Resolved: The USFG should eliminate immigration quotas.

==AC== 1. Framework Condemning people to poverty That's an assertion, there are plenty of other places they can migrate to, e.g. Europe, where they could escape their poverty Quotas does not mean complete blockade to immigrants, its just a restriction Reciprocal burdens I meant he needs to provide a strict framework from which we evaluate from. He just cant be like: "lets follow a moral framework" because that's subjective and can be misinterpreted. But, since he has not, I propose Consequentialism, as the moral system. This means weigh impacts first. This system reconciles morality and practicality. Definition of should XA Consequentialism 2. Presumption Logistical reasons shouldn't result in a quota XA and Extend the analysis of quota vs. eligibility requirement. By dropping, he concedes there is a difference; therefore there can be no presumption in favor of Pro here because those people he wishes to save still don't meet the eligibility requirements. Thus, taking away quotas doesn't solve the issue. 3. Debt Spreading CATO Source he gives analyzes income from the 1976. This has changed, since then. CATO also reports that as time goes on the disparity of income between immigrants and natives increase XA the CIS analysis. He pretty much ignores it. The analysis says that since the majority of immigrants coming to the U.S. are impoverished, then by fact of progressive taxation, they pay minimal to no income taxes. His source from jstor analyses the impacts of immigration separate from the externalities that exist. And yes, the result is as he is say it is. But in reality, you cannot separate externalities that exist with immigration from the debate. And as the article says, the impact of immigration with these factors show that yes, immigrants do you more social services. Non-rilvarous spending True, but as I've stated before that a lot of immigrants live under the poverty line, and thus don't pay the majority of taxes anyway, namely income taxes. Second-generation not in poverty A large portion still are in poverty. Thus, by increasing the amount let in, the number would increase relative to the influx in. Thus, quotas solve poverty problem better As the source indicates, this group is more likely to be in gangs, gang-related violence and incarcerated. Thus, he is just misplacing the problem. 4. Infrastructure Extend the dropped argument that his analysis refers to underdeveloped countries, where infrastructure matters. Thus, the impact is negligible. He says private infrastructure, but at this point it doesn't matter because they don't hold really any much weight politically or otherwise, they are on viass Population more than birth He gets no benefit because the population increases and thus infrastructure benefits exist within the status quo, with quotas. Plus, status qou population increase is augmented by birth increases in the South. And since this is where the majority of immigrants live, South-west and South, there would be minimal improvement to infrastructure. 5. Scientific Advancement I meant no-link, not no impact. Link would exist if a large majority of immigrants were in STEM fields. Remember, the resolution states "quotas" as in a generality. STEM fields would be overwhelmed by links to LSW. SQ solves. We already have enough STEM visas. Eliminating quota doesn't solve ==NC== 1. Wage Deflation i) Democrats serve Americans, not general welfare Democrats serve constituencies, which is highly pro-immigration. Extend dropped argument that the study was independent, being presented to the subcommittee Extend the dropped empiric from the Beck evidence, Miami study proved lower wages His economic analysis would be true if more divisions of labor existed, but LSW rarely results in high division of labor. Moreover, demand for products does not logically extend to higher wages. Higher prices maybe, but not wages ii) Important study? Study done by the Quarterly Journal of Economics which shown that on average increased immigration resulted in decreased wages in areas of higher competition (aprx. 4%) Prefer study, not just limited to LSW, but also H-1B. Wider impacts than just Borjas iii) Immorality This logic extension doesn't exist within the SQ, if it did it would matter in the round. But it doesn't. iv) Monetary base My studies don't argue for a decrease of the total base. My studies pick out the areas of competition resulting from visas increases. Namely, LSW and H1-B. B) Econ growth i) GLU = Bad GLU is not politically partisan against immigration, where, in this case, bias would matter. Also, the evidence doesn't have to be specific. It is simply an analysis of the correlation between wages and economic growth ii) Card Substance True, the card doesn't refer to "investments," it refers to wages, but as the end of the card implies wages impact almost every part of the economy, and thus by extension would affect investment. Moreover, the labor-wage correlation would work if those were the only variables working at the same time. But, that is not the case. iii) Other factors Inflation does matter due to the fact of government spending. Insofar as the SQ government spending ties up capital flows, etc, wage deflation would be exacerbated due to falling value of the dollar, plus an expanded pool of competition iv) Borjas and Peri studies No his study does not estimate future long term trends. The study is narrowly done, with variables really only accounting for specific LSW positions. This ignores the entire LSW category and the H1-B category. My Borjas studies do take this into account. Plus, this study, as indicated, assumes quotas as a market-balancer. He says Peri studies nullify. But as the Peri evidence doesn't nullify, but turns the AC strategy. My evidence indicates that any wage deflation is enough to drive down the economy, so it doesn't matter if its for foreigners or natives. Impact is the same He drops H1-B analysis. This is important because it shows that companies artificially deflate wages for immigrants due to legal loopholes, and these immigrants lack recourse. 2. Brain-Drain B) BD Lack of permanent resident visas is forcing skilled workers to stay in their home countries. Barbara Bierach, MBA Channel, "Brain Drain: Diplomas are not enough, add Green Cards please!" 5/28/2010, http://www.mba-channel.com... The frustration of waiting for permanent resident visas and the increase in opportunities in their native countries has led more U.S.-educated immigrants to buy one-way plane tickets back home. And once they return they find good pay and speedy advancement, along with other professional and personal benefits," This answers main objections to the Ford Evidence. But still, he has not addressed the analysis. iv) Disadvantaged Removing quotas opens up doors for both C) Mexican unrest i) Authority Authority in this case has close analysis to the political conditions in mexico ii) Quotas solve and make absolute restrictions unnecessary. Plus, movement can be to other areas, not just the U.S. iii) He is assuming the Mexican and EU governments are analogous. The EU has the liberty, politically and economically, to shape it as they will. The Mexican government does not and could probably not afford the taxbreaks needed for such an endeavor. D) Mexican collapse i) He misses the analysis I give afterwards. Authority measures political, economic and geopolitical impacts to determine political action ii) Collapse of the Mexican government and by extension civil society would result in massive influx of refugees t