Tier Tournament 2 [Top], R2: Let Anyone Work Anywhere

Thanks to Con for a cogent and thoughtful opening argument. I'll accept most of Con's points on BoP, though if, as he said, our cases were equally matched, that would suffice as a tie, not a win for Con. It is equally my burden and his to show that our cases outweigh one another. If my case is not better than status quo, then that is sufficient to vote Con. 1. Controlled borders This is Con's counter plan, and the view here is that opening borders to certain subsets of skilled immigrants when a need arises is sufficient. However, it is still going to deny access to some skilled laborers who should have every right to compete with the skilled labor pool here. I would say that since foreign-born skilled workers are huge contributors to innovation and job creation, since aging and shrinking populations of workers need to be addressed before needs arise, and since their competition is hugely beneficial to consumers, any reduction in their capacity to work in this country is a net harm.[9] 2. Job market and wage Though his arguments here may seem reasonable, there are several inherent assumptions Con is making that are false. a. The job market will decrease in size I've already established that there is a huge benefit to GDP on a worldwide scale that results from this system, something that is widely agreed upon by economists, which means that labor markets should actually increase.[10] Immigrants do also affect the supply of labor through their own demand for goods and services, which increases the demand for labor and therefore the overall job market.[11] It's also important to recognize that the job market wouldn't just be the US market. The labor pool for everyone dramatically increases just by virtue of access, even for US citizens. We have no reason to believe everyone will want to come to the US either. b. Native workers are worse off with legal foreign competition I'll talk more about this later under point #6, but keep in mind that the current status for many such immigrants is to pursue illegal jobs that pay far less than minimum wage. Making their status legal dramatically alters the equation in a positive direction, removing much of the incentive for people to enter the country illegally and acquire sub-minimum wage labor. c. Wages will be uniquely decreased Companies will always seek to reduce wages so long as there is more than enough unskilled labor to do so. Either there is too much unskilled labor in status quo, in which case they're already doing this, or there is not enough, which means that an influx is filling an existent need. Con apparently argues the former, claiming that "we don't have any need to borrow from other nations." If this is true, then wages won't change with an increased supply of workers. I would argue, however, that there is an existent need, especially when it comes to farming, home health, food preparation, freight, child care, cleaning, landscaping and construction.[12] Looking at the numbers, the US is going to need 3 million additional workers over the next decade to fill low skill jobs.[13] Considering that the vast majority of immigrant labor is either very high skilled or very low,[11] this claim that people will have their wages dragged down doesn't link to the case. High skilled labor will demand higher wages, and low skilled labor will almost certainly have to acquire a minimum wage job in any case, as most of this work is already down at that level. d. The empirics match Con's rationale Probably the best example akin to this plan is the EU, which has an open job market. Despite fears of competition, the EU Commission has agreed that this open market is mostly beneficial, using empirical evidence.[14] This is in a system that allows people to work in any nation within the EU. This policy has engendered inter-country unity, improves image for potential skilled migrants, and increased economic benefits for every country involved.[15] But let's delve into economics. Borjas makes a rather large estimate that is not based on any empirical evidence. Looking at his conclusions, he says that the long run effect on native workers is net zero.[16] A review he wrote later sets that estimate between 2 and 5%, and also concludes that immigrant workers have increased the GDP of the US by 11%.[17] Borjas has also written a good paper on how immigration greases the wheels of the labor market. While native-born workers may have major costs associated with their movement, immigrant workers have, by definition, chosen to incur those migration costs, and thus will choose to live in states that offer the the highest wages, speeding up the process of regional wage convergence in the process, something that increases economic efficiency across the board.[18] Other economists are more optimistic. Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano and Giovanni Peri have shown that the loss is similarly small for this group (2.5%), but that anyone who graduated high school or has further education has received an average wage gain of more than 1% across the board.[19] The National Bureau of Economic Research revealed that the displacement effects on native workers are low "even after very large immigration flows." It also shows that immigrants have a net positive fiscal effect on host countries.[20] The Cato Institute showed "that increased enforcement and reduced low-skilled immigration have a significant negative impact on the income of US households."[21] 3. Basic obligations of governments Governments have international rights obligations as well. Two such obligations are adherence to the UDHR and the ICESCR, both of which were signed by the US. In either case, the US is meeting its obligations to its people, but only in my case is it meeting its obligations to the world. Governments also have other obligations to their people. Specifically, they have obligations to businesses and consumers, both of whom stand to benefit massively from this. The idea that protectionist policies like the ones Con is advocating for should always be at the forefront, which is incredibly short-sighted, especially when the impact on the economy is so strong. 4. Rights " immigrants vs. citizens Con argues that these immigrants will gain the right to vote. Whether he's arguing that these people will somehow acquire this right without citizenship, or that they will somehow acquire citizenship, he'll need to better explain why politicians would do something they have never done with illegal immigrants (despite having the incentive of 12 million new voters[22]). Similarly, he will have to explain how social services will be extended to them. I grant that access to emergency rooms and public schools would be available to them, but at the point that we'll have increased numbers of qualified doctors and teachers coming into the country, it is not a grave concern. 5. Who would benefit? Con grants my point here that the 4 billion workers are being given access to reasonable wages that they absolutely cannot gain elsewhere. I would argue that any harm to American workers is always going to be far, far less dramatic than the benefits these people will receive. Note that Con is also granting the benefits to businesses here, even if he only says that it's "those at the top." The only harm he cites is that it increases the gap between the rich and poor, but he never states an impact to that harm, nor is it believable without first proving that wages will depress substantially. 6. Living here illegally Con says that those immigrants who are laid off in the US would just find illegal work. I fail to see how this is worse than status quo, where the only work they can acquire is illegal work. Right now, the way to do this is to cross into this country illegally. Most often, this is accomplished by a source smuggling them in, such as the Coyotes, who smuggle Latin American immigrants across the US border. These are booming businesses that are being supported by our current border policies.[23] It's also incredibly dangerous, leading to the deaths of thousands in the process of getting across the borders.[24] My policy creates a far safer route into the nation that leads to their spending in local economies, and in turn reducing the likelihood of their funding criminal enterprises. 7. National security This is mostly unwarranted. The risk doesn't increase because border security still functions in exactly the same way. If someone has a record that makes them a plausible risk to this country, they can still be barred. Nothing is changing with regards to basic border security. The only difference is that they no longer have to acquire work visas. 9. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org... 10. http://openborders.info... 11. http://www.econlib.org... 12. http://www.nytimes.com... 13. http://www.foreignpolicy.com... 14. http://www.eurotopics.net... 15. http://www.economist.com... 16. http://econlog.econlib.org... 17. http://cis.org... 18. http://www.oecd.org... 19. http://www.nber.org... 20. http://www.hbs.edu... 21. http://www.cato.org... 22. http://cis.org... 23. http://content.time.com... 24. http://www.economist.com...