Resolved: The USFG should eliminate immigration quotas.

***Pro Arguments*** Framework Con is required to show that immigration quotas are the most expedient way to solve his problems. This is because the resolution is explicitly moral/pragmatic. If there is a more humane alternative, morality requires us to choose it over quotas. Presumption in Favor of Immigration Over a billion people live on under $1 per day [1]. Immigrating to America can multiply their current wages by a factor of 40 [2]. Many of these people live in countries torn by warfare and environmental disaster. On its face, immigration is an incredibly positive force in the world. Immigration restrictions show callous disregard for the epidemic of human suffering. If Con's going to prohibit immigration, he needs a damn strong reason. American Benefit A) Spreading the debt Per capita debt is approximately $46,000 [3]. By mathematical necessity, increasing immigration decreases the debt burden on natives. This is particularly true for non-rivalrous government projects, such as wars, whose scale depends on external rather than internal compositions. B) Infrastructure Concentrated consumer bases yield more investment opportunity for goods used in common. Peter Frederickson [4] and Donald Glover [5] find that population density is associated with higher quality roads. While poorly studied in the literature, I ask the audience to compare the quality of roads, stores, libraries, gyms, etc, in cities against small towns. The fact that a gym has more members means they have more money to spend on better equipment and furnishing. High population density increases the quality of jointly-used infrastructure. C) Scientific Progress Once an idea is created, it can be copied an infinite number of times. We are only limited by the rate at which we generate new ideas. A larger body of intellectuals can generate ideas faster, propelling all of humanity forward. America's education is superior to Mexico's [6]. ***Con Arguments*** 1) Wage deflation DA A) Wage Deflation i) The Beck card has no links to actual studies. This is just an appeal to authority. It is testimony before the Subcommittee on Immigration, whose political interest is to serve their constituents. ii) There are no general statistics given. Of COURSE there will be micro-economic fluctuations all the time for all sorts of reasons. Don't let Con use anecdotes from micro-economies to try and describe macro-economic phenomena. iii) Take Con to his logical conclusion - if worker migration causes wage deflation, poor americans should quarantined so they don't undercut workers in other cities. iv) Deflation does not simply lead to economic collapse. Empirically, the deflationary "long-depression" was characterized by robust economic growth and increasing productivity in the face of falling prices [7]. B) Economic growth i) Ignore the Global Labor university card. It's an explicitly pro-union/labor organization [8]. ii) Ignore it twice because it's another appeal to authority. For example, it blankly states that recovery depends on robust consumption without any references to economic theory or statistics. iii) Ignore it thrice because it does not consider the effect that lower nominal wages have on prices or capital formation. Cheaper workers mean you can hire more, lower your prices, and expand investment. This is a very elementary economic mistake. iv) George Borjas of Harvard University is reputed to be the harshest Ivy League critic of immigration [9]. He finds that the victims of wage deflation brought on by immigration are mostly high school drop outs. In table 2 (pp24), high school dropouts lose 3.6% of their wages. This is wholly miniscule. Everyone else actually experiences positive long term wage growth because of immigration [10]. Peri and Ottaviano redo Borjas' approach, but give their analysis in terms of impact on native wage earners. They find that the vast majority of wage deflation is experienced by foreign immigrants, not natives. Table 11 shows their median estimate of wage effects to be significantly higher than Borjas' [11]. Note that I have not actually enumerated any author's calculations or methodology here. Strictly speaking this is an appeal to authority. However you should prefer Ivy League economists publishing in peer reviewed journals to Con's sources. Also consider that I have been very conservative in my selection of "experts". I didn't even bother looking for what the pro-immigration economists say. v) Even if you buy Con's argument, the economic damage caused by wage deflation can be offset by immigration fees/tax regimes. That revenue can be used to subsidize American jobs. 2) Brain Drain A) Stable migration i) I don't even care! Migration stabilization is not intrinsically good. ii) TURN - Immigration quotas are unstable because rotating political seats creates uncertainty. B) Brain drain i) Ignore the Ford card. It's just a political action group that throws money after its issues [12]. Nothing trustworthy or academic here. "The negative effects [of brain drain are] much stronger" is just pure assertionism. ii) Con is arguing within a nation-centric paradigm rather than a human-centric paradigm. It doesn't really matter if countries A and B have differing concentrations of smart people, especially if it results in better outcomes. iii) The point of open immigration is to let people in irirregardless of their income or intelligence. So the brain-drain argument doesn't apply. iv) The status quo results in more Brain-Drain than open borders. Currently the EB1-EA and EB-2 visa exempt Brains from many requirements [13] [14], allowing them to immigrate more easily than the poor. v) Rather than set a quota, a ratio of skilled-unskilled immigrants could simply be specified. C) Mexican unrest i) Throw this card out. It's from another political action group [15]. It is again full of assertionisms and devoid of statistics. ii) Take Con to his logical conclusion - people shouldn't be allowed to leave their own country. iii) The card assumes that Mexico won't do anything to stop an increased outflux of human capital. On the contrary, jurisdictional competition has had salubrious effects in the EU. As capital became more mobile, countries competed for investment by lowering their tax rates, resulting in greater economic growth [16]. Increasing the mobility of human capital can only push Mexico to adopt wiser domestic policy to keep taxpayers. D) Mexican Collapse i) Another appeal to authority. It is full of unsubstantiated "woulds". ii) It's unclear what's so bad about Mexican collapse if they can all just come live here. iii) This is merely a short term consideration. Prefer sustained long term benefits. E) Mexican-American Interdependence i) The source only says Mexico is dependent on the US, not the other way around. The United States only trades $305 bn with Mexico annually [17], which is about 2% of our economy. Con fails to show significant American harm. ii) It's unclear why Mexico would need to maintain current export levels if a large number of its people are expected to leave. iii) Con is again operating under a nation-centric paradigm again. These are just lines on a map. It is of no moral relevance if certain longitudes suffer economic contraction. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://www.jstor.org... [5] http://www.jstor.org... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com... [13] http://tinyurl.com... [14] http://tinyurl.com... [15] http://tinyurl.com... [16] http://tinyurl.com... [17] http://tinyurl.com...