Resolved: The USFG should eliminate immigration quotas.

***Pro Case*** Framework Ignore Con on European immigration. Unsubstantiated hypotheticals can be used to nullify ANY plan. Consequentialism says we have to weigh the impacts... according to which standard? This is circular. Please continue using my generic human decency standard. Quotas are a blockade to immigrants who don't get in currently. Presumption In Favor of Immigration Con's only argument is that people can't get in because they don't meet eligibility requirements. But if you look to my unanswered R3 2Biii, I point out that there aren't any minimum eligibility requirements. So eliminating quotas means a lot more people can come here. And again, even if Con is right about everything there's no reason to shut immigrants out wholesale. At worst, AC is insufficient but necessary. So you still have to vote for it. American Benefit 1) Debt Spreading Cato source illustrates theory. It doesn't matter if the data is old. By all means, repeat the analysis on modern data. Con complaint on income disparity is a red herring. Con says I ignore him on taxation. Au contraire - Con ignores Simon on immigrants paying more taxes and relying less on welfare than natives. Con complains about externalities which are dealt with under his wage deflation tags. Even still, he doesn't tell us what the net harm is. Con's observation that a lot of immigrants don't pay taxes flies in the face of the Simon card. Regardless, debt spreading still occurs because at least some immigrants pay taxes. Con complains that a large portion of immigrants might still be in poverty - he shows no impact. Con ignores reduction in immigrant poverty - extend humane benefits to AC. 2) Infrastructure Con thinks this logic only applies to underdeveloped countries. Unanswered, I said "The logic associated with population density and roads applies back on all other jointly used goods." Con doesn't give ANY reason why an increase in population won't improve infrastructure in modern countries. Extend my dropped city/scale example. Extend my observation that immigrants increase raw taxes and bring larger scale to political infrastructure even if they can't vote. I get more benefit out of immigration than Con does no matter what because immigration increases population a lot more than birth. 3) Technology Even if a small portion of immigrants go into R&D, I still extend benefit on this point. Also extend benefit because an increase in consumer bases makes it more profitable to develop technology. ***Con Arguments*** 1) Wage Deflation A) Wage Deflation i) Democrats do not serve GENERAL human welfare. Turn the appeal to authority against him. Remember that the Beck card is just an appeal to authority. Extend my observation that the economic logic here is amateurish. Con never rebuts it when I say "Don't let Con use anecdotes from micro-economies to try and describe macro-economic phenomena." Con says more immigration does not enhance division of labor but offers no proof. Turn by observing wage increase of immigrants. Also look to my infrastructure argument and observe scale with population. ii) Prefer Borjas study because it gives long term wage impacts across all socioeconomic classes using census data. Con is just wrong when he says his study is "wider". iii) Con's logic implies that workers shouldn't be allowed to move if it will result in lower wages. Quarantine on international and domestic scales should be equally immoral. iv) Extend to show that wage deflation does not result in economic harm. Even if you think that competition caused by immigrants is somehow different from competition among natives, still nullify Con's B) because his cards do not mention immigration - only generic wage deflation. B) Economic Growth i) GLU is "pro labor" = partisan. Con drops consumption boost argument. Turn his complaints. ii) Con continues to interject his own economic logic to try and save the card. He says it "implies" investment, which is really abusive because it means he's trying to sneak his own arguments in under an appeal to authority. Con blankly says that wage-labor correlation does not work at the same time. But prices adjust constantly. Con drops that wages are inextricably tied up with production costs, so a fall in wages leads to a fall in price level. Again, nullify Con's fears of wage deflation. iii) Con's discourse on government spending is a red herring. No matter what, inflation will raise wages AND prices, so there's no reason to believe wages will lag behind. iv) The Borjas study draws data from the census, so its holistic. It also estimates long term trends as cited in R2 S11 pp24. Con already dropped the Peri study. Don't let him pick it back up. It's a violation of the rules in R1. Con also drops it when I tell you to prefer to cut native wages by 8% so foreigners can grow their wages by 400%. Extend humanitarian benefits to me. Con says any wage deflation will hurt the economy. He doesn't show this anywhere. In fact he's NEVER presented macroeconomic effects of wage deflation - his only complaint is that a few americans might lose out. I don't drop the H1-B visa analysis. I restate that Con hasn't shown any impact out of it. Lower wages for immigrants are still better than living on a dollar a day. So turn for me. v) Dropped cold. I have a better alternative to Con's plan. Ignore all his economic complaints because they can be mitigated with immigration fees and higher immigrant tax brackets. 2) Brain Drain A) Dropped. Give stability to me. B) Brain Drain i) Dropped. Ignore the Ford card. ii) Dropped. Give human welfare benefit to me. iii) Dropped. Give increase in immigration under no-quotas to me. Apply it to vitalize my "presumption" and cross out Con complaints about eligibility. iv) Con says that some educated immigrants go back home, but never gives you the net. Ignore his incomplete analysis (so late in the debate). v) Dropped. Extend my ratio plan as a superior alternative to quotas. C) Mexican Unrest i) Con says authority has "close analysis". He gives no reasoning or proof. Extend that appeals to authority aren't valid. ii) Con says "quotas make absolute restrictions unnecessary" with no proof. Migration to other countries is a red herring. iii) Con does not rebut the theory of jurisdictional competition. It doesn't matter how different the EU and Mexico are. ASUS and Exxon are different companies but they're still competitive. D) Mexican Collapse i) Con says authority "measures". Again, no proof. This is just the blog of an ex-marine. It is not evidence. ii) Con talks about refugees from Mexico. So what? More benefits in AC. Con drops the fact that we don't have to intervene in case of revolution. iii) Dropped. Ignore this shorterm niggling. E) Dropped. Don't extend any economic harm on America. ***Voters*** Sources Con's case is an appeal to authority. He's gone and found political action groups and marine bloggers supporting his case. Con's cards are just evidence that people will say anything in politics. Prefer my use of raw statistics and wikipedia pages as unbiased sources. Even if you buy appeals to authority, prefer my extensive use of peer reviewed papers. Arguments Con R1: "2. Drops are concessions" Look to the poverty epidemic. Unanswered, I wrote that wages would increase by 400% (or more) under open immigration. This dwarfs Con's petty complaint that natives might lose 8% of their wages. As a secondary consideration, give me benefit under infrastructure. Larger populations enhance the production of jointly used goods. See the unanswered city/small town comparison. Don't let Con have any offense out of his case. He drops 1Bv, which states that immigration quotas are inferior to immigration fees. He drops 2Bv, which states that quotas are unnecessary in the face of ratios. So we have more humane alternatives to condemning a billion people to live in poverty.