Resolved: Immigration policies should be expanded to compensate for a growing U.S. society

Thank you, Con. I have endeavoured to respond promptly given your time concernsThe purpose of US immigration law is not "to avoid an excessive population."Con opens with a summary of current US immigration laws. Within, he claims that the primary purpose of immigration law is "to avoid an excessive population without sufficient necessities" and "prevent problems within the country itself." But my opponent's cited source does not support these contentions - instead it rather blandly states that immigration law simply determines who is an alien and who is not, and who may stay and who may not. My opponent's statement of the primary reason for immigration law is his own invention which he has read into the statutes without justification.As it happens, defining the purposes of immigration law with any specificity is quite difficult. "Official policy goals are nowhere clearly stated, and...the nation's fundamental purposes with regard to immigration are rarely addressed." The goals of immigration policy that my opponent notes elsewhere - family reunification, admission of refuges, importing workers - are the "revealed goals of policymakers" based on the outcomes produced, but are not articulated in the law itself. [1]The "primary" goal invented by my opponent - "to avoid an excessive population" - is not one of the readily identifiable goals of immigration law. At various times our immigration laws have been amended to both expand and restrict access to the US, and at various times have been viewed as either too generous or too restrictive. [2] My opponent has taken a rather one-sided view of this two-way street.Increased immigration is not a burden to society.Under contention C1, my opponent incorrectly states, without support, that "[i]nefficiency of extensive immigration has been proven over time." My opponent's argument in this section is flawed in two primary ways: 1) it suffers from an abuse of cited sources, many of which argue the opposite of what my opponent claims, and 2) it focuses narrowly and improperly on illegal immigration, while not speaking to the positive effects of expanding legal immigrationTo the first point, my opponent mischaracterizes the argument of Manuel Velasquez. Velasquez, in the paragraph quoted by my opponent, was not articulating his own view, but the arguments that others make. His next words are striking: "Although this argument is popular, it has a fatal flaw." To wit:It falsely assumes a nation has a fixed quantity of goods — including jobs. In reality, the quantity of goods a nation produces depends on many factors including the nation's productivity and the size of its labor pool. Other things being equal, the larger a nation's labor pool, the greater its productive potential. Immigrants add to a nation's labor pool, so they actually increase the nation's productive potential, thus increasing the quantity of its goods. [3]Mr. Velasquez goes on to affirm my arguments that immigrants have a positive impact on the economy by making lower prices possible, by becoming new consumers in their adopted communities, and by paying taxes. [3]Similarly, John W. Schoen states in his piece that "immigrants are — and have always been — a critical resource that have kept America a vibrant, entrepreneurial and forward-looking country," and asks "aren't we better off having those foreign workers come here and pay taxes like the rest of us?" Rather than oppose expanded immigration, Mr. Schoen simply argues that the 24 counties along the U.S.-Mexico border be given additional federal resources to compensate for the acknowledged strain on local resources. [4]The only source that agrees with my opponent is the Martin-Ruark report, which suffers from a rather gaping methodological problem - it counts many US citizens as illegal immigrants! Specifically, the US-born children of illegal immigrants - citizens! - are counted as costing the federal government money, but the researchers acknowledge that they make no effort to calculate the "offsetting fiscal benefit" from those citizens who enter the workforce and pay taxes. These "researchers" have plainly stacked the deck to obtain their preferred result. [5]Second, the problems emphasized by my opponent - to the extent they are actually problems, and not mischaracterizations - all stem from illegal immigration. The scope of this debate includes legal and illegal immigration. None of my opponent's arguments squarely address why policies that expand legal immigration create any problems whatsoever.Immigration expansion would not foster further illegal immigrationMy opponent seems to assume that reforming immigration law necessarily means "[m]aking the system more complex, and adding unnecessary facets to the system." To the contrary, I'd aim to simplify it, by eliminating needless quotas and lotteries, and all the attendant administrative burden that comes with them.My opponent makes an odd argument about the Visa Waiver Program, a bit of US law that has come in for its fair share of bipartisan criticism. But it is not an immigration program - it is specifically designed for tourists and business travelers on short visits. It's also been a national security tool, as it has encouraged other nations to adopt more secure passport standards and share more information about potentially dangerous travellers. [6] The resolution, however, is about expanding immigration policies, and VWP isn't one.Indeed, it very hard to see how increasing the availability of legal immigration could do anything but reduce illegal immigration. Those who cross the border illegally today do so under dangerous conditions, risking kidnappings and trafficking, paying coyotes, and braving predators and night river crossings - only to risk deportation if ever detected by authorities. Offer these people a safe, legal option - they'll take it.Immigration aids the economy[Although my opponent included an economic argument by Ting under C2, it was not germane to the contention. I address it here.]My opponent cites Jan Ting, who asked a series of questions in an opinion piece without answering them - an effective rhetorical technique for raising doubts without actually citing facts. So let me answer his questions: -Five million more people will be producing goods, providing services, starting businesses, and spending money, all of which grows local economies and leads to more job creation -Immigrants do not lead to unemployment - and among some populations, cities with greater immigration from Latin America experience lower unemployment rates, lower poverty rates, and higher wages. [7]While I have great respect for David Frum, he is not an economist, but a speechwriter and journalist. Even he acknowledges that the vast majority of those who are economists have found that immigration does not harm wages. [8] Frum has long had a habit of noticing negative economic trends and blaming them on immigrants, without ever closing the thread on how. [9] One might suspect ideological blinders, as the trends noted by Frum also correspond to attacks on unions and weakening of labor laws, which offer a compelling alternative explanation for reduced wages. In any case, if low-skill laborers from Mexico enter legally, they will be able to avail themselves of the protections of the FLSA, the NLRA, minimum wage laws, and other worker protections currently denied them. At present, an illegal immigrant can get paid under the table at illegally depressed rates and not be able to do anything about it. Again, the solution here is not to restrict immigration, but to expand access to legal immigration.The Ruark report makes the same fundamental error as noted above - he assumes that jobs are a fixed resource, and gives zero consideration to any offsetting economic contributions by immigrants. [10]As for Rector and Richwine, in calculating their deficit, they makes the same willful error as Ruark did earlier - counting expenditures on US citizens. [11] Note also that the study is not actually based on current US law, but a proposal that was never actually considered. There are many other flaws - frankly, too many to list here. A thorough takedown of the study is here: [12] and here: [13] and here [14]. In the end, immigrants contribute far more in taxes than they take. [15]ConclusionMy opponent is myopically focused on what he sees as the detriments of illegal immigration, as cobbled together from flawed studies and resources which in fact argue the opposite. But he has failed to offer any argument on the central point - that immigration policies should be expanded. Many of the ills my opponent attributes to immigration are, if they exist at all, symptoms of illegal immigration that would be solved by expanding immigration policy to allow all immigrants, of whatever skill level, to fully contribute to our shared economy.[Short cites per con's practice][1] http://goo.gl...[2] http://goo.gl...[3] http://goo.gl...[4] http://goo.gl...[5] http://goo.gl..., p. 14[6] http://goo.gl...[7] http://goo.gl...[8] http://goo.gl...[9] http://goo.gl...[10] http://goo.gl...[11] http://goo.gl...[12] http://goo.gl...[13] http://goo.gl...[14] http://goo.gl...[15] http://goo.gl...