An open border policy would negatively affect the economy

I thank CON for responding back. Opening CON deserves at the very least to lose conduct points due to his remarks in the first round. He has gone as far as call me a xenophobic and extremist-right winger throughout the debate and stating that I “trembles in fear of an immigration invasion”. These are a special combination of fallacious reasons. It is a form of poisoning of the well, which is similar to an ad hominem attack. Poisoning of the well is a special fallacy: “is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say [1]. It also considered part of the worst argument in the world[2], which is "X is in a category whose archetypal member gives us a certain emotional reaction. Therefore, we should apply that emotional reaction to X”. In this case X is xenophobic. Furthermore, I specifically stated at the end of the first round that one can still favor open migration but not for the purpose of positively affecting the US's economy. This debate is strictly a positivism claim, which are based on what *is* and facts alone, not a normative one which makes a moral claim on what one *should* be done. Moving on, in the opening arguments, Con states that: “misleading headings, some curious cross-referencing, and downright baseless conclusions”. However, asserting this does not make it true, and in his body argument fails to show this. He also somehow thinks that harmful culture only references female genital mutilation. Perhaps he should look up the definition of harmful [3] himself. Economic theory of migration CON agrees with my economic theory of migration, and also agrees that a large increase in immigrants would harm the economy. It is interesting that he fully understands the ill-economic consequences of allowing too many foreigners into the nation but just hopes that not everybody would be willing to take advantage of these opportunities because of travel costs. However, one wonders at what point he thinks that too many immigrants will lead to diminishing returns on labor? Even if CON is able to show that illegal immigration currently do not hold diminishing returns on labor, surely an open immigration policy would lead to a greater flow of immigrants, which would at one point lead to diminishing returns on labor. Does CON really believe that am open borders policy would not lead to a point diminishing returns on labor? International travel might be expensive for someone living on $2 a day, but is relatively cheap for an employer who would otherwise have to pay an employee tens of thousands of dollars a year. An employer would just subsidize the foreign worker’s travel, since the cheap labor would more than offset the cost of travel. I already discussed this in the first round and CON just ignored it. Considering that most employers are already willing to provide relocation expenses and travel expenses for interviews for those living in the US there’s no reason why they should not do the same for foreigners. On this point alone, since CON has not adequately refuted this point I have won the debate. But let’s move on. Harms in economic inequality CON makes no counter-argument against this argument. In fact, his own sources demonstrate this to be true, since it shows that immigration has caused the lower-cast of wages to fall while the higher-cast of wages to rise. A reminder, an increase in income inequality is a harmful economic effect which I stated in the first round. Harmful culture and people would ruin economic growth: First, CON creates a massive strawman to make my position seem ridiculous, that “If you do make it as far as the US, you must be a gangster”. CON admits that my analysis on crime causing economic hardships is correct. Of course not all immigrants are criminals, but a higher proportion of them have higher propensity towards dishonesty and violence as well as greater tendencies. Does CON really think that all the criminals in international borders will still there? Empirical Evidence: First, I think CON agrees that if open border policy was harmful to the economy, then a nation would not pass it given that politicians do not want to engage in destructive economic policy. However, while there could be other reasons why nations do not have open border policies besides a destructive economic policy, one must wonder why not a single nation has an open borders policy. CON might call this a bandwagon fallacy, but a better question to ask is alternatively, if CON was on “Who wants to be a millionaire” and he used the asked the audience, would he dismiss the answers of the audience due to the “bandwagon fallacy”. In all likelihood he would not. CON tries to discredit the CIS as biased based on his bias source of SPLC, a group that attacks every group that does not conform to their narrative. Experts have constantly dismissed the SPLC. Domestic terrorism expert states that: “In fact, it turns out; the SPLC’s “Year in Hate and Extremism” probably seriously overstates the presence of hate groups and dangerous domestic groups. . . Berger explains why, specifically, the SPLC hugely inflates their headline numbers with a bizarre counting system.”[4] Of course, the SPLC’s claim on the CIS has been entirely discredit: “The fact that they went after mainstream groups rather than fringe ones shows that the goal is not elevating the tone of public discourse but shutting it down altogether. ... The report's section on CIS is not just hackwork, but amateurish hackwork. Much of it dwells on letters written to (not by, but to) one of my board members, misidentified as having been executive director. Our research is described as having been debunked by "mainstream think tanks and organizations," oddly enough including two of the most strident open-borders advocacy groups in the nation. My tenure there, the majority of the center's existence, is dismissed briefly at the end as "The Later Years." And they didn’t even mention my book, which knits together decades of CIS research on the many facets of immigration into a unified theoretical framework–-something at least worth touching on when trying to show how naughty CIS is. What's more, CIS is an unlikely source of "intolerance." The chairman is Peter Nuñez, U.S. attorney for San Diego under Reagan; the board includes the president of the Greater Miami Urban League and a former executive director of the National Black Caucus Foundation; the staff includes the former national policy director for the American Jewish Committee; and I didn't even speak English until I got to kindergarten.”[5] This of course ignores that my other source, public policy institute of California also independently comes to the same conclusion as the CIS. CON also drops the argument on Korea and Japan’s immigration policy. Extend all arguments. Con’s evidence: Con “evidence” that immigration does not negatively harm the economy is that wages have been growing since 1980 while ignoring other factors. Of course, technological advances: for example, the advancements in computers have a significant role in increasing wages. It was not immigrants that raised wages. Also, as stated previously that his evidence only applies towards the status quo. The US has nothing close to an open immigration policy in which diminishing returns on labor and decreasing capital and resources per person become major factors based on the economic theory of migration. Conclusion: CON has only two rounds left to make his case, since there are no new arguments in the final round. Instead of using mainly facts and sources to disprove me or make a case of his own, CON has dedicated his round to senseless mudslinging. A reminder that the BOP is equal. Sources: [1]http://tinyurl.com...; [2]http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4]http://tinyurl.com... [5]http://tinyurl.com...;