Resolved: The USFG should eliminate immigration quotas.

AC 1. Framework --> He never gives any moral analytical frameworks himself. He simply states more "humane," but he doesnt give any links to any moral framework at all. --> He has the burden here. He must show how an alternative framework: A) preempts any NC arguments and B) that he better links into this framework --> The resolution has no moral framework encoded inot it. If the resolution states "ought" or "has a moral obligation," then yes this argument could be applicable. The resolution however points to a pragmatic one. So whichever debater shows a more positive net benefit should win. 2. Presumption in favor of Immigration --> His analysis would be true if anyone from anywhere could enter the U.S. Changing the quota DOES NOT change eligibility requirements. However, all visas in the Pro world still are constrained. Therefore, if these people were living on less than a $1 a day, they would most likely not meet the prescribes eligibility requirements. Moreover, areas torn by war and environmental disaster probably dont have the infrastructure and info net capable of applying for visas anyway. 3. American Benefit A) Debt --> He gives an extremely poor analysis of the debt. His analysis would be true if: A) the majority of immigrants could pay taxes and B) the immigrants did not disproportionately account for social services and other services paid for by the debt. According to the CIS, the vast majority f immigrants are coming from Mexico, AND the majority of these immigrants would be considered under the poverty line within the U.S (low skilled workers). Thus, the impact is twofold (1) these immigrants will not be paying much in taxation, especially in income taxes, and (2) they will be receiving a large portion of social services. http://www.cis.org... --> Refer back to this point. He gives a source on the per capita debt, but he does not give a source for his debt analysis. Thus, it was his own, not back by anything. He cant substantiate this point in the subsequent rounds, it skews NC strategy. B) Infrastructure --> In terms of the U.S., this analysis would be true if people on visas held the same weight politically. But, apportionment of funds for projects depends heavily on political power. Since most immigrants on visas would not have the same voting power as others, the impact of density would be minimal to negligible. --> This analysis assumes a disproportionate placement of immigrants. --> The area with the most immigrants, namely the South, also has the highest birthrate within the U.S. (According to the U.S. Census and ABC) Thus, the NC world still accesses the benefits of the AC. --> Study one, Source #4 was referring to population density in and growth in less developed and developing nations, thus excluding the U.S. --> The impact of this point relies heavily on areas with no roads. Therefore, the U.S., having lots of roads is not completely applicable to this point. C) Scientific progress --> I see no impact to this argument. --> Source 6 is a picture of a taco.... NC 1. Wage Deflation A) Deflation i) Beck Card no links to actual studies and is politically based --> Beck card cites a study of Miami with one of the largest influxes of immigrants to that area. Resulted in wage deflation --> Beck was required to present his findings to the subcommittee. He wasnt working for a member. Moreover, the majority of this subcommittee was democrat, and thus more sympatetic to your position. --> (Extend) My opponent ignores the entire substantive economic analysis. When you have an influx of people looking for a job,wages deflate because specific competition decreases. The employeer has a large pool to choose from, and thus isnt constrained by applying higher wages. ii) No statistics --> Camorota, director of the CIS writes: "Prior to the economic slowdown that began in 2000, I had generally assumed that the primary impact of immigration would have been to reduce wages and perhaps benefits for native-born workers but not overall employment. An important study published in 2003 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics showed that immigration reduces wages by 4 percent for all workers and 7 percent for those without a high school education. iii) Logic Extension --> This would make sense if there is a large influx of workers through inter-cities. No link here, and no status quo access to the harm. iv) Long-Depression analysis --> Alternate causalities exist, even the Wikipedia article explains it is hard to underpin an exact causality. --> My analysis is wage deflation, not deflation in terms of currency and the amount in circulation. B) Economic Growth i) GLU card = bad. --> you give no analysis on this at all. --> (Extend) You ignore the substantive economic analysis of the card. Wages are inherently tied to a thriving economy because economic growth depends on consumption an investment. Lower wages = lower both of these. ii) Appeal to authority - no economic theory --> If he doesnt believe economics thrive in a capitalist society via consumption and investment, then he has not studied economics before. Read the following: A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth, R&D Based models of Economic Growth, Long Run Policy Analysis and Long-Term Economic Growth iii) Nominal wages = more capital formation --> Cycle assumes that people can consume. Doesnt matter if a company can expand or invest more, if people cant consume goods or services it doesnt matter. Also, dependent on rate of inflation. Since debt makes inflation larger, commodities go up, and services. Thus, no solvency in AC world, people lack wages to compensate for rate of inflation. iv) Borjas Study --> He only provides one study from Borjas. Malanga ‘6 (Steven Malanga - Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, City Journal , "How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy" Summer 2006) Studies show that the immigrants drive down wages of native-born workers and squeeze them out of certain industries. Harvard economists George Borjas and Lawrence Katz, for instance, estimate that low-wage immigration cuts the wages for the average native-born by some 8 percent. Other economists find that the new workers also push down wages significantly for immigrants already here and native-born Hispanics. Consequently, as the waves of immigration continue. At this point all my studies outweigh --> Analysis assumes equal distribution. But this is untrue: H-1B and LSW-Visas specifically are affected. H-1b and LSW fraud magnifies link: Indian News Source, "H1B Visa Fraud uncovered expect more legislation," 4/4/2010, http://www.indiaverified.com... 2. Brain Drain i) Ford = Bad --> Ignores analysis ii) Nation-centric, not human centric --> Yes it matters, it will affect internal development iii) Open immigration = no requirements --> The debate is ending quotas NOT eligibility requirements. iv) SQ --> My impact deals with Latino Countries, esp Mexico v) Alt --> Thats still a quota, a flexible one, but still a quota C) Mexican Unrest i) Card bad --> The group deals with promoting interests of Latino countries. How is that skewed? Links directly with immigration ii) Logic extension --> AC plan magnifies link iii) Other mechanisms --> Would make sense if Mexico was like the EU, but its not. Quotas assure specific people wont leave the country. Mexico is economically constrained, much more so than the EU. D) Mexican Collapse i) Appeal to authority --> Ignores analysis, but authority makes sense, understand economics and geopolitical repercussions ii) Not bad --> No warrant, but collapse and influx would call for immense political pressure to secure the border militarily. This subsumes any AC benefit and makes the plan go in reverse. Turn the plan iii) Benefits --> If long term benefits exist