Resolved: The USFG should eliminate immigration quotas.

To minimize any last speech abuse, I'm just gonna give overviews, and analysis of previous info, and since there has been a lot of information in each round, I'll just focus on the pinnacle arguments: ==On-Face Negation== 1) In every round he dropped the links to flexibility that the NC exclusively has as opposed to the AC. Even though quotas exist, the NC world has the ability to use quotas flexibly, for any amount of reasons. Thus, any drawbacks of quotas can be fixed via the flexibility advantage. However, the drawbacks from eliminating quotas can not be fixed. ==AC== 1. Debt Spreading My CIS evidence kicks his Simon evidence. As along as the vast majority of immigrants do not pay income taxes, then the debt is not equally and effectively spread among the population. Moreover, he says he accesses it for SOME immigrants: A) no impact given, no way to measure, probably negligible B) Quotas would still have immigrants within the U.S. paying taxes anyway. 2. Infrastructure This argument lacks uniqueness. He never provided evidence about what percentage of increase is needed to access the advantage. However, A) Quotas could still solve since we still have immigration to the U.S. and B) Birth rates augment the NC access to this benefit as well 3. Technology Either he loses this argument based on the fact that he never proves how just letting more people in solves. They can again still come through the quota system. OR this advantage accesses the brain-drain disad provided in the NC. We will zap up talent needed in underdeveloped nations Bottomline: No evidence proves uniqueness that we NEED to eliminate the quota system. Quota system still accesses these advantages. ==NC== 1. Wage Deflation Prefer my Borjas Study and the QJE study. It includes the vast majority of visas as opposed to simply LSW visas provided in his study. Thus, my evidence outweighs on scope and magnitude. Moreover, he misses the only empirical study that I provided discussing Miami. Prefer this evidence since it goes beyond simply the theoretical analysis of his studies. Its been tested in Miami, and the result of increased immigration was a deflation of wages. Also, all his economic arguments assume increase in labor, but as ive pointed out H1-B and LSW are severely concentrated in certain areas of work, labor pools won increase. Plus, on H1-B, wage deflation as been proven empirically due to link magnification via fraud with companies using workers on H1-B visas. 2. Brain-Drain DA The Dassin evidence points out that by the very nature of looking for employment, there will be a braindrain. My opponent says I dont provide a net for this argument. But this DA is inevitable due to the logic of the AC. Eliminating quotas => no restrictions => more immigration => best and brightest leave for better opportunities. Moreover, XA his AC 3 technology analysis. He even concedes its going to happen. Then the Schaefer evidence gives clear indication that braindrain kills economic and technological development in Mexico, which causes unrest. This then leads to a mass influx leaving Mexico, which then unlocks the Westhawk Evidence. Massive political pressure to secure the border and stop ALL immigration. THIS TURNS THE ENTIRE AC. You van vote neg here: any risk of an access to this DA means neg vote cause if it is accessed all benefits the AC wins is turned and means nothing. Thus quota system ensures that some benefits of immigration are attained while ensuring that the system does not turn on itself. Since he focused most of his time on the Wage DA, he mishandles the evidence of this DA. ==Sources== 1. He simply asserts that they are politically skewed. As ive pointed out, the evidence was from a non-biased source giving its findings to the immigration subcomittee, another source which watches for the benefit of underdeveloped nations in latin America, and the fact that a lot of my sources are pro-immigration/democratic 2. Wikipedia is NOT unbiased. It can be written by anyone. Plus, a lot of our stats intersect, I just used cards analyzing those studies. But he decided to analyze them himself. ==Drops== These drops are irrelevant in the decision because his alternatives (e.g. immigration fees) as ive responded to in overviews throughout the rounds (maybe not directly) is that they are all asserstions with no evidence or warrants. Moreover, any wage argument he makes is outweighed by the fact that a collapse due to lack of wages and thus investment and consumption makes those wage increases irrelevant. ==My Voters== 1. He has no offense coming out of his case, and if there is offense, he doesnt explain uniqueness and how quota system cant solve it. Moreover, at least flexibility exists in the NC world. So quotas can be increased or decreased dependent on the market, etc to avoid the DAs but subsume the AC benefits. This is the easiest way out for the judge 2. Any risk of the Brain-Drain DA equals a vote for Con. This is true because the accessed impact of brain-drain in Mexico turns the entire AC and its advantages 3. Since my Wage DA outweighs in scope AND is the only study that has been empirically proven in the round, then a risk of wage deflation affects the entire economic structure of the U.S. which is based on consumption and investment. Plus the fact I have a link manifier (on H1-B) he doesnt, which exacerbates the probability of the impact being accessed. Bottomline: pro offers negligibly impact offense but the impacts from Con are so massive that an risk of an impact outweighs the AC-Pro. GREAT DEBATE DUDE!!!