"Freedom of movement should be a human right"


Some people may not want this to happen because one country (say Japan for instance) could overpopulate which means that the government would have to spend more money on things like schools and ambulances. Furthermore, since the example is Japan, it would also mean that the government would have to spend more money on earthquake and tsunami preparation. However, this is individually. Norway is one of the countries that spend the most money on their education: $21,595 per full-time student. Their population is 2.258 million. Nevertheless, there is a weakness in my answer because the population of the UK is 12.5599087105 times more than that and the UK provides free education-but Norway does as well. I’m looking more at the population though. A danger of overpopulation is that people would start to use fossil fuels a lot more; although these are natural resources, they do cause air pollution and you have to dig them up from the ground, which can ruin our one world. Human population has been rising since 1350 and there has been a significant increase since 1950. If people started to move around a lot then there would start to be demands more things like simple necessities. If people were to be able to move freely then that would mean that they would be able to get away from dangers like terrorists. For example, refugees are able to come and live in the UK because of the war.

On the other hand some people might want there to be freedom of movement because a lot of young intelligent people would be able to move around to other countries and contribute some great things in order to make the country better. However, that’s just individually. If we look at the bigger picture, there are 2.16 million immigrants in Singapore and it comes first on the list of most intelligent countries. If free movement were to be a human right, then that would mean that no one would be applying for Visas. Like the activity that we did in a session, people who have criminal records or people who have been to prison for dangerous things, might not be able to enter the country. If we didn’t have Visa checkers then that would mean that the number of criminals entering a country would become exceedingly high. Some people may see this a negative; however, it could actually be good because people deserve second chances. In 1992 there was a Maastricht Treaty. This means that people didn’t have to go to countries just to work, they could also go to retire. This could be a good thing because it would mean that people would be able to enjoy life to the fullest but it also means that the economy would struggle. If we link back to the Visa activity, the old couple wanted somewhere to retire and the man was very ill. Thi doesn’t contribute much, other than the fact that it means that the government would have to spend more money. This goes against the Brexit situation that the country is currently in at the moment because, freedom of movement would decrease as people wouldn’t be able to immigrate to the EU for things like education.

I agree with the against side because countries overpopulating, can lead to some serious damage. I can see where the other side is coming from but the fact that terrorists and criminals could enter at any time, is pretty scary.

Comments (1)

  • Olivia-Avatar.jpg Olivia @ Topical Talk
    21 May 2019

    A good use of original evidence to support your reasons and well done for linking this question more broadly to the environment and the EU!

    Reply to this comment

You must be logged in with Student Hub access to post a comment. Sign up now!