Illegal Immigration

Christmas shopping can be such a hassle, especially when it deviates me from debate rounds. I sincerely apologize to my opponent and the judges for my forfeit of a round, and I understand if my opponent takes the conduct vote. However, if I may, I'll still explain to the judges my counters for my opponent's rebuttals and the reasons why they should vote for me as victor in this debate.Rebuttal 1: Compare the amount of revenue that the American economy can receive by having independent, private firms hire them and give wages, priceless resources that illegal immigrants can become once placed into the education system in order to attain educations and become human capital, and the plan suggested that Newt Gingrich has in order to reduce the amount of illegal offenders in the United States, and we can see that not only any amount of money spent through taxes on illegal immigrants will be worthwhile, but in the long run, we can reduce our costs while private firms can increase their revenues and expand in order to benefit commerce. My opponent talks about how Newt Gingrich is not president, but that doesn't detract from the fact that this plan could definately work. In this debate, we are inherently working in a theoretical perspective on the issue of illegal immigration where my opponent and I are contrasting ideals and giving suggestions on how this problem should be resolved. Whether it's Gingrich, Obama, Bachmann, Biden, Palin, or Bieber in the oval office, the simple idea is that this plan that Gingrich offered makes sense economically when implemented. My opponent speaks in no way about how this plan doesn't work, by the way. This rebuttal kind of continues into the next one..Rebuttal 2: I find it laughable that my opponent is actually looking for evidence for this. Being required to provide evidence that industry requires resources in order to function is like being required to provide evidence that 2+2=4. If my opponent REALLY requires evidence for this, it'll be provided at the bottom of this rebuttal. The 9% unemployed is definately a problem that should be resolved, but while it is a problem that should be resolved, it is no excuse to throw away perfectly good resources that American firms could have in order to increase their revenue as well as provide stable jobs for those illegals that not only want to make an American dream crossing the border, but also the ones that have had trouble with the law in the past. Poverty is one of the major causes of criminality in America because people will need to turn toward criminality in order to make livings, and with the provision of more jobs into these regions of the country, criminality can be reduced, thus solving the problem of $1.1 billion in taxpayer dollars (not to mention that my opponent also doesn't answer the question as to how much individual taxes for Americans will go up by. He could've in his last rebuttal, but didn't). Rebuttal 3: For all the *evidence* that my opponent posts, he somehow doesn't know about federal grants that the government gives out. For all the *evidence* that my opponent posts, he somehow doesn't know about churches and independent charities that provide scholarships for people that have problems entering into colleges with their payrolls. Even some higher-up people in society with high-paying salaries have to attain grants and scholarships in order to fully pay the price tag that universities come with. Illegals have the opportunities necessary in order to be able to enter into college if they have the drive to enter into college and become dutiful Americans that contribute to the economy. My opponent talks only in a scenario of an economic depression when the economy rises and falls in America. He also doesn't explain in any way about how having more illegals in the country that want to go to school is in any way going to take the opportunities of others away nor why this would matter. Business is business and all people are resources and potential ways for the economy to grow and expand, and when this does happen, illegals can add to the supply of the labor market when demand increases for other jobs that need to be filled. Maybe it will be a citizen that can hold expectations. Maybe it will be an illegal. All of them are resources at the end of the day, and to just kick them out when they can add to the labor market is just wasteful. Firms feel the exact same way after the passages of anti-immigration legislations in Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama. These policies are kicking out their resources, especially their resources for low-income jobs that even the 9% don't want to fill. Reasons for voting PRO: The reasons for voting PRO are basically that the PRO makes economic sense as far as an economics debate is concerned. Illegals add to the resource market, costs can be reduced with the plan that Newt Gingrich suggested (which my opponent does not directly argue against), and even if costs are high, it will be worthwhile in the long-run and considering my opponent doesn't answer to the question about how much individual tax costs for American citizens will rise, his talk about how it costs Americans $1.1 billion could just be an emotional appeal. Illegals come into the nation for one reason: to make better lives for themselves through the occupation of jobs and being part of a better education system. If they're hungry, why not offer them cake? Why not offer them coffee? Why not offer them the opportunity to be able to make a good living while at the same time substantiating the economy? That's what I'm asking. The CON argument would only be a short-run resolution for a long-term problem. It'll be a good way to reduce costs now, but once firms require labor for low-income jobs and more labor for the more high-income ones when our citizens have occupied them, the CON world won't be able to deal with those problems. If you want solutions NOW that firms will regret in the future, vote CON, but if you want long-term solutions with plans to fix the kinks in the middle that my opponent doesn't respond to, your vote will be for the PRO.References: Edmonson, Brad. "Life without Illegal Immigrants | American Demographics | Find Articles." Find Articles | News Articles, Magazine Back Issues & Reference Articles on All Topics. May 1996. Web. 21 Dec. 2011. <http://findarticles.com...;. Hanson, Gordon H. "The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration." (2007). Council on Foreign Relations, 26 Apr. 2007. Web. Lynch, David J., and Chris Woodyard. "USATODAY.com - Immigrants Claim Pivotal Role in Economy." News, Travel, Weather, Entertainment, Sports, Technology, U.S. & World - USATODAY.com. 11 Apr. 2006. Web. 21 Dec. 2011. <http://www.usatoday.com...;.