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

Normally, I would make attacks over everything in a 'line-by-line' manner because in actual CX my partner would cover off-case arguments while I covered on-case. But the manner of this case presented leads to off-case heaven, so please forgive me if my attacks seem disorganized and randomly thrown together as I am not used to doing this exact facet of CX. Anyway I will now make attacks on my opponents case, in no particular order. [take away from wealth DA, insignificant amount, solv: illogical to give illegal immigrants care, obviously will cause funding because of increase in medicaid: solv, DA increased immigration, Harms: no xenophobic violence and identity paradigm, most opponents cards talk about immigrants(legal ones), after august 22 1996 non us citizens cannot get healthcare which repeal is not in plan text and also means more political capital lost: solv, Political capital should be reserved for something more worthwhile] Dis-Ad: Giving illegal immigrants healthcare increases immigration with numerous impacts. Link: Opponent gives immigrants healthcare. Brink: This will increase immigration because of incentives to come to U.S. Impact: This takes away from the wealth of actual, true Americans. (Harvard University economist George J. Borjas) Impact: This increases the crime rate. (http://cis.org...) Impact: Takes away American jobs. (http://www.numbersusa.com... /pdf/Putting%20Americans%20Back%20to%20Work%282%29.pdf) Impact: Causes significant decrease in U.S. low-class pay -increasing poverty. This directly goes against what the resolution is trying to solve. (http://cis.org...) Significance: Only about 3 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. are in poverty. (http://www.csmonitor.com...) This means that the Neg is trying to enact a plan that only attempts to solve for a small group of people. This is hardly a harm at all and enacting insignificant plans come with heavy prices. Solvency: When the government does something it uses political capital, or support of the people, to do whatever it is they are trying to do. Aff uses political capital to try and do something for an insignificant cause. This means there is less political capital for future actions that the government might need to do. If this plan is enacted it could stop us from enacting a future policy that could be far FAR more beneficial. Solvency: Also, the opponent says that there will be no funding. There are two outcomes: 1. Medicaid benefits are reduced from current recipients to cover the new clients. People on Medicaid now hardly get by and they cannot afford to lose anymore benefits. 2. The Affirmative is wrong (more likely) and this will need funding to cover the new clients. Because the Aff provides no source of funding this plan is obviously doomed to fail, as is any plan without proper funding. Whether it's 1 or 2, the opponent's plan will not solve. So in summary the opponent is trying to enact a plan without funding to solve for insignificant harms and people of insignificant numbers. In doing this he will use up much needed political capital, destroy the current Medicaid system, break our fragile economy, increase crime rates, and push millions of more Americans into poverty. It is because giving healthcare to people not even legally in the U.S. or citizens is NOT worth all of these nasty effects that I urge you to vote for Negative. Thank you and I look forward to the next round.