Resolved: The U.S. should allow all imports of goods and capital.

1. The semantical argument Is it really silly to argue that there is a loophole in the definition? You merely said that the imports must abide by law. Not current law. Therefore, future laws and past laws apply. Slavery was legal in the past, drugs will likely become legal in the future. The legality argument is not a card blanche response. Drugs, invasive species, and human trafficking are all valid points and must be responded to. 2. Economics PRO seems to put much of the blame on other domestic issues. However, welfare is not the *cause* of the job loss. It could be argued that it *amplified* the job loss, but to argue that it is the sole cause is absurd. Welfare *may* exacerbate problems. It *may* lead to laziness. But it is not the cause of the significant job losses incurred due to recent free-trade agreements. It is absurd to claim this. Further, Welfare may be causing less harm as time goes on, as welfare reform was passed in the same time period as many of these free trade agreements were signed. And Welfare reform is associated with increased levels of employment and decreased poverty [1]. Therefore, if anything, welfare policies became less deleterious over the period that agreements such as NAFTA were passed. Welfare policies were loosened, meaning that they *prevented* job loss, and did not cause it. In fact, many analysis’s argue that the existence of welfare may reduce poverty [2]. Again, arguing that welfare *caused* job loss in the hundreds of thousands is absurd. Welfare *may* work to *amplify* job losses, and making them more long term. But Welfare is never the initial unemployment forcing. And may even work to alleviate some social ills. PRO notes how some large industries—namely, the car industry—imports may help the job situation. This is in dispute. The reason companies like Toyota employ so many people here is because there is a large market. It is cost-efficient to have manufacturing plants here, since a huge amount of their income comes from US consumers. You reduce shipping costs. However, to put those jobs here also costs a lot of start-up money. Smaller imports which are not from large companies or wealthy countries (like Japan) may not do this, and will continue to keep their predominant workforce abroad. This would mean that for smaller industries, the effect would be negative. This would mean that not all imports are beneficial, and that some protective measures would overall benefit the US economy. PRO again attempts to put the blame on central banking. Again, banking may exacerbate any effect, but it is not the forcing. Just as the sun is the forcing behind interglacial changes, CO2 often works to amplify the warming effects. Free trade begins the pain, and these other things PRO points to are amplifiers. They are negative, to be sure, but are not the largest factor in the equation. Further, if PRO supports *current* law, then the current law supports the central bankers. Which means he must also defend current legal institutions. They, as he claims, exacerbate any problem. Meaning he must also defend their existence, as they are under the *current* legal code. Using his logic, he then must support increased imports due to central banks. If the ‘bad’ imports are coming in due to the bank, he must defend them. Why? Because current law supports it. And he must defend *all* imports. He cannot pick and choose which ones he supports. Just because a bank backs one he cannot wave it away. He must support it based on the terms he wants to use for this debate. In many ways, higher inflation helps the economy as it causes consumers to consume more. Inflation also leads to increased wages [3]. Therefore, again, assuming that inflationary measures are the cause of the job loss is absurd. And how do these measures, according to my opponent, hurt the economy? By increasing foreign imports! Therefore, he essentially concedes that at least *some* imports will hurt the US economy. If this is true, then why allow them into the country? If *some* imports are bad, then why not restrict their access? He essentially ruins his case by arguing that the central bank is bad because it… increases imports… which means by that flow imports are bad. PRO seems to want to have a little discussion on welfare and central banking. I would love to. Maybe he could challenge me to a separate debate on central banking (e.g. gold standards). But overall, these arguments are red-herrings. What is the *net* effect of imports on the US economy, and should they be restricted. To allow all imports in, PRO must support free trade. I provided evidence that these free-trade regimes harm the economy. PRO claimed that the central bank did it. Why? They increase imports. This concedes that imports are bad, and therefore he essentially concedes what I was saying. He says welfare caused it. Why? Disincentive to work. It may *exacerbate* the problem, but isn’t the cause. In fact, the effect of welfare has been decreasing over that time period, meaning the amplification is smaller than it would be otherwise. Meaning it likely was not the cause of the massive job loss due to these laws. In fact, welfare is associated with decreased poverty, meaning that welfare is likely NOT the culprit of the massive job losses. So, what do we have under economics? 1) Free trade harms economy 2) PRO admits that imports harm economy 3) Therefore, as allowing *all* imports into the country would harm the economy, it seems logical to restrict *some* of their access to our country. As can be seen, allowing all imports would exacerbate any economic woes we are now facing, and would decrease US living standards. Some imports should be barred entrance to the country. Resolution negated. 1. http://www.nber.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.investopedia.com...