Mass Deportation Policies undermine American Labor

Let me first address the issue of "extra credit". I mentioned extra credit towards the end of my round because I didn't have enough space to explain what I meant. Now, we're debating the economic effects of a plan, namely Trump's planned immigration policy. In any such debate, the person arguing against that plan could present a counter-plan to demonstrate the opportunity costs of the plan. In other words, when I'm talking about a path to citizenship, I do so to demonstrate that there is a policy which could help working people, from the undocumented to the citizens whose ancestors arrived on the Mayflower -- in the case of citizenship vs. deportation, we're talking about policies that are mutually exclusive. You simply cannot grant American citizenship to somebody while you are in the process of deporting the same person. I need to prove that deportation is harmful to the working/middle classes, on it's own, but in addition to that I'll also show you why reform is a much better option. That beng said, let's look at Con's arguments: " Illegal workers don't take part in union activity, and if they did they wouldn't be much use. Besides, it would definetly not be in their interests to do so." Well, that would be news to undocumented workers who have joined unions including United Here and the Union of Farm Workers. [1] Now, while joining a Union, as Con agrees, tends to raise one's wage, and while that does certainly mean that all things being equal, when migrant laborers join a union that would be in that person's interest, the main issue with doing so was spelled out by Con." And if they did, their influence would be zero- if they demanded more or threatened strikes or disobedience their employer could simply dangle the fact that they are criminals under American law over their heads." Well, yes, so long as undocumented workers do not have a path to citizenship, their status has been and will be used against them. People who want a fair living wage for a fair day's work can be threatened with detention and deportation. As deportations increase, the coercive power of such threats will likewise increase. And this will mean lower wages for those undocumented immigrants who don't get deported. And in various sectors, American nationals will be competing with even lower wages due to this -- and it'll have ripple effects throughout the economy/labor market. "I hate to break out Trump rhetoric but when Mexico sends it's people over the border, they're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs, etcetera. Like it or not, illegal immigrants are criminals (hence the name). The US doesn't owe anything to people who aren't her citizens, especially people who have broken the law to get there, regardless of their situation. "See, the thing about this rhetoric is, that's all it is. And by Con's own standards, it doesn't have any bearing on this debate: "I should start off by saying this debate is solely about how deportation will affect the jobs of American citizens, and any arguments that revolve around the morality or rationality of deporting illegal immigrants are irrelevant (in this debate, but definetly not in real life!)." Trumpian statements like they aren't bringing their best, or illegal immigrants are criminals or the US doesn't owe anything to people who aren't her citizens are all moral judgements. I don't have to address them because they are moral judgements and because with one exception that comes to mind, (which I will address) they don't have any effect on the jobs or wages of American workers. However the perception that the undocumented are all "criminals" does definitely need to be addressed. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that immigrants have one fifth the incarceration rate of the native born. [2]As for drugs, yes it is true that cartels are bringing in drugs, but the people who they smuggle are generally good hardworking people. Even when Trump builds his wall (not that this is part of the debate but while we're discussing smuggling i might as well point this out) the Cartels will do something they have already been doing, which is using tunnels beneath the wall. About 40% of undocumented immigrants got a visa, and wind up staying after the visa expired. Point being, stigmatizing undocumented immigrants as "criminals" is not only unfair and harmful to them, but it also has nothing to do with jobs and wages, which is what this debate is about; con agrees that it is. Now, I've addressed Con's rebuttal of my first two contentions -- which was essentially the same argument: the undocumented don't join unions, even though many do, and many more will if they have a path to citizenship. This won't only mean higher wages for them, but also higher wages for everyone else -- a stronger labor movement will benefit working people from all backgrounds. I've addressed Con's rhetorical argument. Now, if you're keeping score, one of my contentions has gone completely unaddressed (Contention 3). Not only do increased deportations mean lower wages for the people who stay, but they mean even lower wages for people working in the Maquiladoras of Northern Mexico. Since they were created in 1964, the Maquiladoras have had plenty of US investment -- many American Multinational Corporations moved production to these factories where they pay lower wages and where they don't have to worry nearly as much about pollution or the health of workers getting exposed to chemicals. This has been going on long before NAFTA. The more deportation, the more off shoring, the more outsourcing. Look, we can make moral judgements about "criminality" or "what we owe"(which is also quite specious considering that the undocmented pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, an issue I'll get to in a moment) till the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that these cruel policies will backfire when American jobs are shipped South of the Border. That won't only mean fewer jobs, this will also mean less leverage -- the threat of outsourcing will probably be used more when there are hundreds of thousands or (God forbid it, though it is more likely) millions more people who can work in those jobs. I have one more contention, and since it isn't sporting to introduce arguments in round 3, this'll be the last one I use in the debate. Contention 4: The fiscal costs of deportation are large, and they will be borne by America's working class. Not only do the cruel processes of detention, and deportation cost a lot of money (not to mention the Wall which, granted, isn't part of this debate) but we will lose a lot of revenue. This is because, many undocumented immigrants pay taxes, and are simultaneously ineligible for various benefits. Don't take my word for it (in fact, you probably won't, since the myth of immigration draining the Treasury is so pervasive) just look at the evidence:"Non-citizen immigrant adults and children are about 25% less likely to be signed up for Medicaid than their poor native-born equivalents and are also 37% less likely to receive food stamps, according to a 2013 study by the Cato Institute." That's the CATO Institute, a conservative think tank saying this. The undocumented pay about 15 billion dollars a year to the Social Security fund, without ever expecting to collect benefits. 10.6 billion in local/state tax. We'd be losing more revenue than we spend, and someone will have to bear the brunt. It won't be the military -- defense spending is going up, it won't be the rich -- taxes are going down -- the money will ultimately come from Social Security and other programs that help workers. On the other hand, a 2013 study by the CBO found Immigration Reform would give us a budget surplus of $175 billion. [3]Sources:[1]https://thinkprogress.org...;[2]http://www.nber.org...[3]http://money.cnn.com...