The Arizona Immigration Law is fair and reasonable

With that said, I will analyze the resolution, refute my opponent's case and then present my own contentions. ==========THE RESOLUTION========== Resolved: The Arizona Immigration Law is fair and reasonable. Fair: free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception; conforming with established standards or rules (1) Reasonable: showing reason or sound judgment; "a sensible choice"; "a sensible person" (2) Because the resolution contains the conjunction "and," Pro must prove that Arizona's immigration law is both fair AND reasonable in order to win this debate. Con can win this debate by showing that the law is (a) fair but not reasonable, (b) not fair but reasonable or (c) neither fair nor reasonable. ==========MY OPPONENT'S CASE========== ----------First Contention---------- The excerpt my opponent provided is present in the bill, but it does not represent the entire intent of the law. The main intent of the law is "to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona" (3). In other words, the law institutes a policy of keeping out/deporting illegal immigrants by enforcing current federal law. I will show how this policy is flawed when I introduce my own contentions. Regarding the excerpt itself, let me give my opponent an analogy. Let's say I'm a white dude riding my bicycle through the sun-kissed hills of Arizona. I ride over the crest of a hill, and now that I'm flying downhill. The speed limit on the road is 30 mph (which actually applies to all users of the road, including cyclists). I am going almost 40. A cop on a motorcycle with a radar gun catches me and "pulls me over. " I don't have a formal ID on me; just a backpack with some water, a granola bar and a cell phone. The officer laughs, gives me a verbal warning, tells me to "ease up on the gas," and I'm let off on my way. Now let's say I'm Guatemalan in heritage and appearance, but am also a third-generation U. S. citizen. My situation is the exact same as the white dude. However, because I am brown-skinned in this scenario, the moment the cop finds out I don't have ID, alarm bells go off in his head. " "There may be a good reason for not having ID," thinks the officer, "but this guy looks like he could be illegal. I can't just take his word for it. " I would then be brought into custody and my whole day would be ruined. That is what makes that section of Arizona's law unfair and unreasonable, because no matter what arguments in defense are made, it is still racial profiling. ----------Second Contention---------- My opponent claimed that, according to the Supreme Court, that a person's ID can be demanded without any reason. He wrote that the Supreme Court ruled it as Constitutional. However, just because it is upheld by the Supreme Court doesn't make it reasonable. The 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision is a perfect example (4). Just because the Supreme Court makes a ruling on something doesn't mean that ruling is fair and reasonable. ----------Third Contention---------- Why is it unreasonable to have a state law contradict federal law? If a Federal law is neither fair nor reasonable (which I plan to show), wouldn't a state law contradicting that be both fair and reasonable? And if a Federal law is unfair and unreasonable, wouldn't a state measure enforcing that law also be unfair and unreasonable? ----------Fourth Contention---------- Stay tuned. I will show in my contentions that the immigration policy of the federal government and Arizona are not economically practical. ----------Fifth Contention---------- I will cover this point in my contentions by showing how pure enforcement isn't the way to go. ==========MY CONTENTIONS========== ----------Contention 1: Arizona's New Law Will Not Be Very Effective---------- Proponents of Arizona's new immigration law believe along with illegal immigrants being caught and deported, upping the enforcement of federal law will result in illegal immigrants panicking and fleeing back to Mexico. This is a flawed assertion. A lapse in federal enforcement has caused thousands if not millions of immigrants to enter the United States illegally. Threatening to enforce the law now will not simply make these immigrants pack up and go home. Think about it. Immigrants crossing the border have married Americans, established careers, and given birth to children who are American citizens. Furthermore, for many of these hardworking people, no matter how difficult we make life for them here, it will never be as terrible as the conditions they risked life and limb to leave. Increasing enforcement won't make illegal aliens leave, it will only drive them further underground, and they will look for new, more desperate ways to stay hidden. To conclude, Tamar Jacoby of the Manhattan Institute said it best when he wrote that, "We can't build a new airtight, lawful system on top of a rotten, illegal foundation" (5). That's what the law will do. Enforcing a policy that hasn't been enforced for decades will fix nothing. ----------Contention 2: A Policy of Amnesty Would Be More Economical---------- My opponent claims that the presence of illegal immigrants in Arizona cost the state about $1.3 billion. Though this may be true, there is a better solution than trying to force out every undocumented worker. An excerpt from a study by Monash University in Australia (6): "This study finds that increased enforcement and reduced low-skilled immigration have a significant negative impact on the income of U. S. households. Modest savings in public expenditures would be more than offset by losses in economic output and job opportunities for more-skilled American workers. A policy that reduces the number of low-skilled immigrant workers by 28.6 percent compared to projected levels would reduce U. S. household welfare by about 0.5 percent, or $80 billion. " So we can see that trying to reduce the immigrant population will result in worse economic repercussions than keeping them. But we don't even have to resort to keeping the status quo. The study goes on: "In contrast, LEGALIZATION of low-skilled immigrant workers would yield significant income gains for American workers and households. Legalization would eliminate smugglers' fees and other costs faced by illegal immigrants. It would also allow immigrants to have higher productivity and create more openings for Americans in higher-skilled occupations. The positive impact for U. S. households of legalization under an optimal visa tax would be 1.27 percent of GDP or $180 billion. " We can therefore see that not only would Arizona's enforcement law not work, but doing the opposite by legalizing the immigrants would be more economical, and frankly more humane. ===========CONCLUSION========== Con has shown that even if Arizona's new law adheres to Constitutional standards (though many have argued that is is unconstitutional [7]), simply enforcing a the broken system will not deter illegal immigration. In fact, nationalizing the immigrants will actually result in a more desirable outcome. The resolution has been negated. Sources: (1) . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... (2) . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... (3) . http://www.azleg.gov... (4) . http://www.pbs.org... (5) . http://www.manhattan-institute.org... (6) . http://www.freetrade.org... (7) . http://blogs.wsj.com...