental in the eradication of poverty in China. Often, the greatest problem with poverty is that families grow to unsustainably large sizes and as such the entire family is forced to be hand to mouth. However, the one child policy prevents this from happening and as such allows for the single child to be educated properly without providing too much strain on the family. Hence, by improving educational attainment and by reducing the financial pressures bearing on poor families, the one child policy has contributed significantly to reducing poverty within China.1  1 “Family Planning in China.” Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China. 1995.


The one child policy is needed for population control  The One Child policy in China acts as an extremely powerful check on the population. With 1.3 billion people, problems of overcrowding and resource depletion in China are bad and will get significantly worse without change.1  The reality of the abolition of the one child policy is that with an increase in birth rate from the current level of 1.7 to 2.1 which is not unreasonable given population growth in other countries, there would be 5 million more births per year in China than there are now resulting in 250 million more people by the middle of this century.  Given that China is already one of the biggest contributors to global warming in the world, the addition of another 250 million people would be catastrophic in the prevention of damage to the climate. Ecological damage of this kind has been a common feature of overpopulated societies, china included, for centuries. Soil erosion, depletion of soil nutrients in arable land and pollution of water sources are already an increasing problem in China, desertification for example causes US $6.5billion of losses to the country each year.2 Further, the strain on Chinese resources would also be incredible. The policy also prevents other problems associated with overpopulation, such as epidemics and the growth of slums.3 Stable and balanced population growth requires that the policy remain in place for the time being.4  1 "Family Planning in China." Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China.   2 People’s Daily, ‘China Faces Challenge of Desertification’, 1 September 2001,   3 Revkin, Andrew. “An End to One-Child Families in China?” New York Times.28-02-2008.   4 Yardley, Jim. "China Sticking with One-Child Policy."


The benefits for women in this situation could easily be enforced via legislation, without the need for a one child policy to begin with. The gain from mothers who are able to work could easily be replicated through family planning and a greater focus on equality between genders in the country. As it is, the one child policy as defined in side opposition’s case causes women’s rights to be violated and often results in the deaths of otherwise healthy baby girls.


Even if the international community decided it wanted to better protect the human rights of migrants, an international treaty will not necessarily advance that cause, as international law has proven to be very difficult to enforce. This will continue to be a problem into the foreseeable future.


The U.N. Convention is the best available mechanism for addressing the widespread problem of migrant rights.  Because the issue of migrant rights is a global one, concerned with human rights and the domestic and international actions of states, a U.N. convention is an appropriate solution. The U.N. is the best body to act because although the situation for migrant workers may be slightly different in each state, there are basic rights that they all deserve. In addition, even if each state sought individually to protect migrant rights, they might not be able to, because governing migration takes coordination between states. With international legislation, states would be held accountable for protecting migrant rights; and, migrant policies and protections would be better coordinated. The international community has helped the global economy adapt to rising globalization, with such bodies as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Migration is an essential part of globalization, but there is no international body regulating the flow of workers around the world. Jason Deparle of the New York Times writes, “The most personal and perilous form of movement is the most unregulated. States make (and often ignore) their own rules, deciding who can come, how long they stay, and what rights they enjoy." [1] The U.N. Convention would fill this gap.  Indeed, the U.N.’s solution to regulate migration represents a reasonable and thorough approach. It is reasonable because it does not ask too much of states, requiring only that they provide migrants with basic rights. It is thorough because it provides protection for each of the many challenges and injustices facing migrant workers. Because migrant rights are a growing problem and an essential part of globalization, an international regulatory body would be an effective way of improving human rights around the world.  [1] Deparle, Jason. "Global Migration: A World Ever More on the Move," New York Times. June 26, 2010.