Resolved: Immigration policies should be expanded to compensate for a growing U.S. society

Due to limited character space, these arguments will likely be brief. (This is also due to time). Thanks for the quick response. :) Let's try to get this finished by noon Friday...? I won't be here after then... and I'd hate for such a great debate to die with forfeits...Purpose of Immigration LawsMy opponent mentions that I fail to point out for what immigration is intended. He cites my own source, using it against me. However, this is false. He neglects to mention the latter part of the source, which notes, "Immigration law serves as a gatekeeper for the nation's border, determining who may enter, how long they may stay, and when they must leave." [1] This explicitly solidifies my stance, showing that immigration policies regulate population concerns. My "one-sided" view is in reality a general one. Controlling population is essential to development and success of a nation. [2] Close regulation of expanse when necessary is good, but not needed right now.Burden to SocietyThe resolution and rules in the first round note that immigration is defined as legal or otherwise. This includes illegal immigration, which is a big problem. As I explain in later rounds, including these illegal immigrants as citizens is harmful and facilitates further immigration.The sole purpose of the Velasquez article was to outline a moral argument, not to affirm the resolution. But the problem with illegal immigration is this: unemployment is already vastly out of hand. Adding "more workers to the pool" would not benefit immigrants or US citizens. As I noted later in the round, no net jobs since 2007 have gone to native-born Americans. Another study furthers this research by showing "Government data show that since 2000 all of the net gain in the number of working-age (16 to 65) people holding a job has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal)." [4] Moreover, we find that from a general standpoint, immigrations as a whole, can be easily viewed detrimental. "Common sense, economic theory, and a fair reading of the research on this question indicate that allowing in so many immigrants (legal and illegal) with relatively little education reduces the wages and job prospects for Americans with little education... Of greater concern, the percentage of employed native-born without a high school degree fell from 53 to 48 percent in the last five years." [5] I apologize if this source was somewhat misleading, it was not intended to be.My opponent argues that the Schoen source helps his side. But it does not advocate for expanded immigration, but rather that illegals not be given US benefits. The problems found from immigration are his primary concern. Furthermore, my opponent mentions that lower prices and domestic productivity will be increased. This is simply not the case. "Immigration policies that facilitate large flows of guestworkers will supply labor at wages that are too low to induce significant increases in supply from the domestic workforce." [6] Even a former immigrant agrees that immigration policies should not be expanded, and that too much is detrimental to the US as well. [3]My opponent's concern about the Martin-Ruark report is unwarranted. The report details the effects of immigration (in this case illegal), and shows that children of illegal immigrants are this subsequent result, and often detriment. Furthermore, he asserts that I have not successfully provided why legal immigration is bad. This is discussed in my next point, and will be argued there.Expansion = Illegal ImmigrationMy opponent strays from his initial view of what he intends to advocate in this debate. Note his first round where he quotes, "I will be arguing for two specific policies that expand immigration and contribute to the growth, health, and stability of society:1) expanding visas targeted at attracting educated, skilled, and entrepreneurial immigrants. 2) addressing illegal immigration by expanding immigration for non-skilled workers."What he mentions doesn't *simplify* the system but expands it. He notes later a more specific plan, but part of that also encourages and increase in programs necessary to achieve his goals.He next notes that the VWP is not relevant, yet brings the exact concept up in his 1st "point" of expansion. The VWP also allows people to enter or be in the US illegally, and thus is relevant. It also leads to illegal immigration, as the source details. He also advocates for allowing immigrants a legal option. This system already exists, and should not be expanded, as it works well. Note that the second piece of evidence details the economic, employment, and wage problems both directly and indirectly.Immigration Harms the Economy Ting:My opponent answers these rhetorics, but no backed by reliable evidence, only a single partisan source. These answers are not backed by economics and the evidence I have provided. [7] Even the system my opponent advocates for has issues in this regard. [8]The site my opponent claims gives Frum's contradictory view is a basic one. He also notes the opposite. But the overarching theme of his article, sited by myself and my opponent, is that, in regards to immigration, "the national economic mood remains grimly bleak." This shows his primary support to the notion that, overall, immigration has negative effects.Moreover, the US populace believes in an overwhelming majority that immigration hurts the US. "A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that 70 percent of Americans — including 86 percent of Republicans — say illegal immigrants threaten traditional U.S. believes and customs, as well as jeopardize the economy." [9] We must preserve our people's happiness and beliefs, as they are often the ones that view the affect of policies implemented by our government.Beyond this, my opponent only criticizes evidence brought up, but not directly refuting the content. Also, I've already explained how the US is forced into the position of a "fixed" resource because of the lack of employment caused by immigration.Attracting Skilled WorkersAttracting these skilled workers, via the expanded immigration method, also facilitates more illegal and undocumented immigration that harms the economy and life of the US and its people. It is logical that if immigration is increased, the exact thing that happens today will occur. People wishing to enter the US will still exist, and seeing greater opportunity, even more people will come knocking on America's door. We will then see no change in the net of people allowed entrance and those wishing to be granted legality. Still, people will enter legally, and then we have too many workers to fill our jobs.His PlanI had hoped it would no be quite so obscure, but I will accept this policy proposition.Expand Immigration for Non-SkilledWe must consider, as my opponent has brought up illegal aliens, that these people have broken the law. Just because they wish to seek a better life, they can do so legally, and "wait their turn" so to speak. We should not award these *criminals* with jobs and government services, has they have broken the law. Economic benefit, no matter how minute or great, should be an excuse to disregard law and punishment.But the problem is, these benefits are rarely found. [12] Unemployment is essential to mention now. With unemployment as high as it is, we must use our legal US born citizens first to fill these positions. "There might be a few jobs that cannot be filled by three hundred million Americans, but one has to strain to think of such a job." [10] Essentially, these jobs could be filled with US workers, instead of allowing these to remain unemployed and leech government welfare. In total, the government spends an annual net of $1.03 trillion on welfare. [11] This far outweighs benefits of immigrants providing the sum my opponent mentioned. It is also imperative to note that some of these welfare recipients are immigrants as well. So these people may benefit in a small way, but in the scheme of things, economic detriments are prevalent and more harmful.The stress reduction point is moot. As shown earlier, most of the US populace disagrees with expanded immigration. Immigrant stress is passed on to a higher population; US citizens.ConclusionThe economic impact my opponent asserts is relevant is all hinged on the fact that immigration is done in a specific manner. He has NOT shown the correlation of these supposed economic benefits to his policy propositions he mentioned in his first round. Thus, these economic benefits cannot be accredited to the plan he has outlined.Thus, his blatant proposal of a plan must be supported by specific evidence and logic pertaining directly to his chosen *improvements.*On the other hand, I have conclusively shown the detriment of *expanding* immigration policies, and have upheld my side of the resolution. Since he has not done more than outline his plan, I have no material to attack in this regard. Thank you to my opponent.*Due to time constraints, I fail to see how this debate can pragmatically be completed before my proposed time. This is unfortunate, and I hope my opponent will not fault me for external factors if I am unable to complete my end of the debate. Sincerest apologies to both my opponent and the readers.*-- Essentially, I am rushed to complete rounds, and have not been able to perform at an adequate or optimal level. This results in less-than-par content and mistakes. So... I request that, if I am unable to complete this debate, no votes be cast. Only do this if my opponent agrees to my stipulations. Once again, I apologize.Sources[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...[11] http://tinyurl.com...[12] http://tinyurl.com...