Open borders allow for countries to not only bring aid towards the economy via immigrants who will SPEND money in the country, but also, according to a study by MIT, immigrants are 80% MORE likely to become entrepreneurs and HIRE non-immigrants as a result, in turn BENEFITING the nation overall.

The opposition fails to recognise that in a society which has experienced globalisation, monoculturalism is no longer a realistic option especially given the rates of unemployment MEANING no one wants to FULFILL those roles or they are not capable BY THAT COUNTRY'S standards IT HAS SET, which in a democratic society, the CITIZENS would have elected in. This means that the cultures of nations should be multicultural not monocultural. The legal processes of a nation ensure that it can sustain who becomes a citizen or not, but let us return to the core premise of the debate that countries should have open borders. Let it be known that, at NO POINT has the opposition substantiated their claim via any factual, objective evidence.

First of all, the opponent assumes with NO EVIDENCE, that a nation cannot govern itself with open borders. Now, let us think, who in a democratic society ELECTS the government? IT IS ITS PEOPLE! Thus we should maintain the capability of self-government which at NO POINT CONTRADICTS open borders, at NO POINT, does it state that a country cannot have a culture, only that it cannot be monocultural which is already impossible in a globalised world. The opponent assumes a perfect government with the community analogy WITH NO EVIDENCE LET IT BE KNOWN should hold. Let us examine this, AT WHAT POINT, can even THAT, govern a nation which cannot fulfill its economic duties? WHAT IS LEFT OF A NATION THAT CANNOT SUSTAIN ITSELF ECONOMICALLY? That would only drive collapse, not prosperity, so remember, that in such a world, it is only logical to prioritise a country's economic needs over others. Thus, countries should have open borders. I rest my case.