The USFG should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty

Ok so my opponent doesnt understand the ideology of the aff. The whole impact of the 1AC is that immigrants are being denied basic human rights. They being treated as lesser human beings, been beat down, and are become isolated into what is known as the identity paradigm. In this paradigm immigrants are being labeled as "others" and creates this boundry between "them" and "us". The plan text breaks down this barrier and allows us to realize that they are equal beings, wither immigrants or not, and that we have a OBLIGATION to protect them. But onto first off - Immigration DA LOL Ok 1) This DA is awesome, it is now an advantage for the affirmative and should flow so because first it increase the number of immigrants in the US which does a) increase the signifigance of the case and b) allows us to be less hostile for them and open the barriers in an attempt at Unconditional Hospitality 1) This solves the impacts of the 1AC so voting for the Da as an advantage for the aff is most logical Now i will answer it too. Non-unique - immigrants will not stop coming, we cant close our borders. If anything this DA is inevitable. Link - consede. Giving Healthcare is an ethical obligation, cross apply DOTY 06' Impacts 1) "takes away wealth from real americans" wow this falls more into the thesis of the aff. The neg implies that there are "true americans" that are better than these immigrants. But these immigrants did the same thing all of "us true american's" ancestors did hundreds of years ok, what is the difference. And rich people not having a buttload of money is not an impact, if it can be considered "a bad consequence" it doesnt outwiegh the violence, hatred and abuse these immigrants are getting now. Only the aff solves for theses and racism so impacts of the aff outweigh. 2) There will be an increase in crime rate. Yes because these immigrants are poor and in danger they need to find money to pay for the EMERGENCY ROOM HEALTHCARE that they are FORCED to get since they are denied medicaid. Immigrants will get h/c weither the US wants it or not since E.Rs must take in patients regardless, this in turns leads to dangerous "outwaited" medical injuries and leads to increase in money wasted since these immigrants have no way to pay. Cross apply this arguement to the Funding arguement. Since the neg will cost more than the aff(extend framework which he dropped) this turns the neg, another reason to vote aff. 3)He says there will be a decrease in jobs, non brink. There have been immigrants in AMerican for decades and there hasnt been a steady decline in job-loss. The common "illegals taking simple american jobs" argument is made by lazy people. They have the same, if not better qualifications, for jobs and can get them just as easily. 4) this doesnt turn case, we dont solve for poverty b/c we cant and no one can. No evidence needed since there will always be poverty. cross apply the 3 argument to this, no decrease in jobs, just lazy people. Signifigance - the DA turns this argument, flow the DA to the aff to solve this argument. But also, this falls into the thesis of the aff to. Even if there was a small number being saved from this VIOLENCE and HATRED they are still important. It is the signifigance of the PEOPLE not the number. there are small groups of people all around the world, no one can say they are not important enough to be saved. Now the Political Capital argument We turn this argument too! This plan is REALLY popular in the status quo and is extremtly lobbied. So no tradeoff with pol cap, if anything we add pol cap and make good stuff happen. THE MOST POWERFUL LOBBIES SUPPORT GRANTING SOCIAL SERVICES TO IMMIGRANTS—GUARANTEES POLITICAL SUPPORT. SHEEHAN 9 (JAMES, RHODE ISLAND STATE SENATOR, HTTP://WWW.PROJO.COM...) A very powerful and well-funded special interest that works hard to combat the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws is American business, as represented by state and local chambers of commerce and, by extension, perhaps, some in the Republican Party. These associations battle enforcement of laws such as E-verify, an effective tool requiring employers to verify the legal status of new hires, because they allege that the E-verify system is a burden to businesses. In fact, the E-verify system is cheap, relatively easy to implement, and very accurate. In truth, these groups fight enforcement of E-verify because they must hew to the wishes of numerous chapter members who undoubtedly employ illegal immigrants at below-market wages. In general, this unlawful practice also undermines years of hard-fought labor laws in the workplace. Ironically, even some union leaders now oppose the enforcement of America's immigration laws. Illegal immigrants who are able to obtain false papers are readily hired in various sectors of the economy, such as the hospitality industry or construction. Legal or not, these workers are welcomed by unions because they help to revitalize waning union ranks with fresh dues-paying members. Of course, there is strength in numbers, and illegal workers give union leaders additional clout in negotiations. Interestingly, union leaders arguably can still offer management their services at a relative discount since many of their non-citizen members are probably willing to work for less than citizen workers. Politically speaking, powerful members of the Democratic Party have a vested interest in illegal immigration, too, because they believe that illegal immigrants who benefit from longstanding Democratic mainstays — social-welfare programs — will vote to support the Democratic Party if they become lawful citizens of this nation. Of course, some claim that illegal immigrants already are voting in large numbers in this country because of weak election laws that often do not require positive identification to register to vote or to cast a vote. While each of the aforementioned special interests derives some personal benefit from illegal immigration, the burden is shouldered squarely by a majority of lawful citizens. While illegal immigrants pay some taxes, research shows that they do not pay enough to offset the dollars paid out through federal and state government programs that support them. Illegal immigrants receive government-subsidized health care, social services and education that probably can be measured in the billions of dollars annually. Worse yet, illegal immigrants who violate the law are crowded into our nation's prisons, costing countless millions more. Our nation is in financial crisis and many states, including Rhode Island, are facing formidable deficits. After all, many politicians also personally benefit from illegal immigration by way of special-interest contributions and/or voter support at election time. Finally the illogical funding argument: 1) no evidence, there wouldnt be tradeoff. If anything the plan will be more effectivly using the PREEXISTING money. 2) There is absoulty no cost to repel a bill. No money is needed to pass the plan. My oppenent hasnt proven why we cant solve the impacts of the 1AC including violence, xenophbic discriminations, hatred, and the otherazation. He just says that since it doesnt cost money we cant solve. But that is the benefit, repeling this costs nothing. The expansion of medicaid is not enough to effect the status quo. In summary. I have turned every argument, maintained 100% solvency, am the only one with horrible bad impacts(not "rich people lose money"), and present a probably Policy action. Since my oppenent dropped framework so he MUST present a optional policy option(didnt) or prove worse than the Status quo(didnt, in fact turned) Vote Aff on all arguments, goodluck!