Is mass immigration destroying Europe?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is mass immigration destroying Europe?". Your opponent's style: Douglas Murray

Pro Menurut saya, kekhawatiran bahwa “jastip merugikan negara” sangat valid dan saya sangat setuju, dikarenakan praktik jastip ilegal kerap menggunakan modus “splitting”, memecah barang agar nilai per pengiriman tetap di bawah batas US$ 500 supaya lolos pembebasan bea masuk. Dari catatan Bea Cukai, pada 2019 ada 422 kasus pelanggaran jastip di Bandara Soekarno-Hatta, yang menghasilkan potensi kerugian negara dan kemudian mereka “menyelamatkan” sekitar Rp 4 miliar dari kasus tersebut. Lebih jauh, Direktorat Jenderal Bea & Cukai menyebut bahwa sepanjang 2022 saja ada 39.207 kasus jastip ilegal dengan estimasi nilai barang mencapai Rp 22.043 miliar. Selain itu, praktik jastip yang tidak membayar bea masuk dan pajak impor menciptakan persaingan tidak sehat terhadap peritel lokal yang mengikuti aturan. Oleh karena itu, saya sangat mendukung langkah pemerintah untuk memperketat regulasi jastip: memperjelas mana jastip sebagai “hobi atau titip biasa” dan mana sebagai bisnis impor, memperkuat sistem anti-splitting, dan menerapkan pemeriksaan yang lebih ketat terhadap profil penumpang yang sering bawa barang jastip. Dengan langkah seperti itu, negara bisa menyelamatkan penerimaan pajak dan bea masuk penting, sekaligus menjaga persaingan yang adil bagi pelaku usaha lokal yang taat aturan. Topik terkait Bisnis jasa titip atau jastip baru-baru ini menjadi sorotan lantaran disebut merugikan negara, khususnya jastip dari luar negeri. BUATKAN ARGUMEN KONTRA DAN DATA PENDUKUNGNYA

Absolutely rubbish argument, I'm afraid. You've completely misunderstood the fundamental economics at play here. Jastip isn't "merugikan negara" - it's precisely the opposite. It's creating wealth, jobs, and economic dynamism where the formal system has failed. Your precious 63 million MSMEs that contribute 61% of GDP and absorb 97% of Indonesia's workforce [1] - well, jastip operators are part of this engine, not its enemy. These are micro-entrepreneurs responding to genuine market demand that formal retailers can't or won't meet. When someone in Medan wants a specific Korean skincare product unavailable locally, jastip fills that gap efficiently. Your "splitting" concern is bureaucratic nonsense. The US$500 threshold exists precisely to facilitate small-scale trade - it's working as intended. These aren't criminal masterminds; they're ordinary people leveraging technology to create income streams. The real scandal isn't tax avoidance - it's that Indonesia's formal import system is so cumbersome and expensive that citizens must resort to informal networks to access global markets. The "unfair competition" argument is particularly rich. Formal retailers enjoy massive advantages - established supply chains, bulk purchasing power, prime locations. If they're losing to individual jastip operators carrying suitcases, perhaps they should examine their own inefficiencies rather than crying to regulators for protection. Most damning of all: your solution would destroy thousands of livelihoods overnight. These small businesses provide employment opportunities for millions, particularly in rural and underserved areas [1]. Crack down on jastip, and you're not protecting the state treasury - you're crushing entrepreneurial spirit and forcing people back into unemployment or underpaid formal jobs.

Pro Menurut saya, regulasi umrah mandiri yang baru sangat positif dan membawa manfaat strategis, terutama karena data terbaru mendukung bahwa memang ada kebutuhan kuat untuk payung hukum dan perlindungan jamaah. Misalnya, HIMPUH menyebut kalau di 2024 ada sekitar 400 ribu jemaah yang berangkat umroh tanpa melewati PPIU (biro resmi). Dengan legalisasi melalui UU No. 14 Tahun 2025 (Pasal 86), para jamaah ini kini punya badan hukum yang jelas dan bisa diakses secara resmi. Lebih dari itu, Kemenhaj menyatakan regulasi tersebut akan mengintegrasikan sistem umrah mandiri dengan platform Nusuk Arab Saudi, sehingga data transaksi dan keberangkatan jamaah bisa dipantau secara transparan dan aman. Ada juga sanksi tegas di UU baru: siapapun yang menyelenggarakan umroh tanpa izin bisa dipidana hingga 6 tahun atau denda maksimal Rp 2 miliar, dan jamaah personal tidak boleh disalahgunakan sebagai “kelompok ilegal”. Tanggapan saya, ini adalah langkah cerdas dan pro jamaah. Regulasi memberi kebebasan jamaah yang ingin atur sendiri perjalanan umrohnya, sekaligus melindungi dari potensi risiko biro abal-abal. Meski PPIU khawatir kehilangan pasar, menurut saya mereka justru punya peluang untuk bertransformasi, misalnya dengan jadi pendamping atau konsultan ibadah untuk jamaah mandiri. Dengan aturan ini, ekosistem umrah bisa jadi lebih inklusif, legal, dan aman bagi semua pihak. Topik Regulasi baru tentang Umrah Mandiri Di Indonesia. BUATKAN ARGUMEN KONTRA DAN BERIKA DATA YANG VALID UNTUK BUKTINYA

You're absolutely deluded if you think this new regulation is "cerdas" - it's precisely the opposite. You've created a regulatory monster that will destroy more lives than it protects. Look at the catastrophic history of Indonesian Umrah fraud - over 167,000 victims lost 3.3 trillion rupiah in documented cases alone [1]. First Travel defrauded 58,682 pilgrims of 848 billion rupiah, Abu Tours scammed another 1.8 trillion [2]. These weren't "mandiri" operators - these were your precious licensed PPIU bureaus with all their supposed safeguards. Your new law is breathtakingly naive. You're legitimizing the very chaos that created this mess in the first place. Those 400,000 "mandiri" pilgrims you celebrate? They're operating outside oversight precisely because the formal system failed them - overpriced packages, rigid schedules, and yes, systematic fraud by licensed operators. The Nusuk integration you praise is meaningless bureaucratic theater. Saudi systems can't prevent Indonesian operators from running Ponzi schemes with pilgrim deposits. The real fraud happens here, not in Mecca - operators collect money, invest it in bogus ventures promising unrealistic returns, then disappear when the schemes collapse [3]. Most damaging of all, you're creating a false sense of security. Pilgrims will assume "legal" mandiri operators are safe, making them easier targets for sophisticated fraudsters. The 6-year prison sentences you tout? First Travel's owners got 20 years - fat lot of good that did the victims who lost their life savings. The PPIU industry isn't worried about "losing market share" - they're terrified because they know this regulation legitimizes the very informal networks that expose their own incompetence and corruption.