Foundation Briefs
Advanced Level December Brief
Resolved: Immigration reform should include a
path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants
currently living in the United States.
December 2013
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Defend Your Source ............................................................................................................................................. 13
Authors .......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Organizations ................................................................................................................................................ 14
Definitions............................................................................................................................................................. 21
Definition of an Undocumented Immigrant AMS .................................................................................... 21
Definition Undocumented Immigrant AMS ............................................................................................. 21
Definition of Path to Citizenship AMS ..................................................................................................... 22
Topic Analysis One............................................................................................................................................... 23
Topic Analysis Two .............................................................................................................................................. 25
Topic Overview Evidence..................................................................................................................................... 28
History........................................................................................................................................................... 28
Background to Comprehensive Immigration Reform. JCD ..................................................................... 28
Immigration Control and Reform Act of 1986. JCD ................................................................................ 29
Unauthorized Immigration in the United States—Comprehensive Overview AMS ................................ 29
Current Proposals .......................................................................................................................................... 30
The Gang of Eight Bill AMS .................................................................................................................... 30
The Gang of Eight Bill Progress AMS ..................................................................................................... 31
The Gang of Eight Bill’s Controversial Border Security Amendment AMS ........................................... 32
Gang of Eight Bill Deadlocked AMS ....................................................................................................... 32
Implementation ............................................................................................................................................. 33
The Driving Forces Behind Illegal Immigration AMS ............................................................................. 33
Current Immigration Patterns and Policies AMS ..................................................................................... 34
Pro Evidence ......................................................................................................................................................... 35
The Impending Issue of Illegal Immigration Requires Immediate Action ....................................................... 36
Our options are limited JCD ..................................................................................................................... 36
foundationbriefs.com
Page 1 of 201
December 2013
Table of Contents
High detention costs of illegal immigrants calls for immediate immigration reform. LOR ..................... 37
Cost of immigration regulation calls for immediate reform. LOR ........................................................... 38
Immigration costs more than other law enforcement agencies combined, but doesn’t have to. LOR ..... 39
Study shows that the sooner the US grants citizenship the better. LOR .................................................. 40
Immigrants Benefit U.S. Citizens ..................................................................................................................... 42
Immigrants Already help the Economy ........................................................................................................ 42
Studies Say Immigrants Help Balance the Job Market AMS ................................................................... 42
Immigrants Increase U.S. Citizens’ Wages AMS ..................................................................................... 42
Direct Benefits of Citizenship for Undocumented Immigrants AMS ...................................................... 43
How Immigrants Help the Economy AMS ............................................................................................... 43
Immigrants are Job Creators Fj ................................................................................................................. 44
Immigrants are Tax Contributors Fj ......................................................................................................... 45
Benefits from Immigration for the U.S. Job Market AMS ....................................................................... 46
Study Indicates Advantages from Increased Immigration AMS .............................................................. 46
An influx of undocumented workers is not deleterious to Americans’ employment opportunities, DAT 48
New models show that immigration significantly increases wages FJ ..................................................... 49
An influx of immigrants does not result in native workers leaving, Fj .................................................... 51
Labor intensive industries rely on illegal immigrants. JCD ..................................................................... 52
Immigrants are innovators, Fj ................................................................................................................... 53
Immigrants do not undercut less educated Americans in labor market. LOR .......................................... 53
Immigrants have overarching positive impact. LOR ................................................................................ 54
Immigrants actually increase the wages of unskilled American workers that they compete with. LOR . 54
Legalizing Illegal Immigrants makes them even more valuable .................................................................. 55
Legalized Immigrants are valuable to the workforce. JCD ...................................................................... 55
Allowing illegal immigrants to contribute to the economy while being exploited undermines workers’
rights – JCD .............................................................................................................................................. 55
The GDP will increase by $1.5 trillion with citizenship. JCD ................................................................. 56
Legalized workers earn more in wages. JCD............................................................................................ 57
Legalized workers are more likely to reinvest in their own communities. JCD ....................................... 57
foundationbriefs.com
Page 2 of 201
December 2013
Table of Contents
Legalization provides a powerful incentive for illegal immigrants to learn English and further their
education. JCD .......................................................................................................................................... 58
Creating a work visa program would increase the GDP. JCD ................................................................. 58
Legalizing the current population would increase wages across the board. JCD ..................................... 58
Legalization removes artificial caps on immigrants’ potential, DAT....................................................... 59
Legalizing the current population would increase tax revenue and spending power significantly. JCD . 59
Legalizing the current population would create jobs. JCD ....................................................................... 60
GDP growth experienced by the legalization of the current illegal population is spread amongst many
sectors of the economy. JCD .................................................................................................................... 60
Legalization prevents immigrants’ educations from being wasted, DAT ................................................ 61
Legal Immigrant workers raise the standard of living. JCD ..................................................................... 61
Legalizing illegal immigrants makes it more likely for future migrants to reinvest in the economy. JCD
................................................................................................................................................................... 62
Granting legal temporary visas alone would be a huge boost for taxpayers. JCD ................................... 62
A temporary visa tax program would negate the previous costs faced by illegal immigrants. JCD ........ 63
Most Americans agree that providing pathway to citizenship would boost economy. LOR ................... 63
White House points out the economic benefits of providing pathway to citizenship. LOR ..................... 64
Constitutional Precedent ................................................................................................................................... 65
The Declaration of Independence’s Words on Immigration AMS ........................................................... 65
Importance of temporary work vias program. JCD .................................................................................. 66
Granting Citizenship is Better than Alternatives .............................................................................................. 67
Amnesty is Better than the Current Illegal Immigration Situation AMS ................................................. 67
Problems with Current Situation AMS ..................................................................................................... 68
There is Not Feasible Alternative AMS.................................................................................................... 68
The go-between of expanded guest worker programs brings a litany of issues, DAT ............................. 69
Deportation is not feasible, Fj ................................................................................................................... 69
SAFE Act alternative is harmful to a wide range of people. LOR ........................................................... 70
Maintaining the status quo is wasteful. LOR ............................................................................................ 71
Examples of Possible Reform ........................................................................................................................... 72
The Hamilton Project’s Reform Proposal AMS ....................................................................................... 72
foundationbriefs.com
Page 3 of 201
December 2013
Table of Contents
Startup 2.0 Proposal AMS ........................................................................................................................ 72
The Gang of Eight Proposal AMS ............................................................................................................ 73
Prevention of Human Rights Violations ........................................................................................................... 74
Illegal status puts undocumented victims in a double bind, DAT ............................................................ 74
Undocumented workers face an unhealthy power structure due to their status, DAT ............................. 75
Undocumented Immigrants Suffer Working Laws’ Abuses AMS ........................................................... 75
Exploitation of Immigrant Workers AMS ................................................................................................ 75
Employers of Undocumented Immigrants Not Held Accountable AMS ................................................. 76
How Reform would Help Stop Abuse AMS............................................................................................. 76
Tension between undocumented immigrants and law enforcement allows abuse to happen, DAT ......... 77
Employment laws and oversight programs have become meaningless, DAT .......................................... 78
Employers blackmail undocumented employees using immigration laws, DAT ..................................... 79
The statistical link between undocumented status and workplace violations, DAT................................. 80
Denying a pathway to citizenship is a racial justice issue. LOR .............................................................. 81
Having illegal, exploitable workers in the job market hurts American employees, DAT ........................ 82
Not providing a pathway to citizenship violates basic principle of our country. LOR ............................ 82
Children should not be held accountable for their parents’ actions .................................................................. 83
Children should not be held responsible for their parent's actions. JCD .................................................. 83
Children lose out on constitutional privilege and basic human rights, DAT ............................................ 83
In the Current System Asylees are Unfairly Labeled Illegal Immigrants ......................................................... 85
The current 1 year asylum deadline unfairly labels LGBT asylees as illegal. JCD.................................. 85
Providing citizenship to illegals helps protect LGBT asylees. JCD ......................................................... 86
How Citizenship Would Improve U.S. Labor Market ...................................................................................... 87
Immigrants Strengthen Key U.S. Industries AMS.................................................................................... 87
How Reform Will Help U.S. Economy .................................................................................................... 87
Importance of Immigrants to U.S. Businesses AMS ................................................................................ 88
Overall Wage Increases AMS ................................................................................................................... 88
Studies based on 1986 show that pathway to citizenship would increase wages. LOR ........................... 89
Legalization has positive effect on wages in manufacturing sector. LOR ............................................... 89
foundationbriefs.com
Page 4 of 201
December 2013
Table of Contents
Not providing pathway to citizenship harms US farming industry. LOR ................................................ 90
Con Evidence ........................................................................................................................................................ 91
Granting Undocumented Immigrations Citizenship Sends the Wrong Message.............................................. 92
Amnesty Is Not the Answer to Unlawful Immigration AMS ................................................................... 92
The idea that immigrants need to remain in America is a false ideal, DAT ............................................. 93
Legalization would encourage future illegal immigration, magnifying the harms in the current system.
JCD ........................................................................................................................................................... 94
Birthright citizenship is already creating an overpopulation issue that will be magnified with
legalization. JCD ....................................................................................................................................... 94
Pathway to citizenship does not solve problem of illegal immigration. LOR ..................... 95
Large Increases in Immigration Lower Wages ................................................................................................. 96
Past Results Show that Immigration Lowers American Wages AMS ...................................................... 96
Harms from Increased Immigration AMS ................................................................................................ 96
Immigration is especially hard on blue collar workers Fj ......................................................................... 96
Amnesty Hurts Documented Immigrant Workers AMS .......................................................................... 97
Welfare Costs .................................................................................................................................................... 98
U.S. Welfare Programs Cannot Afford the Strain AMS ........................................................................... 98
Unsustainable Costs AMS ........................................................................................................................ 99
Tenable welfare states rely on a degree of exclusivity to remain solvent, DAT .................................... 100
Illegal aliens partake in widespread Medicaid fraud. JCD ..................................................................... 101
Legalizing illegal aliens will increase the number who already heavily rely on the existing welfare
program. JCD .......................................................................................................................................... 102
The impacts of mass naturalization can’t be predicted and will likely be worse than expected, DAT .. 103
Social security’s failure would be expedited if amnesty is granted. JCD ............................................... 104
Granting amnesty would lead to an increase on the drain on Medicare funding. JCD........................... 104
Birthright citizenship will make Medicaid exploitation even more widespread. JCD ........................... 105
Illegal immigrants help keep social security afloat, DAT ...................................................................... 105
On balance, the absence of a legal pathway is beneficial to government finances, DAT ...................... 106
Costs of providing pathway to citizenship outweigh fiscal benefits. LOR ......................... 107
Providing path to citizenship will cost the US trillions of dollars. LOR ................................................ 107
foundationbriefs.com
Page 5 of 201
December 2013
Table of Contents
Undocumented immigrants in the US will bring more immigrants, straining welfare system. LOR..... 108
Increased Cases of Dual Citizenship Create Problems ................................................................................... 109
Dual citizenship leads to divided loyalty when voting. JCD .................................................................. 109
Countries have begun to take advantage of the loyalty issues of dual citizenship. JCD ........................ 109
Dual citizenship creates a large population of uninformed voters unable to sufficiently fulfil their civic
duties. JCD .............................................................................................................................................. 110
Dual citizenship gives a large portion of the population an unfair and unproportional amount of
representation. JCD ................................................................................................................................. 110
Dual citizens don't bear the consequences of their second votes. JCD................................................... 111
Legalization will be a Violation of the Fairness Principle in the Immigration System .................................. 112
Most justifications to seek legality in the current system are groundless. JCD ...................................... 112
Repeat offenders for illegal immigration are considered felons. JCD .................................................... 113
Using dependence on unlawful labor as a justification for illegal immigrants is simply unjust. JCD ... 113
Illegal immigrants use birthright citizenship to gain an unfair advantage in the immigration system. JCD
................................................................................................................................................................. 114
Illegal immigrants use birthright citizenship to circumvent the possibility of deportation. JCD ........... 114
Amnesty violates the fairness principle in the immigration system. JCD .............................................. 115
Immigrants will Interfere with Less Educated Americans ............................................................................. 116
Picture is Bleak for Less Educated Americans AMS ............................................................................. 116
Legalization would put additional stress on the financial aid system for college students. JCD ........... 117
Guest Worker Programs Are More Lawful and Effective .............................................................................. 118
A guest worker program can effectively balance policy, wage, and labor requirements, DAT ............. 118
Guest worker programs reciprocally benefit origin countries, DAT ...................................................... 118
The U.S. faces a labor shortage, and targeted visa distribution is the solution, DAT ............................ 119
Necessary labor can be provided while upholding enforcement of basic immigration laws, DAT ....... 120
Government Focus Should Be On Return On Investment .............................................................................. 121
The U.S. can recover education spending through an expansion of Plyler v. Doe, DAT ...................... 121
Naturalization, if anything, precludes the economic gains of immigration, DAT .................................. 122
A path to citizenship is unnecessary and redundant, DAT ..................................................................... 123
Mass Legalization would raise National Security Concerns .......................................................................... 124
foundationbriefs.com
Page 6 of 201
December 2013
Table of Contents
Proponents of amnesty severely downplay the crime rates of illegal aliens. JCD ................................. 124
Admitting illegal aliens into the general population is a threat to public safety. JCD ........................... 124
Pro Counters........................................................................................................................................................ 125
Citizenship Reform Will Alleviate Illegal Work Problems ............................................................................ 126
Allowing Undocumented Workers Citizenship Will Decrease Incentives of Hiring Illegal Immigrants
AMS ........................................................................................................................................................ 126
Employer sanctions alone ultimately fail to stop illegal immigration. JCD ........................................... 127
Legalizing the current illegal immigrant population decreases the demand for low wage, low skill labor.
JCD ......................................................................................................................................................... 127
Specific data on why regulating employers is insufficient, DAT ........................................................... 128
Will not Infringe on Current Citizens’ Welfare Benefits ............................................................................... 129
Amnesty has Little Effect on Current Citizens Overall AMS ................................................................ 129
Immigrants generally utilize fewer government resources, DAT ........................................................... 129
Immigrants as a whole pose a relatively small burden on the healthcare system, DAT ......................... 130
Immigrant populations are generally far cheaper to cover, even adjusted for tax burden, DAT ............ 131
Restrictions would still stop some illegal immigrants from becoming legal .................................................. 132
Not all illegal aliens would be admitted and fairness would be maintained. JCD.................................. 132
Path to citizenship would not be disproportionately easy. LOR ............................................................. 132
Many will choose not to become citizens. LOR ........................................................................ 133
Deportation is simply infeasible ..................................................................................................................... 134
Deporting all the illegal immigrants is simply economically infeasible – JCD ..................................... 134
Keeping the illegal immigrants out after they have been deported would also be very expensive. JCD 134
Illegal immigrants would adapt to rising enforcement measure making this process even more expensive
in the long term. JCD .............................................................................................................................. 136
The cost to build new jails for these illegal immigrants add to the long term costs if deportation. JCD 136
The anticipated cost of lawsuits associated with human rights violations would increase long term costs.
JCD ......................................................................................................................................................... 137
Complications with families involving American citizens would further prolong this process. JCD .... 137
The legal system can't handle the sheer number of adjudications a mass deportation strategy would
entail. JCD............................................................................................................................................... 138
foundationbriefs.com
Page 7 of 201
December 2013
Table of Contents
Deportation incurs more costs in legal processing. JCD ........................................................................ 138
The deportation of illegal immigrants would be infeasible with current logistics because they originate
from countries across the globe. JCD ..................................................................................................... 139
Transportation costs make deportation an unfavorable option. JCD ...................................................... 139
Mass deportation would lower wages for high skill, American workers. JCD ...................................... 139
An exodus of illegal immigrants through deportation has a chilling economic effect, DAT ................. 140
The threat of deportation gives recalcitrant employers an advantage, DAT .......................................... 141
Uprooting illegal immigrants in any regard is unacceptable ...................................................................... 142
Self deportation through strict enforcement is not a tenable solution, DAT .......................................... 142
The presence of illegal immigrants is neither structurally nor financially burdensome, DAT ............... 143
Detaining Illegal Immigrants produces a net harm ......................................................................................... 144
Detaining illegals would lead to even more civil rights violations. JCD................................................ 144
Detaining illegal immigrants incurs costs. JCD...................................................................................... 144
The current detention system can't handle the sheer number of new inmates. JCD ............................... 144
There are serious restrictions on the ability to detain illegal immigrants. JCD ...................................... 145
Jailing illegal immigrants has substantial negative financial impacts, DAT .......................................... 145
Border Security Initiatives are not Sufficient to Address Illegal Immigration ............................................... 146
Previous border security initiatives have failed. JCD ............................................................................. 146
On-going costs to ensure the illegal immigrants don't return incur massive long term costs. JCD ....... 146
Enforcement only approaches lead to increases in violence. JCD.......................................................... 146
Enforcement only approaches create new opportunities for human tracffickers. JCD........................... 147
Enforcement only approaches break circular migration and promote extended stays. JCD .................. 148
Enforcement only approaches depressing low-wage labor markets. JCD .............................................. 148
Simply increasing border security would not be a cost effective solution to illegal immigration. JCD 148
Ending Birthright Citizenship would Create more Problems than it would Solve ......................................... 149
Denying these immigrants citizenship while their children hold citizenship create second class citizen
that undermines democracy. JCD ........................................................................................................... 149
Illegal immigrants still fall under the protections of the equality principle. JCD................................... 150
Children should not have to suffer for their parents crimes. JCD .......................................................... 151
Lashing out against birthright citizenship is ineffective at best and downright immoral. JCD .............. 152
foundationbriefs.com
Page 8 of 201
December 2013
Table of Contents
Attacking birthright citizenship would undermine the rule of law. JCD ................................................ 152
Attacking birthright citizenship undermines the constitution. JCD ........................................................ 153
Ending birthright citizenship won't solve anything. JCD ....................................................................... 154
Ending birthright citizenship will call for even more complicated legal disputes. JCD......................... 154
Ending birthright citizenship would burden current US citizens unjustly. JCD ..................................... 155
Ending birthright citizenship would not end illegal immigration. JCD .................................................. 155
Most births resulting in birthright citizenship are not from birth tourism. JCD ..................................... 156
Welfare and Health Services would not be abused ......................................................................................... 157
Current restrictions could be expanded to prevent welfare abuse. JCD ................................................. 157
There has never truly been an issue with welfare abuse with immigrants before. JCD ......................... 157
Immigrants do not drain Medicare. JCD................................................................................................. 158
Immigrants tend to be younger so they actually contribute to a surplus in Medicare. JCD ................... 158
The issue with Medicare spending isn't unique to immigrants, it's an issue with the system itself. JCD
................................................................................................................................................................. 159
Immigrants are needed to keep the welfare system afloat long enough for entitlement reform to be
passed. JCD ............................................................................................................................................. 159
Past restrictions on welfare would be reimplented and revised as part of comprehensive immigration
reform. JCD............................................................................................................................................. 160
Illegal immigrants are not responsible for overcrowding of hospitals. JCD .......................................... 160
Will not Encourage More Illegal Immigration or Illegal Work ...................................................................... 161
Without work visas, illegals will continue to work illegally. JCD ......................................................... 161
Previous amnesty laws did not increase illegal immigration. JCD ......................................................... 161
Illegal immigration is already taking care of itself, DAT ....................................................................... 162
Illegal immigration numbers are based on societal factors, not direct U.S. policy actions, DAT .......... 163
Will not have Negative Economic Consequences .......................................................................................... 164
Amnesty will not lead to an increase in unemployment. JCD ................................................................ 164
Visa fees will realistically help balance the additional federal spending incurred by immigrants. JCD 164
Most studies calculate the cost of educating the children without considering their potential future tax
revenue. JCD ........................................................................................................................................... 165
Driving out, rather than embracing, illegal immigrants entails a negative economic impact, DAT ...... 165
foundationbriefs.com
Page 9 of 201
December 2013
Table of Contents
Illegal immigrants incur a net negative fiscal burden for every echelon of government, DAT ............. 166
Immigrant Households Not More Costly than Poor American Households. JCD ................................. 167
Benefits for Economy from Citizenship AMS........................................................................................ 168
Native-born American workers are not in direct competition with immigrants for jobs.
LOR ........................................................................................................................................................ 168
Immigration will not displace American Workers. LOR........................................................................ 169
Legalization will not lead to overcrowding .................................................................................................... 170
Illegal immigration is not to blame for increased strain on infrastructure or the associated costs. JCD 170
Illegal immigrants are not to be blamed for crowded public schools. JCD ............................................ 170
Illegal immigrants are not more likely to be jailed and are not responsible for prison overcrowding. JCD
................................................................................................................................................................. 171
Immigrants Already Pay Taxes....................................................................................................................... 172
Immigrants Paying Into Welfare Already AMS ..................................................................................... 172
Granting Citizenship Will Not Cause More Crime ........................................................................................ 173
Last Amnesty Caused Drop in Crime AMS ........................................................................................... 173
Immigrants, particularly first generation or illegal, are typically the least problematic, DAT ............... 174
The Federation for American Immigration Reform is a highly biased source ............................................... 175
The founder is known for his unconventional perspectives Fj ............................................................... 175
The organization is very radical FJ ......................................................................................................... 176
Con Counters ...................................................................................................................................................... 177
Will not Stop Illegal Immigration ................................................................................................................... 178
History Shows this Approach Does Not Work AMS ............................................................................. 178
A path to citizenship misses the impetus of effective immigration policy, DAT ................................... 178
Streamlining the guest worker system, rather than offering amnesty, is potentially effective, DAT ..... 179
Illegal immigration will still be an issue due to birthright citizenship. JCD .......................................... 179
Economic Gains are Exaggerated ................................................................................................................... 180
Wages gained by amnesty for illegals are severely exaggerated. JCD ................................................... 180
Illegal Immigrants incur heavy costs for society. JCD ........................................................................... 180
The amount of money dedicated to education funding is disproportionately spent on illegal immigrant
children. JCD .......................................................................................................................................... 181
foundationbriefs.com
Page 10 of 201
December 2013
Table of Contents
Even with a temporary work visa program, illegal immigrants’ children will make up the largest portion
of educational costs. JCD........................................................................................................................ 181
Ending birthright citizenship would free up more money in the Pell Grant system. JCD ...................... 182
Illegal immigrants incur significant costs through emergency medical care. JCD................................. 182
Incentivizing a largely low-paid labor force to stay discourages innovation, DAT ............................... 183
Naturalization fails to fill the oncoming low-skilled labor shortage, DAT ............................................ 184
Other studies significantly overstate the tax revenue generated by illegal aliens. JCD ......................... 185
Illegal immigrants take advantage of the tax credit system. JCD ........................................................... 185
The economic deficits currently cause by illegals would not be remedied by increased taxes. JCD ..... 186
The wages of illegals would not rise with legalization. JCD .................................................................. 186
Even when legalized, illegal aliens are less likely to contribute back to the economy. JCD ................. 187
Illegal aliens are currently responsible for a massive net loss in government spending. JCD ............... 188
Economic output by illegal aliens do not compensate for the costs associated with their presence. JCD
................................................................................................................................................................. 188
Illegal immigrants significantly add to the poverty rate. JCD ................................................................ 188
Even low skilled legal immigrants lead to a net economic deficit, indicating legalization will not solve
this issue. JCD......................................................................................................................................... 189
Economic Benefits of Immigrants Negligible ........................................................................................ 189
Legalization will not lead to significantly more government revenue, DAT ......................................... 190
Guest worker programs already in place that are supposed to boost economy don’t work. LOR.......... 190
Problems with the Process of Citizenship for Undocumented Immigrants .................................................... 191
1986 Provision Requiring Immigrants to Learn English was Unsuccessful AMS ................................. 191
Government not Equipped to Handle Amnesty Process AMS ............................................................... 191
Illegal immigrants Would not be Required to Pay a Fine AMS ............................................................. 192
Practical problems with proposed Senate plan for pathway. LOR ......................................................... 193
Undocumented Workers Strengthen Organized Labor ................................................................................... 194
Labor unions can gain ground by embracing immigrants of all classification, DAT ............................. 194
The greatest potential for union expansion lies in foreign-born workers, DAT ..................................... 195
Cases ................................................................................................................................................................... 196
Pro Case .......................................................................................................................................................... 197
foundationbriefs.com
Page 11 of 201
December 2013
Table of Contents
Introduction: ................................................................................................................................................ 197
Contention One: Illegal Immigration needs to be addressed immediately ................................................. 197
Contention Two: Citizenship is the best option to deal with the issue ....................................................... 198
Contention Three: Providing Citizenship would correct previous injustices in the current immigration
process......................................................................................................................................................... 198
Con Case ......................................................................................................................................................... 199
Introduction: ................................................................................................................................................ 199
Contention One: A path to citizenship is untenably costly ......................................................................... 199
Contention Two: Naturalization brings uncertainty and ancillary consequences ....................................... 200
Contention Three: A path to citizenship is an inferior and suboptimal solution to the United States’
problems ...................................................................................................................................................... 200
foundationbriefs.com
Page 12 of 201
December 2013
Defend Your Source
Defend Your Source
Authors
Vernon M. Briggs, Jr.
Briggs has served as a member of the National Council on Employment Policy as well as on the Board of
Directors of the Corporation for Public and Private Ventures (Philadelphia) and the Center for Immigration
Studies (Washington D.C.). He has also served on the editorial boards of such professional journals as the
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, the Journal of Human Resources, The Texas Business Review, and the
Journal of Economic Issues.
Elise Foley
Elise Foley is a reporter for the Huffington Post in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at The Washington
Independent. She is one of the Post’s primary experts on immigration and has closely followed the development
of the Comprehensive Immigration Bill.
Dana Goldman
Dr. Goldman is a nationally-recognized health economist influential in both academic and policy circles. He is
the author of over 100 articles and book chapters, including articles in some of the most prestigious medical,
economic, health policy, and statistics journals. He is a health policy advisor to the Congressional Budget
Office, and is a frequent speaker on health care issues. He serves on several editorial boards including Health
Affairs and the American Journal of Managed Care. He is also a founding editor of the Forum for Health
Economics and Policy, an online journal devoted to health economics and health policy.
Kevin R. Johnson
Kevin R. Johnson is Dean, Mabie-Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law, and Professor of Chicana/o Studies.
He joined the UC Davis law faculty in 1989 and was named Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in
1998. Johnson became Dean in 2008.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 13 of 201
December 2013
Defend Your Source
Giovanni Peri
Giovanni Peri is Professor of Economics at the University of California, Davis and a Research Associate of the
National Bureau of Economic Research. He is also a CESifo Research Fellow, a CReAM External Fellow and
member of the editorial board in the Journal of Urban Economics, Journal of Population
Economics andRegional Science and Urban Economics.
Organizations
American Enterprise Institute
AEI is a private, nonpartisan, not-for-profit institution dedicated to research and education on issues of
government, politics, economics and social welfare. Founded in 1938, AEI is home to some of America's most
accomplished public policy experts. AEI's purpose is to serve leaders and the public through research and
education on the most important issues of the day.
The Atlantic (The Atlantic Wire)
The Atlantic is an American magazine founded in 1857 in Boston, Massachusetts, as The Atlantic Monthly. It
was created as a literary and cultural commentary magazine. It quickly achieved a national reputation, which it
has held for more than 150 years. It was important for recognizing and publishing new writers and poets, and
encouraging major careers. It published leading writers' commentary on abolition, education, and other major
issues in contemporary political affairs.
Bloomberg
Bloomberg News is an international news agency headquartered in New York, United States and
a division of Bloomberg L.P. Content produced by Bloomberg News is disseminated through the Bloomberg
terminal, Bloomberg Television, Bloomberg Radio, Bloomberg Businessweek, Bloomberg Markets,
Bloomberg.com and Bloomberg's mobile platforms. Bloomberg Businessweek, commonly and formerly known
as BusinessWeek, is a weekly business magazine published by Bloomberg L.P.Founded in 1929, the magazine
was created to provide information and interpretation about what was happening in the business world.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 14 of 201
December 2013
Defend Your Source
Brookings Institution
The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC. Our mission is to
conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical
recommendations.
Cato Institute
The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as
the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board
and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries. In July 1976, the name was changed to the
Cato Institute. Cato was established to have a focus on public advocacy, media exposure and societal influence.
Center for American Progress
The Center for American Progress is a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization. Its
website states that the organization is "dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas
and action"
Center for Immigration Studies
The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit, research organization. Since
our founding in 1985, we have pursued a single mission – providing immigration policymakers, the academic
community, news media, and concerned citizens with reliable information about the social, economic,
environmental, security, and fiscal consequences of legal and illegal immigration into the United States.
Congressional Budget Office
Since its founding in 1974, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has produced independent analyses of
budgetary and economic issues to support the Congressional budget process. The agency is strictly nonpartisan
and conducts objective, impartial analysis, which is evident in each of the dozens of reports and hundreds of
cost estimates that its economists and policy analysts produce each year.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 15 of 201
December 2013
Defend Your Source
Council on Foreign Relations
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank,
and publisher. The David Rockefeller Studies Program—CFR's think tank—is composed of more than eighty
full-time and adjunct fellows who cover the major regions and significant issues shaping today's international
agenda.
Democratic Policy and Communications Committee
In the sixty five years since the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee (DPCC) (formerly known
as the Democratic Policy Committee (DPC)) was established in January 1947, it has served as an advisory
board to the Democratic Leadership and as a research, policy-formulating, and communications arm of Senate
Democrats. While the DPCC's role has evolved through the years, the thread that unifies its long history is the
key role it has played in facilitating communication among Senate Democrats and enhancing their ability to
formulate and advance their agenda.
The Economist
The Economist is an English-language weekly news and international affairs publication owned by The
Economist Newspaper Ltd. and edited in offices in London Continuous publication began under founder James
Wilson in September 1843.
Federation for American Immigration Reform
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a national, nonprofit, public-interest, membership
organization of concerned citizens who share a common belief that our nation's immigration policies must be
reformed to serve the national interest.
FAIR seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and to promote immigration levels
consistent with the national interest—more traditional rates of about 300,000 a year.
With more than 250,000 members and supporters nationwide, FAIR is a non-partisan group whose membership
runs the gamut from liberal to conservative. Our grassroots networks help concerned citizens use their voices to
speak up for effective, sensible immigration policies that work for America's best interests.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 16 of 201
December 2013
Defend Your Source
Forbes
Forbes is an American business magazine owned by Forbes, Inc. Published biweekly, it features original articles
on finance, industry, investing, and marketing topics. Forbes also reports on related subjects such as technology,
communications, science, and law. Its headquarters are in New York City. Primary competitors in the national
business magazine category are Fortune and Bloomberg Businessweek.
Foreign Policy
Published seven times a year, Foreign Policy won the General Excellence Award as a best-in-class magazine in
2003, 2007, and 2009. The topics covered by the magazine include global politics, economics, integration and
ideas.
The Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds
of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of
275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.
Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES) Institute of
Social and Economic Research
The Institute of Economic and Social Research (IRES) is based out of The Université catholique de
Louvain (UCL) is Belgium's largest French-speaking university. The research produced by the IRES is
internationally recognized, ranking 125th of all global universities.
Internal Revenue Service
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is the revenue service of the United States federal government.
The agency is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury, and is under the immediate direction of
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The IRS is responsible for collecting taxes and the interpretation and
enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 17 of 201
December 2013
Defend Your Source
Merriam Webster
Merriam-Webster, Inc., which was originally the G & C Merriam Company of Springfield, Massachusetts, is
an American company that publishes reference books, especially dictionaries that are descendants of Noah
Webster's An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828). Merriam-Webster, Inc. has been
a subsidiary of Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. since 1964.
National Bureau of Economic Research
The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is an American private nonprofit research organization
"committed to undertaking and disseminating unbiased economic research among public policymakers,
business professionals, and the academic community." The NBER is well known for providing start and end
dates for recessions in the United States.
The NBER is the largest economics research organization in the United States. Many of the American winners
of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences were NBER Research Associates. Many of the Chairmen of
the Council of Economic Advisers have also been NBER Research Associates, including the former NBER
President and Harvard Professor, Martin Feldstein.
National Journal
National Journal is regarded as the most credible and influential publication in Washington, providing more
than 3 million influentials in public policy and business with the insights they need to make government work.
Fiercely honest and scrupulously non-partisan, National Journal has a four-decade history of serving leaders in
Washington—and around the country—with trustworthy, in-depth analysis on legislation, politics, and the
structural trends shaping America.
Natural News
The NaturalNews Network is a non-profit collection of public education websites covering topics that empower
individuals to make positive changes in their health, environmental sensitivity, consumer choices and informed
skepticism. The NaturalNews Network is owned and operated by Truth Publishing International, Ltd., a Taiwan
corporation.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 18 of 201
December 2013
Defend Your Source
New York Times
The New York Times is an American daily newspaper, founded and continuously published in New York City
since September 18, 1851. It has won 112 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization. The New
York Times has established links regionally with 16 bureaus in the New York region, nationally, with 11
bureaus within the United States, and globally, with 26 foreign news bureaus. It is considered an excellent
source for national and global research.
Pew Hispanic Center
The Pew Research Center’s Hispanic Trends Project, launched in 2001 as the Pew Hispanic Center, seeks to
improve public understanding of the diverse Hispanic population in the United States and to chronicle Latinos’
growing impact on the nation.
The project conducts public opinion surveys that aim to illuminate Latino views on a range of social matters and
public policy issues, including its annual National Survey of Latinos. It also publishes demographic studies and
other social science research on a wide range of topics, including economics and personal finances,
Hispanic/Latino identity, education, health care, immigration trends, the Latino vote, technology adoption,
youth and work and employment. The project is well-known for its estimates of the unauthorized immigrant
population in the U.S.
RAND Corporation
RAND Corporation (Research ANd Development) is a nonprofit global policy think tank first formed to offer
research and analysis to the United States armed forces by Douglas Aircraft Company. It is currently financed
by the U.S. government and private endowment, corporations including the healthcare industry,
universities, and private individuals. The organization has long since expanded to working with
other governments, private foundations, international organizations, and commercial organizations on a host of
non-defence issues. RAND aims for interdisciplinary and quantitative problem solving via translating
theoretical concepts from formal economics and the hard sciences into novel applications in other areas.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 19 of 201
December 2013
Defend Your Source
Reason Foundation (Reason Magazine)
Reason Foundation produces respected public policy research on a variety of issues and publishes the criticallyacclaimed Reason magazine. Reason Foundation's nonpartisan public policy research promotes choice,
competition, and a dynamic market economy as the foundation for human dignity and progress. Reason
produces rigorous, peer reviewed research and directly engages the policy process, seeking strategies that
emphasize cooperation, flexibility, local knowledge, transparency, accountability and results.
Reuters
Reuters is an international news agency headquartered in Canary Wharf, London, United Kingdom and
a division of Thomson Reuters. The agency transmits global news
in English, French, Arabic, Spanish, German, Italian, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, and Portuguese.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is the government agency that oversees lawful immigration
to the United States. USCIS will secure America’s promise as a nation of immigrants by providing accurate and
useful information to our customers, granting immigration and citizenship benefits, promoting an awareness and
understanding of citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services
The Department of Social and Health Services is an integrated organization of high-performing programs
working in partnership for statewide impact to help transform lives. The Department’s mission is to improve the
safety and health of individuals, families and communities by providing leadership and establishing and
participating in partnerships. The Department produces internationally recognized research for the betterment of
community health.
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (or Wilson Center), located in Washington, D.C., is
a United States Presidential Memorial that was established as part of the Smithsonian Institution by an act of
Congress in 1968. It is also a highly recognized think tank, ranked among the top fifteen in the world.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 20 of 201
December 2013
Definitions
Definitions
Definition of an Undocumented Immigrant AMS
Internal Revenue Service. “Immigration Terms and Definitions Involving Aliens.”
2013. http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Immigration-Termsand-Definitions-Involving-Aliens
A general summary of U.S. immigration terminology follows. Any references below to USCIS refer to the
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Illegal Alien
Also known as an "Undocumented Alien," is an alien who has entered the United States illegally and is
deportable if apprehended, or an alien who entered the United States legally but who has fallen "out of
status" and is deportable.
Definition Undocumented Immigrant AMS
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. “Citizenship and Alien
Status-Definitions.” April 18, 2013.
http://www.dshs.wa.gov/manuals/eaz/sections/CitizenshipAndAlienStatus/citizengen
elig.shtml
4. "Undocumented aliens" are noncitizens without a lawful immigration status as defined in subsections (2) or
(3) of this section, and who:
a. Entered the U.S. illegally; or
b. Were lawfully admitted but whose status expired or was revoked per United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS).
This definition offers a more specific delineation of the definition of an undocumented immigrant.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 21 of 201
December 2013
Definitions
Definition of Path to Citizenship AMS
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. “Pathway to U.S. Citizenship.”
http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Office%20of%20Citizenship/Citizens
hip%20Resource%20Center%20Site/Publications/PDFs/pathway_to_citizenship.pd
f
For an adult immigrant to become a U.S. citizen, he or she must go through the process of naturalization.
GENERAL requirements for naturalization call for the immigrant to:

Be at least 18 years old at the time of application

Be a lawfully admitted permanent resident of the United States at the time of filing the application

Have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least 5 years (or for at least 3 years if you
meet all eligibility requirements to file as a spouse of a United States citizen)

Have demonstrated continuous permanent residence

Have demonstrated physical presence

Have lived within the State or USCIS District for at least 3 months prior to filing

Have demonstrated good moral character

Demonstrate an attachment to the principles and ideals of the U.S. Constitution

Demonstrate an ability to read, write, speak, and understand basic English

Demonstrate a basic knowledge of U.S. history, government, and civic principles

Take an oath of allegiance to the United States
foundationbriefs.com
Page 22 of 201
December 2013
Topic Analysis One
Topic Analysis One
General
When first approaching this resolution, teams need to be wary of three major pitfalls both sides could run into.
The first deals with the phrase “currently living in the United States.” Teams on both sides need to make sure
that the debate stays focused on dealing with the current illegal population as opposed to dealing with the future
flow of illegal immigration. The second thing to be aware of is the phrase “path to citizenship.” This term is
rather ambiguous and allows Pro to include a variety of programs and methods to put illegal immigrants on their
way to citizenship that will yield a variety of social and economic benefits. The problem is that Con can also
adopt many of these exact same programs (and as a result, the same benefits) without actually granting
citizenship in the end. The resolution essentially allows both sides to sugarcoat the main issue of citizenship in
an attempt to appear like the more positive solution; however, at the end of the day, the biggest impacts in the
round will be those that directly rely on citizenship status itself (or lack thereof) as opposed to this ambiguous
“path” the resolution speaks of. That being said, teams on both sides shouldn’t disregard these additional
benefits but rather should not solely rely on these additional programs implemented along the way to provide
offense in their cases. The last issue to consider is topicality. Teams should avoid spending too much time
discussing immigration reform as a whole, but to stay focused on the issue of citizenship. As I will discuss in
the next section, Pro can legitimately use these other proposals as a standard for comparison, but these
alternative solution to the illegal immigration problem should not become the focus of the round either.
Pro
For this resolution I see two potential angles to approach the pro case. The first scenario requires pro to start
their case by showing how citizenship itself remedies majority of the issues associated with the current illegal
immigration population. After they have thoroughly addressed those issues, pro teams should then show any
additional benefits legalizing this population would yield, specifically the economic ones. The second approach
involves more comparative analysis with the greater issue of immigration reform. Since this topic addresses one
solution among dozens of proposed answers to the problem of illegal immigration, pro teams using this
approach would show how this is the most desirable solution out there. This gives the pro more leeway since
these teams would let the judge know that they need not show the pro solution is perfect but rather the best
solution currently possible. However, there is also the third (and probably the most effective) approach to this
resolution where pro teams strike a balance between the two. These teams should spend majority of their
constructive focusing on the first approach while relying on the second approach in their rebuttals as a tool to
minimize the harms Con presents.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 23 of 201
December 2013
Topic Analysis One
As for specific arguments to address, the most important will definitely be the economics argument. While
blanket statistics claiming that legalization is net beneficial by xyz dollars to the GDP are useful to give a
general idea of the real world impact the pro would have, pro teams need to spend majority of their time
explaining the logic behind these gains. Using stats that focus on individual aspects of the economy that provide
reasoning for this overall gain, will do two important things for the judge. First, it will add clarity to your
economic arguments, preventing the judge from being buried in unclear buzz words that don’t mean anything to
the average person. Second, it will provide an additional aspect to the economic argument that isn’t entirely
based on hard numbers. By providing this analytical evidence, the judges will have an easier time logically
justifying the numbers you throw at them.
Con
The con seems to have significantly less options when approaching this resolution. Nonetheless, every con team
should include these two arguments at some point their constructives. The first is the fairness principle in the
immigration system. If con teams are able to prove that this population doesn’t provide any unique benefits, that
other immigrants who travel here legally could provide, then all the economic and social gains Pro would claim
become irrelevant while violating the intrinsic value of justice and by extension undermining government
legitimacy.
The second involves legalizing the current illegal population without necessarily giving them citizenship. This
is necessary to mitigate the harms pro can claim con would cause by continuing the status quo and ignoring the
illegal population. This lets con teams present themselves as the “reasonable middle ground” between the status
quo and the extremist pro stance by giving con the flexibility to deal with the harms perpetuated by the issue at
hand while avoiding the harms associated with granting citizenship.
One last thing to watch out for on con is the trap of proposing detailed counterplans, for these are forbidden in
PF. Con teams should spend majority of their time proving the harms associated with citizenship itself being
granted to millions of people at once. Arguments involving alternatives should be used sparingly and only to
provide the judge with some perspective on the topic and to prevent the Pro from claiming that this is our only
option.
Last Thoughts
To get started on this topic, look through past and current attempts at amnesty. These proposals will help to
clarify what the paths to citizenship have entailed in the past to give both teams a realistic idea of what will
come up in a round. Lastly, don't forget to have fun!
Jordan Duprey
foundationbriefs.com
Page 24 of 201
December 2013
Topic Analysis Two
Topic Analysis Two
Background
Illegal or undocumented immigration first became a substantial problem for the United States during the 1970s.
Large influxes of agricultural workers led the U.S. to declare immigration quotas, generally favoring European
immigrants over immigrants from the East. The U.S. tried to cut down on the huge numbers of immigrants from
Mexico with stricter border enforcement laws and visa limits. However, these standards only increased the
average time undocumented immigrants stayed in the U.S.
The 1986 Immigration Control and Reform Act legalized 1.7 million unauthorized immigrants and a separate
1.3 million agricultural workers. This act is the primary example of amnesty in the United States and will be
used by both sides to argue the resolution. Some critics point to the increase in wages for the legalized
immigrants and contend that the bill improved the U.S. labor market overall. On the other hand, many see the
act as a failure because it failed to cut down on illegal immigration into the United States, which has an
estimated 11.7 million undocumented immigrants today.
During the early 2000s analysts estimate that anywhere from 500,000 to 850,000 undocumented immigrants
entered the U.S. annually. This issue has again been brought to the front of American attention through the
recent Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, more popularly known as the “Gang of Eight” immigration
proposal. The bill has been formed by a bipartisan committee of Democrats and Republicans and aims to create
a path to citizenship for undocumented workers. This bill would grant undocumented citizens citizenship. It also
instates a separate path and plan for agricultural workers. Pro and con teams should become familiar with this
controversial plan and its history.
Tricky Terms
Path to citizenship: The phrase “path to citizenship” was pulled directly from the CIR bill in congress. Because
it is so vague, both teams must carefully define it to their advantage. While many Americans agree that some
form of a “path” to citizenship is necessary for immigrants, they disagree on specifics. Some in the House
support a general amnesty for all undocumented immigrants, but many believe that a special path for
undocumented immigrants is unjust--that undocumented immigrants should not be rewarded for breaking
United States border laws.
Thus, pro teams should define this phrase loosely, focusing on the poor state of U.S. immigration today to argue
that some kind of reform, or path, is clearly necessary, but avoiding any amnesty plan. Con teams on the other
hand should focus on the idea that while reform may be necessary, granting special privileges to undocumented
immigrants is unfair.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 25 of 201
December 2013
Topic Analysis Two
Undocumented Immigrants: This phrase is pretty clear, but can again be framed to each team’s advantage. Be
aware that the phrase “undocumented immigrants” is much less politically charged than “illegal immigrants.”
Advice
There are two central issues, or questions for this debate:
1. The Economic Effects of Undocumented Immigration: Do immigrants help or hurt the U.S.
economically?
This brief has many economic analysis pieces on both sides of this topic--some arguing that immigration
improves the labor market, while others focus on the welfare costs associated with immigration. Pro teams can
use the ample economic evidence available in this brief to prove that immigrants already pay some welfare
costs and will benefit the United States labor market. Pro teams should also argue that regulating workers is
always better than the widespread undocumented labor the U.S. has today. Con teams should focus instead on
the welfare costs associated with adding so many citizens to plans like the Affordable Care Act and how an
influx of immigrants would hurt current U.S. citizens by driving down wages.
2. The Ethics of Immigration: Does the U.S. have a primary responsibility to immigrants in general
or only immigrants that enter the U.S. legally?
Both teams should recognize that the United States was built upon immigration and has always taken great
pride in bringing in diverse citizens. Pro teams should play up this idea to argue that the U.S. cannot turn even
the undocumented away, and should strive to bring in more immigrants. Note that under the CIR,
undocumented workers would come second to legal immigrants waiting for their permanent residence status.
Pro teams can use this facet of the bill to argue that legal immigrants will still be prioritized over the
undocumented.
Con teams can contend that while the U.S. welcomes immigration, it should prioritize legal immigration over
undocumented. It is unfair to reward immigrants that have broken U.S. border laws with citizenship and punish
those immigrants that have followed the process. Furthermore, con teams can use the 1986 amnesty law to show
that granting undocumented citizens citizenship does not alleviate immigration problems, but worsens illegal
immigration overall.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 26 of 201
December 2013
Topic Analysis Two
Final Advice
1. Read
Learn about the United States history of immigration, patterns and trends in immigration, and past United States
immigration laws. The causes and effects of immigration are hotly debated and studied around the world and
this brief provides a comprehensive background for both sides.
2. Follow the News
Take advantage of the press the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill is getting lately. This means there is a
lot of current evidence available for this topic. Teams should be sure to follow the bill’s progress (or lack
thereof) through congress and use the opinions of its supporters and opponents to argue their side.
3. Frame the Debate
Because the resolution refers generally to a “path to citizenship,” I think it is tilted towards pro teams. Most
Americans recognize that our current immigration system is full of problems and would jump at any proposal
for change. Con teams can level the playing field by defining the phrase “path to citizenship” in their terms of
the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, to mean a special path for undocumented citizens.
This resolution is vague and will rely primarily on both teams’ ability to delineate the issues in front of a judge.
Focus on explaining and analyzing the issues and do not let the debate get bogged down in the specifics of
economic analysis pieces.
Have fun!
Amanda Sopkin
foundationbriefs.com
Page 27 of 201
December 2013
Topic Overview Evidence
Topic Overview Evidence
History
Background to Comprehensive Immigration Reform. JCD
Wasem, Ruth. "Brief History of Comprehensive Immigration Reform Efforts in the 109th
and 110th Congresses to Inform Policy Discussions in the 113th
Congress."Congressional Research Service (n.d.): n. pag. 27 Feb. 2013. Web. 1 Nov.
2013.
The main elements of “comprehensive immigration reform” (CIR) legislation typically include increased border
security and immigration enforcement, improved employment eligibility verification, revision of legal
immigration, and options to address the millions of unauthorized aliens residing in the country. In January
2013, a bipartisan group of Senators proposed a framework for CIR that would address these issues and include
new temporary worker visas. Several of these elements also were among the features that President Barack
Obama emphasized later the same month when he called for the 113th Congress to “quickly” take up CIR
legislation, though President Obama has not endorsed new temporary worker visas.
[...]
Substantial efforts to enact CIR legislation failed in the 109th and 110th Congresses, prompting some to
characterize the issue as a “third rail” that is too highly charged to touch. The 2006-2007 CIR bills were
sweeping in scope and ranged from just under 500 pages to over 800 pages. The three major bills CIR bills that
received floor action were
• Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005
(H.R. 4437 as passed by the House in the 109th Congress),
• Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611 as passed by the
Senate in the 109th Congress), and
• Comprehensive Immigration Reform and for other purposes (S. 1639 as
considered by the Senate in 110th Congress)
foundationbriefs.com
Page 28 of 201
December 2013
Topic Overview Evidence
Immigration Control and Reform Act of 1986. JCD
Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raúl. "Raising the Floor for American Workers The Economic Benefits
of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Center For American Progress. N.p., Jan.
2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The recent history of U.S. immigration policy offers important insights into the economic benefits of providing
unauthorized immigrants with legal status and the drawbacks of immigration reform efforts that are not
sufficiently comprehensive in scope. The 1986 IRCA granted legal status to 1.7 million unauthorized
immigrants through its “general” legalization program, plus another 1.3 million through a “Special Agricultural
Workers” program.23 Even though IRCA was implemented during an economic recession characterized by
high unemployment, studies of immigrants who benefited from the general legalization program indicate that
they soon earned higher wages and moved on to better jobs—and invested more in their own education so that
they could earn even higher wages and get even better jobs.
Unauthorized Immigration in the United States—Comprehensive Overview AMS
Pia M. Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny. “The Economic Consequences of Amnesty for
Undocumented Immigrants.” Cato Institute. 2012.
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2012/1/cj32n17.pdf
Unauthorized immigration to the United States was not a substantial issue until the 1970s. The
undocumented population rose from a few hundred thousand, primarily agricultural workers, in the late
1960s to several million, mainly living in urban areas, in 1980. This increase in the undocumented
population was partly due to U.S. policy shifts that cutoff the avenues for legal entry, such as the termination of
the Bracero temporary farm worker program in 1964. In 1977, the United States extended country-specific
quotas on the number of legal immigrants admitted each year to Western Hemisphere nations, including
Mexico (Donato and Carter 1999). Fewer visas became available at the same time that the role of Mexican
immigrants in the U.S. labor market evolved from seasonal agricultural work to year-round employment in the
services and manufacturing sectors. Eventually, increased nonagricultural employment, tougher border
enforcement, and fewer visas led to longer durations of stay by the undocumented. Immigrant families
settled in the United States and the seasonal, circular migration by workers that previously dominated MexicoU.S. labor migration flows diminished (Angelucci 2005, Reyes 2004).
(..)
Estimates suggest that the unauthorized immigrant population increased by about 500,000 annually
during the early 2000s. Given return migration, the inflow of unauthorized immigrants was even larger,
averaging 850,000 per year during the period 2000 to 2005 (Passel and Cohn 2010). The inflow slowed
considerably during the U.S. housing bust and subsequent recession, althgouh the volume of return migration
foundationbriefs.com
Page 29 of 201
December 2013
Topic Overview Evidence
appears to have changed little during the downturn. As a result, the unauthorized immigrant population shrank
slightly between 2007 and 2009 but has since stabilized.
Current Proposals
The Gang of Eight Bill AMS
Elise Foley. “Senate Immigration Reform Bill Passes with Strong Majority.” The
Huffington Post. June 27, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/senateimmigration-reform-bill_n_3511664.html
The Senate passed a politically fraught immigration reform bill [in June] that would give a path to
citizenship to some of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., bringing them
out of the shadows and preventing continued record deportations that have separated hundreds of thousands of
families.
The bill passed 68 to 32, picking up all Democrats and 14 Republicans.
Undocumented immigrants and advocates in the crowd, many of them young so-called Dreamers, broke out into
applause and chants of "yes we can!" after Vice President Joe Biden, who came to the Senate to preside over the
proceedings, read the results. Senators in the bipartisan "gang of eight" that drafted the bill -- Sens. John
McCain (R-Ariz.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Chuck Schumer (DN.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) -- patted each other on the
back.
(…)
The bill doesn't please everyone, but its passage is a victory for those who have been working on the issue for
years and watched immigration reform fail six years ago. It addresses undocumented immigrants, legal
immigration, border security, employer hiring and an entry-exit system so the government knows if
foreign nationals leave the country when their visa expires. The path to citizenship is long -- likely 13
years or more -- and arduous, but advocates are thrilled that it would exist at all, given opposition from
many Republicans and the failure of bills to carve out such a path in the past. Dreamers, young undocumented
immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, would be able to earn green cards in five years, as would some
agricultural workers.
The bill adds huge increases in border security, bolstered by an amendment from Corker and Hoeven that
helped bring on board unsure Democrats and Republicans. The amendment would prevent green card status
for undocumented immigrants until the government deploys 20,000 additional border agents, mandates
foundationbriefs.com
Page 30 of 201
December 2013
Topic Overview Evidence
E-Verify to prevent businesses from hiring unauthorized workers, completes a 700-mile border fence and
adds to entry-exit systems to track whether foreign nationals overstay their visas.
Both teams should be familiar with the most recent significant advance for immigration reform. The bill
formed by the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” provides a pathway to citizenship for undocumented citizens.
It passed the Senate in June.
The Gang of Eight Bill Progress AMS
Elise Foley. “House Democrats Introduce Immigration Bill with Little Chance of a Vote.”
The Huffington Post. October 2, 2013.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/house-democrats-immigration-bill_n_4030024.html
House Democrats unveiled their immigration reform bill [in early October] in the midst of the government
shutdown, in an attempt to pressure Republicans to act on comprehensive reform that most of them have said is
dead on arrival.
The bill is nearly identical to the one passed by the Senate in June in a 68-to-32 vote, with support from
14 GOP members and all Democrats. However, the House bill replaces the border security language from
the Senate version that convinced many of those Republican and Democratic senators to get on board,
and instead includes a measure that passed out of the House Homeland Security Committee in May. That
measure, championed by Reps. Mike McCaul (R-Texas) and Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), includes more
specific metrics to be met to ensure border security.
No House Republicans have yet signed on to the bill, but Democrats argue they should get behind it given its
bipartisan elements from the Senate bill and the McCaul-Thompson border security measure.
"Every piece of this legislation has had bipartisan support, and that is important to us," House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said.
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the New Democrat Coalition, a group of moderate members, were key
in crafting the legislative effort, along with Pelosi and the Democratic caucus. Reps. Joe Garcia (D-Fla.), Jared
Polis (D-Colo.), Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) and Steven Horsford (D-Nev.) introduced the
bill, and Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) said on the House floor earlier Wednesday that he will sign on.
Like the Senate bill, the House measure overhauls the legal immigration system, increases border and
interior security enforcement requirements and provides a path to citizenship for some of the estimated
11.7 million undocumented immigrantscurrently in the United States, along with the McCaul-Thompson
language.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 31 of 201
December 2013
Topic Overview Evidence
The Gang of Eight Bill’s Controversial Border Security Amendment AMS
Elise Foley. “House Democrats Introduce Immigration Bill with Little Chance of a Vote.”
The Huffington Post. October 2, 2013.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/house-democrats-immigration-bill_n_4030024.html
The Senate border security amendment from Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.) was
somewhat controversial even at the time it was added to the Senate bill, though senators said it was
instrumental in getting the legislation passed. It added 40,000 border agents, rather than the 21,000
agents in the original bill, and would require 700 miles of fencing and more funding for aerial drones and
surveillance of the U.S.-Mexico border. Corker said it was "almost overkill," and some pro-reform groups were
outraged at the additional steps required before undocumented immigrants could proceed on a path to
citizenship.
Although the Gang of Eight bill passed the Senate with flying colors, the amendments from the House are
controversial enough to complicate the matter. Many critics now fear that the bill will not garner enough
support for passage.
Gang of Eight Bill Deadlocked AMS
Philip Bump. “Boehner Kills the Senate Immigration Bill to the 2012 GOP’s Dismay.”
The Atlantic Wire. November 13, 2013.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/11/boehner-kills-senate-immigrationbill-2012-gops-dismay/71561/
House Speaker John Boehner hammered the last nail into the coffin of the Senate immigration reform
proposal on Wednesday. "We have no intention of ever going to conference on the Senate bill," he told
reporters, according to NBC News. Weirdly, Republicans seem to see this as presenting an obstacle to
President Obama, instead of to future Republicans.
On Tuesday, we looked at Obama's flustered attempts to get Congress to move forward on an immigration bill
that would present a pathway to citizenship or legal status for those who are here without documentation. The
Senate passed its bill in June by a wide margin. Since, the House hasn't done anything on the Senate proposal,
repeatedly either shrugging at taking it up or laughing at the prospect.
Perhaps getting tired of the question, Boehner put his foot down. A conference committee discussion on the
topic — similar to the on-going negotiations over the Farm Bill and the budget — could have helped the
two chambers reach consensus on something that could be signed into law. NBC explains why that won't
happen:
foundationbriefs.com
Page 32 of 201
December 2013
Topic Overview Evidence
[S]ome conservatives had been pushing against House passage of any immigration legislation, arguing
that Senate Democrats would use the conference to inject more liberal policies and then force
Republicans in the House to stomach changes they say are unfair to those who came to the country
legally.
And so Boehner on Wednesday: "no intention of ever going to conference on the Senate bill." House members
have been working on piecemeal approaches to the issue, but Boehner also declined to indicate whether or not
any of those would come up for a vote
Implementation
The Driving Forces Behind Illegal Immigration AMS
Pia M. Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny. “The Economic Consequences of Amnesty for
Undocumented Immigrants.” Cato Institute. 2012.
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2012/1/cj32n17.pdf
Mexico is the main source country of undocumented immigrants, accounting for almost 60 percent of the
unauthorized population. The relative strength of the U.S. and Mexican economies is therefore one of the
fundamental drivers of illegal immigration; unauthorized immigration increases when the U.S. economy
improves or the Mexican economy weakens (Orrenius and Zavodny 2005). However, the fraction of
unauthorized immigrants who are from Mexico has declined over time. Other Latin American countries
contributing heavily to the undocumented population include El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,
Ecuador, and Brazil. The Philippines, India, Korea, and China round out the top 10 countries of origin for the
unauthorized immigrant population in 2010 (Hoefer, Rytina, and Baker 2011).
To understand the basics of implementing an immigration reform plan, teams must understand the
factors at play. Both teams should familiarize themselves with immigration dynamics.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 33 of 201
December 2013
Topic Overview Evidence
Current Immigration Patterns and Policies AMS
Pia M. Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny. “The Economic Consequences of Amnesty for
Undocumented Immigrants.” Cato Institute. 2012.
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2012/1/cj32n17.pdf
Much of the undocumented population appears to have permanently settled in the United States.
Estimates suggest that less than 1 in 10 unauthorized immigrants arrived within the last 5 years, and
most have lived here for more than a decade (Hoefer, Rytina, and Baker 2011). While the typical
unauthorized immigrant is a male between the ages of 18 and 39 there are also substantial numbers of
undocumented women and children. As tougher border enforcement has led more families of unauthorized
immigrants to settle here, U.S. births to undocumented immigrant women have risen. About 8 percent of all
children born in the United States between March 2009 and March 2010 have at least one unauthorized parent.
Over one-third of undocumented adults living in the United States have a U.S.-born child (Passel and
Cohn 2009). Under current laws, U.S.-born children cannot sponsor a parent for a green card until the
child is 21 years old.
Pro and con teams must also be familiar with current immigration numbers and policies.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 34 of 201
Pro Evidence
foundationbriefs.com
Page 35 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Requires action
The Impending Issue of Illegal Immigration Requires
Immediate Action
Our options are limited JCD
Fitz, Marshall. "The Costs of Mass Deportation Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective."
Center For American Progress (2010): n. pag. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
That legislative battle for immigration reform now looms again on the horizon. There are three options for
restoring order to our immigration system:
Live with the dysfunctional status quo, pouring billions of dollars into immigration enforcement programs at the
worksite, in communities, and on the border without reducing the numbers of undocumented immigrants in the
country
Double down on this failed enforcement strategy in an attempt to apprehend and remove all current
undocumented immigrants
Combine a strict enforcement strategy with a program that would require undocumented workers to register,
pass background checks, pay their full share of taxes, and earn the privilege of citizenship while creating legal
channels for future migration flows
This card primarily serves to provide perspective for judges on the issue. This could also be used to claim
that pro is picking the best option of all that are available.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 36 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Requires action
High detention costs of illegal immigrants calls for immediate immigration reform. LOR
Noorani, Ali. "Detention Costs Convey Immigration Reform's Urgency." The Huffington
Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 22 Aug. 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
Imagine if Congress could save Americans $1.44 billion in one simple step.
Well, it can -- by making sure immigration reform includes smarter policies for detaining unauthorized
immigrants.
Broad immigration reform will be good for our nation's bottom line for a multitude of reasons. Immigrants are
key to American ingenuity and competitiveness, and new Americans take risks and help create jobs.
Immigrants even strengthen the U.S. housing market.
Our immigrant detention policies not only lock up the financial contributions of immigrants, but also cost us $5
million per day.
Those of us who want our government to spend our money more wisely can point to the huge potential for
reform to save on detention costs. With a streamlined legal immigration process, fewer immigrants will end up
in detention.
The dollar amounts are not small change.
According to "The Math of Immigration Detention," a newly updated National Immigration Forum report,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement spends almost $2 billion per year on immigration detention.
Right now, we could save almost 80 percent of that cost -- $1.44 billion -- if we switched to effective
alternatives to detention for detainees who have not been convicted of a serious crime.
Yet the House of Representatives has signaled that it plans to take the opposite approach. Its budget for the
2014 fiscal year would boost immigration detention spending to $5.6 million per day -- $164 a day for each
detainee.
[…]
In fiscal 2011, the most recent year for which statistics are available, we financed the detention of a whopping
429,247 immigrants. That's like detaining the population of Atlanta.
This card states that the unnecessary detention of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants costs the
US a substantial amount of money that could simply be put back into the pockets of Americans if
immigration reform included a pathway to citizenship. This pathway would take most of the illegal
immigrants out of prisons; thus, reducing the costs of detaining them.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 37 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Requires action
Cost of immigration regulation calls for immediate reform. LOR
Fairchild, Caroline. "U.S. Immigration Regulation Costs $30 Billion Annually: Study."
The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 04 Apr. 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
An economic think tank may have just discovered something about immigration that everyone can agree on:
The regulation associated with it is expensive.
The U.S. immigration system involves seven different government cabinet agencies that receive more than half
a billion requests a year from current U.S. citizens, immigrants and nonresident aliens, according to a study by
the American Action Forum (AAF), a center-right organization run by former Congressional Budget Office
director Doug Holtz-Eakin.
The result: tons of paperwork costing immigrants roughly $30 billion a year.
AAF found that a hypothetical skilled immigrant spends roughly 18 hours and $2,500 filling out at least 16
forms on his or her path to naturalization. The study notes that there are 234 government forms related to
immigration, translating to 98.8 million hours of paperwork per year.
The think tank also goes on to incorporate the opportunity cost of asking immigrants and U.S. citizens to make
their way through the extensive paperwork and filing fees associated with the Department of Homeland
Security's Citizenship and Immigration Services. Using Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the organization
concludes that immigration paperwork is sucking $5.9 billion annually from U.S. productivity.
“Few doubt that our current immigration system is in need of reform,” the study says. “Thankfully, many agree
that our regulatory state needs an overhaul as well."
The sheer volume of money that is consumed simply to regulate the complicated process for citizenship in
place calls for immediate reform in creating a simpler, more cost effective path to citizenship. The US
simply cannot afford to spend that amount of money on something that could be made much cheaper.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 38 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Requires action
Immigration costs more than other law enforcement agencies combined, but doesn’t have to.
LOR
Foley, Elise. "Immigration Enforcement Cost Higher Than FBI, Policing Drugs, Guns
Combined: Report." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 07 Jan. 2013.
Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
WASHINGTON -- The United States spends more money on immigration enforcement -- nearly $18
billion in the 2012 fiscal year -- than on its other law enforcement agencies combined, according to a
report released Monday from the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.
That spending went to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection and USVisit, a program that helps states and localities identify undocumented immigrants.
By contrast, the U.S. spent $14.4 billion -- combined -- on its other prime law enforcement agencies: the
FBI, Secret Service, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Marshal Service and Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
There's a reason for the high cost. The Migration Policy Institute found that ICE and CBP also refer more cases
to prosecution than those other agencies combined, and the immigration agencies also held more individuals in
fiscal year 2011 than the federal Bureau of Prisons.
Still, the numbers are striking. Immigration enforcement has expanded rapidly since 1986, when Congress
passed the enforcement-heavy Immigration Reform and Control Act. Since then, the U.S. has spent nearly
$187 billion on immigration enforcement, according to the report. The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001,
which led to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security that now houses immigration enforcement,
made the spending surge even more marked.
The government spends about 15 times more on immigration enforcement than it did in the mid-1980s,
adjusted for inflation, the report found.
At the same time, deportations have exploded. The U.S. deported about 30,000 people in the 1990 fiscal
year; in the 2012 fiscal year, it removed a record 409,894. A majority of those people were deported without
an order from an immigration judge, instead using DHS' discretion, the Migration Policy Institute found.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 39 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Requires action
Study shows that the sooner the US grants citizenship the better. LOR
Lynch, Robert, and Patrick Oakford. "The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status
and Citizenship to Undocumented Immigrants." Center for American Progress.
Center for American Progress, 20 Mar. 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
The logic behind these economic gains is straightforward. As discussed below, legal status and citizenship
enable undocumented immigrants to produce and earn significantly more than they do when they are on the
economic sidelines. The resulting productivity and wage gains ripple through the economy because immigrants
are not just workers—they are also consumers and taxpayers. They will spend their increased earnings on the
purchase of food, clothing, housing, cars, and computers. That spending, in turn, will stimulate demand in the
economy for more products and services, which creates jobs and expands the economy.
This paper analyzes the 10-year economic impact of immigration reform under three scenarios. The first
scenario assumes that legal status and citizenship are both accorded to the undocumented in 2013. The second
scenario assumes that the unauthorized are provided legal status in 2013 and are able to earn citizenship five
years thereafter. The third scenario assumes that the unauthorized are granted legal status starting in 2013 but
that they are not provided a means to earn citizenship—at least within the 10-year timeframe of our analysis.
Under the first scenario—in which undocumented immigrants are granted legal status and citizenship in
2013—U.S. gross domestic product, or GDP, would grow by an additional $1.4 trillion cumulatively over
the 10 years between 2013 and 2022. What’s more, Americans would earn an additional $791 billion in
personal income over the same time period—and the economy would create, on average, an additional
203,000 jobs per year. Within five years of the reform, unauthorized immigrants would be earning 25.1 percent
more than they currently do and $659 billion more from 2013 to 2022. This means that they would also be
contributing significantly more in federal, state, and local taxes. Over 10 years, that additional tax revenue
would sum to $184 billion—$116 billion to the federal government and $68 billion to state and local
governments.
Under the second scenario—in which undocumented immigrants are granted legal status in 2013 and
citizenship five years thereafter—the 10-year cumulative increase in U.S. GDP would be $1.1 trillion, and
the annual increases in the incomes of Americans would sum to $618 billion. On average over the 10 years,
this immigration reform would create 159,000 jobs per year. Given the delay in acquiring citizenship relative to
the first scenario, it would take 10 years instead of five for the incomes of the unauthorized to increase 25.1
percent. Over the 10-year period, they would earn $515 billion more and pay an additional $144 billion in
taxes—$91 billion to the federal government and $53 billion to state and local governments.
Finally, under the third scenario—in which undocumented immigrants are granted legal status starting
in 2013 but are not eligible for citizenship within 10 years—the cumulative gain in U.S. GDP between
2013 and 2022 would still be a significant—but comparatively more modest—$832 billion. The annual
foundationbriefs.com
Page 40 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Requires action
increases in the incomes of Americans would sum to $470 billion over the 10-year period, and the economy
would add an average of 121,000 more jobs per year. The income of the unauthorized would be 15.1 percent
higher within five years. Because of their increased earnings, undocumented immigrants would pay an
additional $109 billion in taxes over the 10-year period—$69 billion to the federal government and $40 billion
to state and local governments.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 41 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
Immigrants Benefit U.S. Citizens
Immigrants Already help the Economy
Studies Say Immigrants Help Balance the Job Market AMS
Catherine Rampell. “Are Immigrants Taking Your Job?: A Primer.” February 5, 2013.
New York Times. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/are-immigrantstaking-your-job-a-primer/?_r=0
As scholars at the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project explained recently, immigrants and native-born
workers are generally complements, rather than perfect substitutes: lower-skilled immigrants largely
sort into farming and other manual, low-paid jobs that the native-born don’t want to do, and higherskilled immigrants provide labor that high-tech companies cannot find enough trained American-born workers.
As a result, immigration creates new job opportunities for the native-born, with some particularly high-profile
examples found in Silicon Valley. According to a Kauffman Foundation study, of the engineering and
technology companies founded in the United States from 2006 to 2012, 24.3 percent had at least one key
founder who was foreign-born. In Silicon Valley alone, this number was 43.9 percent. Even outside of
Silicon Valley, entrepreneurship rates are higher for the foreign-born than the native-born, and start-ups are the
greatest source of American job growth.
The United States has always been based on immigrants. Allowing undocumented immigrants living in
the United States will allow these workers to join U.S. ranks and benefit current U.S. citizens while
receiving the benefits of citizenship.
Immigrants Increase U.S. Citizens’ Wages AMS
Catherine Rampell. “Are Immigrants Taking Your Job?: A Primer.” February 5, 2013.
New York Times. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/are-immigrantstaking-your-job-a-primer/?_r=0
Academic research suggests that, over all, immigrants create modest but positive average wage increases from
0.1 percent to 0.6 percent for American workers, according to Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney,
both of the Hamilton Project.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 42 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
Direct Benefits of Citizenship for Undocumented Immigrants AMS
Niraj Chokshi. “Immigrants Don’t Take American Jobs.” National Journal. March 22,
2013. http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/left-and-right-agree-immigrantsdon-t-take-american-jobs-20130322
And a study released Wednesday by the liberal Center for American Progress suggests that granting legal
status to undocumented workers might even create jobs.
The CAP study, led by the visiting head of the Washington College economics department, sought to
predict what would happen under immigration reform. The researchers considered a handful of
scenarios. In each, it was presumed that the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants would be
immediately granted legal status. They then looked at the effect of those undocumented immigrants not being
granted citizenship at all over a decade, getting it immediately, or getting it in five years.
Legal status alone would lead to the creation of 121,000 extra jobs annually over the next 10 years, they
found. Getting citizenship within five years would increase that to 159,000 jobs per year. And receiving
both legal status and citizenship this year would create an extra 203,000 jobs annually.
The logic behind the gains is simple. Legalization and citizenship allow the undocumented to be more
productive and earn higher wages. The increased earnings can then be spent on food, clothing, housing,
and other purchases. “That spending, in turn, will stimulate demand in the economy for more products and
services, which creates jobs and expands the economy,” the authors write. (The jobs data are depicted to the
right in the chart below.)
How Immigrants Help the Economy AMS
Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney. “What Immigration Means for U.S. Employment
and Wages.” The Hamilton Project. Brookings Institute.
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/jobs/posts/2012/05/04-jobs-greenstone-looney
As the economy continues to recover, however, it is likely that demand for immigrant labor by American
businesses and the desire of immigrants to work in the United States will continue to rise. The ability of our
immigration system to respond to these demands remains an important economic policy issue, both in the short
term and for our country’s long-term growth strategy. (…)
Although many are concerned that immigrants compete against Americans for jobs, the most recent
economic evidence suggests that, on average, immigrant workers increase the opportunities and incomes
of Americans. Based on a survey of the academic literature, economists do not tend to find that immigrants
foundationbriefs.com
Page 43 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
cause any sizeable decrease in wages and employment of U.S.-born citizens (Card 2005), and instead may
raise wages and lower prices in the aggregate (Ottaviano and Peri 2008; Ottaviano and Peri 2010; Cortes
2008). One reason for this effect is that immigrants and U.S.-born workers generally do not compete for the
same jobs; instead, many immigrants complement the work of U.S. employees and increase their productivity.
For example, low-skilled immigrant laborers allow U.S.-born farmers, contractors, and craftsmen to
expand agricultural production or to build more homes—thereby expanding employment possibilities
and incomes for U.S. workers. Another way in which immigrants help U.S. workers is that businesses adjust
to new immigrants by opening stores, restaurants, or production facilities to take advantage of the added supply
of workers; more workers translate into more business.
This economic analysis uses several surveys to explain that increased immigration helps current United
States citizens. Allowing these undocumented immigrants to receive citizenship would not only
discourage the hiring of illegal immigrants, it would better job prospects for U.S. citizens.
Immigrants are Job Creators Fj
“Building a 21st Century Immigration System” White House. May 2011.
Immigrants are entrepreneurial and create jobs in the United States. Immigrants started 25 percent of the
highest-growth companies between 1990 and 2005, and these companies directly employ an estimated
220,000 people inside the United States. These immigrant-founded companies include Intel, Google, Yahoo,
and eBay, which have all helped drive American leadership in the computer and Internet revolutions and have
stimulated business and job creation throughout our economy. These immigrants give the U.S. workforce an
important competitive advantage.
Immigrants are nearly 30 percent more likely to start a business than are non-immigrants, and they
represent 16.7 percent of all new business owners in the United States. Immigrant business owners make
significant contributions to business income. According to the latest estimates by the Small Business
Administration, immigrant business owners generate $67 billion of the $577 billion in U.S. business
income. In addition, immigrants’ contributions through job creation span different sectors of the economy. In
fact, immigrants own a large share- more than one-fifth- of businesses in our arts,
A Duke University study estimated that from 1998 to 2006, the share of patent applications from foreign
born nationals residing in the U.S. rose from 7.3 percent to 24.2 percent. Recent research highlights that
in the 1990s alone, skilled immigrants helped boost GDP per capita by between 1.4 percent and 2.4
percent. Currently, immigrants represent 24 percent of U.S. scientists and 47 percent of U.S. engineers
with bachelor or doctorate degrees. These workers are already making important contributions to the
economy. Moreover, foreign-born students studying in our universities have the potential to make significant
contributions to our future economic growth if they could stay and work in the U.S. after they graduate.
Exporting this talent to other countries is not in our economic interest.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 44 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
Immigrants are Tax Contributors Fj
“Building a 21st Century Immigration System” White House. May 2011.
Immigrants help address other fiscal challenges by paying their fair share of taxes. Studies consistently suggest
that immigrants contribute more in tax revenue than they use in services.

In 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that last year’s DREAM Act, which
would help keep educated young people in the U.S. who were brought here by their parents as
children, grew up in our country, and who know no other home, would reduce the deficit by
$1.4 billion over the next 10 years, because of increased tax revenues.

A 2007 cost estimate by the CBO found that a path to legalization for unauthorized
immigrants would increase federal revenues by $48 billion but would only incur $23 billion
in increased costs from public services, producing a surplus of $25 billion for government
coffers.

In 2006, the CBO estimated that immigration reform would cause more money to be collected in
new revenues than would be spent on social programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,
and food stamps. The increase in tax revenues would outweigh the costs in social spending
by more than $12 billion dollars over a 10-year period. The positive effects would likely
continue past the 10 year budget window, making $12 billion a lower-bound estimate of the
total long-term gain from immigration. Under the high investment assumption, CBO
estimates that enacting the bill would increase GDP by 0.4 percent, on average, from 2007
through 2011, and by 1.3 percent from 2012 through 2016. Under the low investment
assumption, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase GDP by 0.3 percent, on
average, from 2007 through 2011, and by 0.8 percent from 2012 through 2016.
In 2006, the CBO estimated that immigration reform would cause more money to be collected in new revenues
than would be spent on social programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps. The
increase in tax revenues would outweigh the costs in social spending by more than $12 billion dollars over a 10year period. The positive effects would likely continue past the 10 year budget window, making $12 billion a
lower-bound estimate of the total long-term gain from immigration. Under the high investment assumption,
CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase GDP by 0.4 percent, on average, from 2007 through 2011,
and by 1.3 percent from 2012 through 2016. Under the low investment assumption, CBO estimates that
enacting the bill would increase GDP by 0.3 percent, on average, from 2007 through 2011, and by 0.8 percent
from 2012 through 2016.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 45 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
Benefits from Immigration for the U.S. Job Market AMS
James Pethokoukis. “How does Immigration Affect U.S. Wages and Jobs?” American
Enterprise Institute. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/how-does-immigration-affectus-wages-and-jobs/
1. Immigrants with advanced degrees boost employment for US natives. This effect is most dramatic for
immigrants with advanced degrees from US universities working in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) fields. The data comparing employment among the fifty states and the District of
Columbia show that from 2000 to 2007, an additional 100 foreign-born workers in STEM fields with advanced
degrees from US universities is associated with an additional 262 jobs among US natives. While the effect is
biggest for US-educated immigrants working in STEM, immigrants with advanced degrees in general raised
employment among US natives during 2000–2007:
2. Temporary foreign workers—both skilled and less skilled—boost US employment. The data show that
states with greater numbers of temporary workers in the H-1B program for skilled workers and H-2B program
for less-skilled nonagricultural workers had higher employment among US natives. Specifically:
• Adding 100 H-1B workers results in an additional 183 jobs among US natives.
• Adding 100 H-2B workers results in an additional 464 jobs for US natives.
• For H-2A visas for less-skilled agricultural workers, the study found results that were positive, but data were
available for such a short period that the results were not statistically significant.
3. The analysis yields no evidence that foreignborn workers, taken in the aggregate, hurt US
employment. Even under the current immigration pattern—which is not designed to maximize job creation, has
at least eight million unauthorized workers, and prioritizes family reunification—there is no statistically
significant effect, either positive or negative, on the employment rate among US natives. The results thus do not
indicate that immigration leads to fewer jobs for US natives.
Study Indicates Advantages from Increased Immigration AMS
Giovanni Peri. “The Effects of Immigration on U.S. Employment and Productivity.”
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. August 2010.
http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economicletter/2010/august/effect-immigrants-us-employment-productivity/
Immigration effects on employment, income, and productivity vary by occupation, job, and industry.
Nonetheless, it is possible to total these effects to get an aggregate economic impact. Here we attempt to
quantify the aggregate gains and losses for the U.S. economy from immigration. If the average impact on
foundationbriefs.com
Page 46 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
employment and income per worker is positive, this implies an aggregate “surplus” from immigration. In other
words, the total gains accruing to some U.S.-born workers are larger than the total losses suffered by others.
Figures 1 and 2 show the response of key economic variables to an inflow of immigrants equal to 1% of
employment. Figure 1 shows the impact on employment of U.S.-born workers and on average income per
worker after one, two, four, seven, and ten years. Figure 2 shows the impact on the components of income per
worker: physical capital intensity, as measured by capital per unit of output; skill intensity, as measured by
human capital per worker; average hours worked; and total factor productivity, measuring productive efficiency
and technological level. Some interesting patterns emerge.
Figure 1
Figure 2
foundationbriefs.com
Page 47 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
First, there is no evidence that immigrants crowd out U.S.-born workers in either the short or long run.
Data on U.S.-born worker employment imply small effects, with estimates never statistically different from
zero. The impact on hours per worker is similar. We observe insignificant effects in the short run and a small
but significant positive effect in the long run. At the same time, immigration reduces somewhat the skill
intensity of workers in the short and long run because immigrants have a slightly lower average education level
than U.S.-born workers.
Second, the positive long-run effect on income per U.S.-born worker accrues over some time. In the short
run, small insignificant effects are observed. Over the long run, however, a net inflow of immigrants equal to
1% of employment increases income per worker by 0.6% to 0.9%. This implies that total immigration to the
United States from 1990 to 2007 was associated with a 6.6% to 9.9% increase in real income per worker. That
equals an increase of about $5,100 in the yearly income of the average U.S. worker in constant 2005 dollars.
Such a gain equals 20% to 25% of the total real increase in average yearly income per worker registered in the
United States between 1990 and 2007.
The third result is that the long-run increase in income per worker associated with immigrants is mainly
due to increases in the efficiency and productivity of state economies. This effect becomes apparent in the
medium to long run. Such a gradual response of productivity is accompanied by a gradual response of capital
intensity. While in the short run, physical capital per unit of output is decreased by net immigration, in the
medium to long run, businesses expand their equipment and physical plant proportionally to their increase in
production.
Peri’s report is one of the most comprehensive economic analysis pieces available for studying the effect
of immigration on job markets. His report offers evidence of immigration benefits in the short term, in
the long term, and for the economy overall. It is a vital piece of evidence for Pro teams focusing on the
economic impacts of allowing undocumented workers citizenship.
An influx of undocumented workers is not deleterious to Americans’ employment
opportunities, DAT
“Fields of Tears.” The Economist. 16 December 2010. Web.
http://www.economist.com/node/17722932
At a time of high unemployment, many Americans are convinced that these aliens take American jobs. As a
test, this summer the United Farm Workers (UFW), the main agricultural union, launched a campaign called
“Take Our Jobs”, inviting willing Americans to work in the fields. In the following three months 3m people
visited takeourjobs.com, but 40% of the responses were hate mail, says Maria Machuca, UFW's spokesman….
Only 8,600 people expressed an interest in working in the fields, says Ms Machuca. But they made
demands that seem bizarre to farmworkers, such as high pay, health and pension benefits, relocation
foundationbriefs.com
Page 48 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
allowances and other things associated with normal American jobs. In late September only seven
American applicants in the “Take our jobs” campaign were actually picking crops.
That was the point, says Arturo Rodriguez, the UFW's president. America's farm jobs, which are excluded from
almost all federal and state labour regulations, are not normal jobs. Americans refuse to do them. The argument
about stolen jobs is “just a façade” for a coarser scapegoating, says Mr Rodriguez, and “we demonstrate the
hypocrisy.”
Even if a path to citizenship is tacitly equated with a passive endorsements of undocumented workers’
presence in the U.S., this can’t in any way be construed with the notion that they take “American” jobs.
They essentially are in a separate sector, at least with respect to farm labor.
New models show that immigration significantly increases wages FJ
Ottaviano, Gianmarco and Peri, Giovanni. “Rethinking The Effects Of Immigration On
Wages” National Bureau of Economic Research. August 2006.
The general equilibrium approach is accompanied by two novel features of our analysis. First, we
remove the usual assumption that foreign- and U.S.-born workers are perfect substitutes within the same
education experience-gender group. Whether it is because immigrants tend to choose a different set of
occupations, because they are a selected group, or because they have some culture-specific skills, it seems
reasonable to allow them to be imperfect substitutes for natives even within an education-experiencegender group and to let the data estimate the corresponding elasticities of substitution. While
acknowledging that in principle “[im]migrants may complement some native factors in production... and overall
welfare may rise” (Friedberg and Hunt, 1995, page 23), most studies thus far have focused on the partial effects
of immigrants on the wages of those native worker who are their closest substitutes (i.e., within the same
occupation, education-experience or skill groups). By modeling labor as a differentiated input in general
equilibrium, we enlarge the picture to better capture the effects of immigration within and between different
groups.
The second novel feature of our analysis is a more careful consideration of the response of physical
capital to immigration. Since physical capital complements labor it is important to account for its
adjustment in the short and in the long run. In particular, when evaluating the “short run” response of
wages to immigration it seems rather artificial to maintain a fixed stock of capital, while accumulating
immigration flows occurring over ten or twenty years, as is currently done in the literature. Immigration
happens gradually over time (not at the beginning of the decade) and investors respond continuously,
although with sluggishness, to increased marginal productivity of capital caused by immigration. As for
the long run response of capital, any model of growth (Solow, 1956; Ramsey, 1928), and the empirical evidence
as well, implies that capital adjusts in order to maintain a constant real return (and capital output ratio). For the
short run, we use estimates of the speed of adjustment of capital taken from the growth and the real business
foundationbriefs.com
Page 49 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
cycle literature to evaluate the average wage impact of immigration. We are also able to assess how long it takes
for full adjustment to take place. Rather than reporting the effects of fourteen years of immigration for fixed
capital and for fully adjusted capital, we are able to estimate the effect of immigration during the 1990-2004
period as of 2004, and then we show that within the following 5 years the largest part of “the long run effect”
has set in.
Once we account for the aforementioned effects, we significantly revise several commonly
estimated effects of immigrants on the wages of U.S. natives. First, in the long run the average wage of
U.S.-born workers experienced a significant increase (+1.8%) as a consequence of immigration during
the 1990-2004 period. Even in the short run (as of 2004) the average wage of U.S. native workers
increased moderately (+0.7%) because of immigration. This result stems from the imperfect substitutability
between U.S.- and foreign-born workers so that immigration increases the wages of U.S.-born workers at the
expense of a decrease in wages of foreign-born workers (namely, previous immigrants). Second, the group of
least educated U.S.-born workers suffers a smaller wage loss than previously calculated. In the long run native
workers only lost 1.1% of their real wage due to the 1990-2004 immigration. Even in the short run (as of
2004) the negative impact was a moderate 2.2% real wage loss. The methodology used in the previous
literature would estimate larger losses, around -8% in the short run and -4.2% in the long run. The fact
that uneducated foreign-born do not fully and directly substitute for (i.e., compete with) uneducated
natives is the reason for this attenuation. Third, all other groups of U.S.-born workers (with at least a
high school degree), accounting for 90% of the U.S.-born labor force in 2004, gained from immigration.
Their real wage gains in the long run range between 0.7% and 3.4% while even in the short run they
either gain (high school graduates) or have essentially no wage change (college graduates). Finally,
considering only the relative effect of immigration on real wages of natives, namely its contribution to the
widening of the college graduates-high school dropouts wage gap and of the college graduates-high school
graduates wage gap, we find only a small contribution of immigration to the first and a negative contribution
(i.e., reduction of the gap) to the second for the 1990-2004 period. The group whose wage was most negatively
affected by immigration is, in our analysis, the group of previous immigrants; however, it is they who probably
receive the largest non-economic benefits from the immigration of spouses, relatives or friends, making them
more willing to sustain those losses.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 50 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
An influx of immigrants does not result in native workers leaving, Fj
Card, David and John Dinardo, (2000). “Do Immigrant Inflows Lead to Native
Outflows?” American Economic Review, 90, 2 360-367, May.
Recent work by Borjas, Freeman, and Katz (1996,1997), however, has been critical of these analyses. They
argue that a core assumption of these studies -- that immigration leads to an increase in the supply of labor in
local labor market is violated. Specifically, they argue that selective out-migration by natives has effectively
undone recent immigrant inflows. They note that if the arrival of one immigrant (of a given skill type) to a local
labor market leads one native (of the same skill type) to leave the local market, standard economic reasoning
suggest that immigrant inflows will have no detectable impact on local wage differentials natives have
effectively arbitraged them away (although immigration might still have important economy-wide impacts)
Wright, Ellis, and Reibel (1997) re-examine Frey’s specifications and conclude that native outflows from large
metropolitan areas are unrelated to immigrant inflows. Likewise, Butcher and Card (1991) find no evidence that
native population flows are related to immigration inflows.
Using data from the 1970, 1980, and 1990 Censuses, we investigated the extent to which skill group specific
changes in the immigrant population across various MSAs has led to a flight of similarly skilled native-born
individuals from these MSAs. Contrary to the demographic balkanization hypothesis, our point estimates
suggest that, if anything, increases in immigrant population in specific skill groups lead to small increases
in the population of native-born individuals of the same skill group. This pattern also suggests that
systematic out-migration by the native born is unlikely to provide an explanation of the small measured effects
of immigration on the labor market outcomes of the native born found in most area analyses. Indeed, we find
that immigration has had quite significant impacts on the skill distribution of various MSAs. Based on this
evidence we conclude that the local labor market impacts of unskilled immigration are mitigated by other
avenues of adjustment, such as endogenous shifts in industry structure, rather than by rapid adjustments
in the native population.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 51 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
Labor intensive industries rely on illegal immigrants. JCD
Hanson, Gordon. The Economics and Policy of Illegal Immigration in the United States.
Rep. National Bureau of Economic Research, Dec. 2009. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Illegal immigration has been hugely beneficial to many US employers, often providing benefits that the current
legal immigration system does not.
Unauthorized immigrants provide a ready source of manpower in agriculture, construction, food
processing, building cleaning and maintenance, and other low-end jobs, at a time when the share of lowskilled native-born individuals in the US labor force has fallen dramatically. Not only do unauthorized
immigrants provide an important source of low-skilled labor, they also respond to market conditions in
ways that legal immigration presently cannot, making them particularly appealing to US employers.
Illegal inflows broadly track economic performance, rising during periods of expansion and stalling
during downturns (including the present one). (1)
Though the share of low- skilled native-born individuals in the US labor force has fallen, employers continue to
require less-educated workers in US agriculture, construction, food processing, building cleaning and
maintenance, and other low-end jobs. Immigrants, unauthorized immigrants in particular, have stepped in to
provide a ready source of manpower. Unauthorized immigrant workers have been an important source of low
skilled labor supply to the US economy for many decades (5)
While unauthorized migrants are in the country illegally, many are, in some respects, well integrated into US
society. They work in formal businesses, own their own homes, shop in neighborhood stores, attend local
churches, and send their children to public schools. More than half have payroll taxes deducted from their
paychecks6 and a smaller but still significant number pays federal income taxes. (5-6) Were the United States to
restrict or eliminate illegal immigration through greater enforcement, the clear losers would be business owners
in labor-intensive industries, including agriculture, construction, lodging, restaurants, food processing, and
building maintenance and cleaning services.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 52 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
Immigrants are innovators, Fj
Anderson, Stuart and Michaela Platzer, (2006). “American Made: The Impact of
Immigrant Entrepreneurs and Professionals on U.S. Competitiveness.” National
Foundation for American Policy. http://www.nvca.org/

Over the past 15 years, immigrants have started 25 percent of U.S. public companies that were venturebacked, a high percentage of the most innovative companies in America.

The current market capitalization of publicly traded immigrant-founded venture-backed companies in
the United States exceeds $500 billion, adding significant value to the American economy. This is an
example of the enormous wealth-creating abilities of immigrant entrepreneurs.

As evidence of how important immigrant entrepreneurs have been to the U.S. technology base, the study
found 40 percent of U.S. publicly traded venture-backed companies operating in high-technology
manufacturing today were started by immigrants. Moreover, more than half of the employment
generated by U.S. public venture-backed high-tech manufacturers has come from immigrant-founded
companies.
Immigrants do not undercut less educated Americans in labor market. LOR
Porter, Eduardo. "Immigration and American Jobs." The New York Times. The New
York Times Company, 19 Oct. 2012. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
For years, economists have been poring through job market statistics looking for evidence that immigrants
undercut less-educated Americans in the labor market. The most recent empirical studies conclude that the
impact is slight: they confirm earlier findings that immigration on the whole has not led to fewer jobs for
American workers. More significantly, they suggest that immigrants have had, at most, a small negative impact
on the wages of Americans who compete with them most directly, those with a high school degree or less.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 53 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
Immigrants have overarching positive impact. LOR
Porter, Eduardo. "Immigration and American Jobs." The New York Times. The New
York Times Company, 19 Oct. 2012. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
Meanwhile, the research has found that immigrants – including the poor, uneducated ones coming from south of
the border — have a big positive impact on the economy over the long run, bolstering the profitability of
American firms, reducing the prices of some products and services by providing employers with a new labor
source and creating more opportunities for investment and jobs. Giovanni Peri, an economist at the University
of California at Davis, estimated that the wave of immigrants that entered the United States from 1990 to 2007
increased national income per worker by about $5,400 a year on average, in 2007 dollars. He also concluded
that the wave had a small positive impact on the average wage of American workers, by lifting the overall
economy. If immigrants hurt anyone, it was the previous cohort of immigrants, with whom they most directly
compete in the labor market.
Immigrants actually increase the wages of unskilled American workers that they compete
with. LOR
Porter, Eduardo. "Immigration and American Jobs." The New York Times. The New
York Times Company, 19 Oct. 2012. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
There are victims of immigration. Immigrants can displace domestic workers – before business investment
starts rising and creating new jobs. This is particularly notable in economic downturns, when demand and
business investment are depressed. Some displaced workers may not be able to fit in the reconfigured labor
market, even if new investments kick in and the economy as a whole benefits. A 50-year-old American janitor
with no high school degree may find it hard to make the transition to another job when immigrants move into
the building maintenance business.
This dynamic potentially causes a small negative impact on the wages of less-skilled workers – but it’s also
possible that this impact is positive. A study by Mr. Peri and Gianmarco Ottaviano of Bocconi University in
Milan concluded that the immigration wave into the United States from 1990 to 2006 changed the wages of
American workers with no high school degree by somewhere from minus 0.1 percent to plus 0.6 percent.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 54 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
Legalizing Illegal Immigrants makes them even more valuable
Legalized Immigrants are valuable to the workforce. JCD
Borjas, George. “Does Immigration Grease the Wheels of the Labor Market?” Brookings
Papers on Economic Activity, 1:2001. Web. 01 Nov. 2012.
Immigration greases the wheels of the labor market by injecting into the economy a group of persons who are
very responsive to regional differences in economic opportunities As a result, immigrant flows into the United
States may play an important role in improving labor market efficiency. The paper presents a simple theoretical
framework for calculating this efficiency gain from immigration. Simulation of this model suggests that the
efficiency gain accruing to natives in the United States—between $5 billion and $10 billion annually—is small
relative to the overall economy, but not relative to earlier estimates of the gains from immigration (which are
typically below $10 billion).
Allowing illegal immigrants to contribute to the economy while being exploited undermines
workers’ rights – JCD
Fitz, Marshall. "The Costs of Mass Deportation Impractical, Expensive, and
Ineffective."Center For American Progress (2010): n. pag. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The first alternative would leave in place policies that have allowed 5 percent of our nation’s workforce,
approximately 8.3 million workers in March 2008, to remain undocumented in our country is clearly an
unsustainable position in a democratic society, permitting a class of workers to operate in a shadow economy
subject to exploitation and undermining all workers’ rights and opportunities.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 55 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
The GDP will increase by $1.5 trillion with citizenship. JCD
Fitz, Marshall. "The Costs of Mass Deportation Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective."
Center For American Progress (2010): n. pag. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
In fact, a recent study by the Center for American Progress and the Immigration Policy Center demonstrates
how legalization of undocumented immigrants and more flexible immigration channels would significantly
expand the economy, by a cumulative $1.5 trillion in gross domestic product over 10 years, through increased
consumer spending, higher tax receipts, and other related factors.16 A deportation approach, by contrast, would
have the cumulative effect of draining $2.5 trillion over 10 years from the U.S. economy. That is a $4 trillion
swing in GDP depending on which policy approach we adopt.
This card and this rest of this sub-section show how citizenship is essential to the increase in economic
output as opposed to more general cards claiming how valuable immigrants are.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 56 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
Legalized workers earn more in wages. JCD
Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raúl. "Raising the Floor for American Workers The Economic Benefits
of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Center For American Progress. N.p., Jan.
2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Surveys conducted by Westat, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Labor found that the real hourly wages of
immigrants who acquired legal status under IRCA’s general legalization program had increased an average of
15.1 percent by 1992—four to five years after legalization in 1987 or 1988. Men experienced an average 13.2
percent wage increase and women a 20.5 percent increase during that period.24 And economists Sherrie
Kossoudji and Deborah Cobb-Clark found using the same survey data that 38.8 percent of Mexican men who
received legal status under IRCA had moved on to higher-paying occupations by 1992.25
Legalized workers are more likely to reinvest in their own communities. JCD
Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raúl. "Raising the Floor for American Workers The Economic Benefits
of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Center For American Progress. N.p., Jan.
2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The experience of IRCA also indicates that legalization greatly increases the incentives for formerly
unauthorized workers to invest in themselves and their communities—to the benefit of the U.S. economy as a
whole. As Kossoudji and Cobb-Clark explain, the wages of unauthorized workers are generally unrelated to
their actual skill level. Unauthorized workers tend to be concentrated in the lowest-wage occupations; they try
to minimize the risk of deportation even if this means working for lower wages; and they are especially
vulnerable to outright exploitation by unscrupulous employers. Once unauthorized workers are legalized,
however, these artificial barriers to upward socioeconomic mobility disappear.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 57 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
Legalization provides a powerful incentive for illegal immigrants to learn English and
further their education. JCD
Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raúl. "Raising the Floor for American Workers The Economic Benefits
of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Center For American Progress. N.p., Jan.
2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
IRCA allowed formerly unauthorized workers with more skills to command higher wages, and also provided a
powerful incentive for all newly legalized immigrants to improve their English-language skills and acquire
more education so they could earn even more. Kossoudji and Cobb-Clark estimate that if the men who received
legal status under IRCA had been “legal” throughout their entire working lives in the United States, their wages
by 1992 would have been 24 percent higher because they would have been paid in relation to their actual skill
level since arriving in the country and would therefore have had an incentive to improve their skills to further
increase their earning power.
This card can be used in conjunction with one that proves education leads to higher economic output. It
ultimately shows how legalization helps illegals assimilate into society, which benefits everyone in the end.
Creating a work visa program would increase the GDP. JCD
Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raúl. "Raising the Floor for American Workers The Economic Benefits
of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Center For American Progress. N.p., Jan.
2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The U.S. government in this scenario creates a new temporary-worker program that encompasses both currently
unauthorized immigrants and future immigrants, but with limited labor rights and on a temporary basis only.
Neither unauthorized immigrants nor future temporary immigrants would be granted a pathway to permanent
status or U.S. citizenship.
Legalizing the current population would increase wages across the board. JCD
Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raúl. "Raising the Floor for American Workers The Economic Benefits
of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Center For American Progress. N.p., Jan.
2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Comprehensive immigration reform brings substantial economic gains even in the short run—during the first
three years following legalization. The real wages of newly legalized workers increase by roughly $4,405 per
year among those in less-skilled jobs during the first three years of implementation, and $6,185 per year for
those in higher-skilled jobs.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 58 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
Legalization removes artificial caps on immigrants’ potential, DAT
Barcellos, Silvia Helena. “Legalization and the Economic Status of Immigrants.” RAND
Corporation. March 2010. Web.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/2010/RAND_WR754.
pdf
There are several mechanisms through which economic theory predicts that legalization can affect earnings,
occupation and mobility of illegal immigrants. Unauthorized workers are less likely to make labor market
choices with the sole objective of maximizing earnings; they also have the competing aim to minimize the risk
of apprehension by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). On the other side of the market,
employers might fear the risk of being punished for hiring illegal immigrants, which will change both the type
of jobs that are available to undocumented workers and the treatment these workers get in these jobs.
A lack of legal status might alter workers’ behavior. Illegality makes the process of searching for alternative
wage offers risky and difficult, inducing illegal immigrant workers to lower their reservation wages to
levels below those of legal workers (Bailey (1985)). Moreover, if undocumented workers rely on migrant
networks to learn information about jobs, this will reduce their geographical and occupational mobility to areas
where other illegal immigrants are concentrated and these networks are present (Massey et al. (1987); Kossoudji
and Cobb- Clark (1996)). Finally, unauthorized workers might be less likely to know or exercise their labor
rights due to the fear of being reported to the immigration authorities.
Legalizing the current population would increase tax revenue and spending power
significantly. JCD
Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raúl. "Raising the Floor for American Workers The Economic Benefits
of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Center For American Progress. N.p., Jan.
2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The higher earning power of newly legalized workers translates into an increase in net personal income of $30
to $36 billion, which would generate $4.5 to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 59 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
Legalizing the current population would create jobs. JCD
Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raúl. "Raising the Floor for American Workers The Economic Benefits
of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Center For American Progress. N.p., Jan.
2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Moreover, an increase in personal income of this scale would generate consumer spending sufficient to support
750,000 to 900,000 jobs. [...]—particularly in industries where large numbers of easily exploited, low-wage,
unauthorized immigrants currently work.
GDP growth experienced by the legalization of the current illegal population is spread
amongst many sectors of the economy. JCD
Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raúl. "Raising the Floor for American Workers The Economic Benefits
of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Center For American Progress. N.p., Jan.
2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The benefits of additional U.S. GDP growth under the comprehensive immigration reform scenario are spread
very broadly throughout the U.S. economy, with virtually every sector expanding. Particularly large increases
occur in immigrant-heavy industries such as textiles, ferrous metals, transportation equipment, electronic
equipment, motor vehicles and parts, non-electric machinery and equipment, capital goods, mineral products,
and construction. In comparison, every sector experiences significantly smaller gains under the temporary
worker scenario, while every sector contracts under the mass deportation scenario
foundationbriefs.com
Page 60 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
Legalization prevents immigrants’ educations from being wasted, DAT
Barcellos, Silvia Helena. “Legalization and the Economic Status of Immigrants.” RAND
Corporation. March 2010. Web.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/2010/RAND_WR754.
pdf
There is evidence that illegal immigrants from Mexico are drawn disproportionately from the middle of the
country’s schooling distribution (Hanson (2006)). However, illegal status imposes barriers to these workers
that prevent them from making job and location choices that maximize the returns on their human
capital. Legalization can then be interpreted as the removal of such barriers. Once immigrants are legalized we
expect them to have greater geographical mobility, to be less likely to be employed in traditionally illegal
occupations and to have higher wages. This process should improve the quality of job-worker matching and
increase the efficiency of the job market as a whole.
The onus is currently on the United States to match the global output of skilled labor and innovation.
Any failure to do so, a part of which can be attributed to illegal immigrants being inherently
underutilized in high-skill positions, can be seen as a financial and structural burden on the United
States.
Legal Immigrant workers raise the standard of living. JCD
Greenestone, Michael, and Adam Looney. Ten Economic Facts About Immigration. Rep.
The Brookings Institution, Sept. 2010. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
The most recent academic research suggests that, on average, immigrants raise the overall standard of living of
American workers by boosting wages and lowering prices. One reason is that immigrants and U.S.-born
workers generally do not compete for the same jobs; instead many immigrants complement the work of U.S.
employees and increase their productivity. For example, low-skill immigrant laborers allow U.S.-born farmers,
contractors, or craftsmen to expand agricultural production or to build more homes—thereby expanding
employment possibilities and incomes for U.S. workers. Another reason is that businesses adjust to new
immigrants by opening stores, restaurants, or production facilities to take advantage of the added supply of
workers; more workers translate into more business. Because of these factors, economists have found that
immigrants raise average wages slightly for the United States as a whole. As illustrated in the chart below,
estimates from opposite ends of the academic literature arrive at this same conclusion, and point to small but
positive wage gains of between 0.1 and 0.6 percent for American workers. (5) Taxes paid by immigrants and
their children—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the costs of the services they use. In fact, a 2007 cost
estimate by the Congressional Budget Office found that a path to legalization for unauthorized immigrants
would increase federal revenues by $48 billion but would only incur $23 billion of increased costs from public
foundationbriefs.com
Page 61 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
services, producing a surplus of $25 billion for government coffers. According to the Social Security
Administration Trustees’ report, increases in immigration have also improved Social Security’s finances. Many
government expenses related to immigrants are associated with their children. From a budgetary perspective,
however, the children of immigrants are just like other American children. The chart below compares the taxes
paid and expenditures consumed by the children of immigrants and by the children of U.S.-born citizens over
their lifetimes. Both the immigrant children and children of U.S.-born citizens are expensive when they are
young because of the costs of investing in children’s education and health. Those expenses, however, are paid
back through taxes received over a lifetime of work. The consensus of the economics literature is that the taxes
paid by immigrants and their descendants exceed the benefits they receive—that on balance they are a net
positive for the federal budget. (6)
Legalizing illegal immigrants makes it more likely for future migrants to reinvest in the
economy. JCD
Anderson, Stuart. "Answering the Critics of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Cato
Institute. N.p., 09 May 2011. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
However, some of the improvement in the lot of previously “illegal” workers came from the willingness of such
workers to invest in their human capital or U.S. labor market skills (education, training, and English language)
after the assurance they could stay permanently in the United States. That is an additional factor arguing in
favor of the positive fiscal and economic impact of legalization. “The greater educational attainment and
English proficiency of workers after legalization may have not been achieved if the workers had remained
illegally in the U.S. instead of applying for legalization,” noted Rivera-Batiz.
Granting legal temporary visas alone would be a huge boost for taxpayers. JCD
Anderson, Stuart. "Answering the Critics of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Cato
Institute. N.p., 09 May 2011. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
Replacing the current flow of illegal immigrants with legal temporary visa holders would also be a gain for
taxpayers. A 2009 study for the Cato Institute by Peter Dixon and Maureen Rimmer, both with the Centre of
Policy Studies at Monash University in Australia, compared various scenarios and concluded that U.S.
households would gain approximately $260 billion a year with a new law that permitted widespread use of legal
temporary visas as compared to increased border enforcement.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 62 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
A temporary visa tax program would negate the previous costs faced by illegal immigrants.
JCD
Anderson, Stuart. "Answering the Critics of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Cato
Institute. N.p., 09 May 2011. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
In contrast, a policy that relied on increases in temporary visas would achieve a “welfare gain for U.S.
households . . . equivalent to 1.19 percent of the gross national product, or $170 billion.” U.S. households would
gain even more, the researchers note, from implementing a visa tax. Dixon and Rimmer write, “This [policy]
would eliminate smugglers’ fees and other costs faced by illegal immigrants. It would also allow immigrants
(now guest workers rather than illegals) to have higher productivity. Both effects create a surplus gain for the
economy by raising the value of immigrant labor relative to the wage necessary to attract it. This surplus can
then be extracted for the benefit of U.S. households.”11
Most Americans agree that providing pathway to citizenship would boost economy. LOR
Berman, Jillian. "Granting Undocumented Immigrants Citizenship Would Boost
Economy, 75 Percent Of Americans Say." The Huffington Post.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 24 June 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
Most Americans believe immigration reform would be good for the economy -- the same conclusion borne out
by a lot of research.
To be exact, 75 percent of Americans agree that granting undocumented immigrants legal status would
be good for the economy, according to a recent report from Pew Research. But about half say that if
undocumented immigrants were to gain legal status they would take jobs away from U.S. citizens.
[…]
A a myriad of research has indicated that Americans are correct in assuming that granting
undocumented immigrants legal status would boost the economy.
The immigration reform bill would shrink the deficit by $197 billion over the next 10 years and $700
billion over the following decade, according to a report released earlier this month by the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office. That's less than that estimated by the American Action Forum, the conservative
think tank that predicted in April that immigration reform would reduce the deficit by $2.5 trillion over the next
10 years.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 63 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Immigrants benefit U.S.
Granting undocumented immigrants legal status would likely also help the nation grapple with some of its other
fiscal woes. The immigration reform bill would boost the trust fund used to finance Social Security by adding
more workers who would contribute payroll taxes to its coffers, according to a May analysis from the Social
Security Administration.
[…]
Still, it’s likely immigration reform would create more jobs, according to multiple analyses. For one,
immigrants now residing the country legally are more likely to start businesses and employ more
workers. In addition, legal immigrants are more likely to vie for jobs outside of the low-wage sector,
cutting down on competition.
White House points out the economic benefits of providing pathway to citizenship. LOR
Muñoz, Cecilia, and Gene Sperling. "The Economic Benefits of Providing a Path to
Earned Citizenship." The White House Blog. The White House, 13 Aug. 2013.
Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
Today, the White House released a report detailing the economic benefits of providing a path to earned
citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S. shadow
economy. As highlighted in the report, a range of economic research has shown that immigrants living and
working in the United States without authorization are earning far less than their potential, paying much less in
taxes, and contributing significantly less to the U.S. economy than they would if they were given the
opportunity to gain legal status and earn U.S. citizenship. According to outside estimates, providing earned
citizenship for these workers would increase their wages and, over 10 years, boost U.S. GDP by $1.4 trillion,
increase total income for all Americans by $791 billion, generate $184 billion in additional state and federal tax
revenue from currently undocumented immigrants, and add about 2 million jobs to the U.S. economy.
[...]
And in addition, the research shows the significant economic costs – in terms of lost growth, earnings, tax
revenues, and jobs – associated with failing to provide a path to earned citizenship for these families. Compared
to the benefits of citizenship, providing legal status alone to currently undocumented workers would, over 10
years, result in $568 billion less GDP, and $321 billion less total income. An estimated 820,000 fewer total jobs
would be created, and federal and state governments would lose out on $75 billion in additional tax revenue
according to outside estimates.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 64 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Constitutional precedent
Constitutional Precedent
The Declaration of Independence’s Words on Immigration AMS
David S. Addington. The Heritage Foundation. “Encouraging Lawful Immigration and
Discouraging Unlawful Immigration. March 27, 2013.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/encouraging-lawful-immigrationand-discouraging-unlawful-immigration
In 1776, the Declaration of Independence, in speaking of the tyranny the thirteen American colonies had
suffered under King George III of Great Britain, said:
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in
direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to
a candid world.
The Declaration’s submission of facts about the king’s tyrannical conduct included that:
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for
the Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising
the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
After the representative of George III stated in the Treaty of Paris in September 3, 1783, that “His Brittanic
Majesty acknowledges the said United States . . . to be free sovereign and independent states,” the victorious
Revolutionary War commander in chief General George Washington wrote on December 2, 1783, to an
association of Irish immigrants in New York City:
The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the
oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all
our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.
Reminding the opposition of the founding fathers’ enthusiastic praise of immigration serves as a good
attention getter and/or pathological device for debate.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 65 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Constitutional precedent
Importance of temporary work vias program. JCD
Nowrasteh, Alex. "Looking Backward for Insight on Immigration Reform." Cato Institute.
N.p., 3 Oct. 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
The second major flaw immediately preceded the passage of the 1965 Act. On its eve, the government shut
down its last large scale guest worker visa program for lower skilled migrants. Called the Bracero Program, it
had allowed laborers from Mexico to work on American farms temporarily. At its peak in the mid-1950s, the
program allowed half a million workers a year to come here legally. Like the restrictionist laws in the 1920s, it
was pressure from labor unions led by César Chávez and others that led to the demise of the Bracero Program.
The Bracero Program wasn’t perfect and had problems, many of which could have been solved by allowing
migrants to switch jobs easily, but it was much better than the vast informal economy of unauthorized workers
that developed as a result of its shutdown.
Bracero’s cancellation in 1964 leads some critics of immigration to blame the 1965 Act for causing
unauthorized immigration, which surged after that year. But it was really the cancellation of Bracero, and the
last legal way for low-skilled migrants to come here legally for work, that incentivized unauthorized
immigration.
The 1965 Act improved American immigration policy by removing the eugenic rationale from the law, but two
flaws kept it from achieving its full potential. On the 48th anniversary of the Immigration Act of 1965, let’s
hope Congress has learned from that mistake and recognizes the benefits of increased legal immigration.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 66 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Better than alternatives
Granting Citizenship is Better than Alternatives
Amnesty is Better than the Current Illegal Immigration Situation AMS
Joel Carneiro. “On the welfare impacts of an Immigration amnesty.” Institut de
Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES) (Institute of Social and Economic
Research). http://sites.uclouvain.be/econ/DP/IRES/2012010.pdf
Discarding from displacement effects on the labor market and assuming that illegal immigrants bear a certain
cost on the government’s budget (without contributing through income taxation), an amnesty leads to a slight
decrease in capital owners’ welfare through a reduction in the return to investment. The effect on the public
budget depends on the net contribution of legalized agents. The crucial question is whether a potentially
positive effect is strong enough to compensate the decrease in the interest rate. Furthermore, the model
predicts that, in general, consequences remain quite limited. In particular, comparing the amnesty to an
inflow of legal immigrants allows to show that legalization has quantitatively lower effects than
immigration. Additionally, under the studied framework, the loss in productive powers due to the deportation
of workers is likely to harm native individuals. Moreover, the more native and foreign workers are
complementary, the more likely an amnesty can benefit the former.
Pro teams should remember to reinforce the problems with illegal immigration in the U.S. today. This
problem has become so dire that most amnesty solutions will improve it to one degree or another. The
IRES economic analysis reveals that comparing amnesty, or the citizenship of undocumented
immigrants, to the alternative of allowing illegal immigration to continue unabated, amnesty is clearly the
better option.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 67 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Better than alternatives
Problems with Current Situation AMS
Brianna Lee. “The U.S. Immigration Debate.” Council of Foreign Relations. April 19,
2013. http://www.cfr.org/immigration/us-immigration-debate/p11149
Reforming the cumbersome visa and citizenship process for immigrants--particularly skilled foreign
workers in high-demand STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields--is a priority to ensure
that the country retains its competitiveness in the global economy, say some experts and politicians, who are
concerned about the prospect of a "reverse brain drain."
The U.S. visa system has long been hobbled by prolonged waiting periods, at times lasting years, resulting
in part from rigid quotas. Currently, the United States issues 140,000 green cards a year for employmentbased immigrants, of which no more than 7 percent can go to applicants from any one country. Applicants
from India and China tend to greatly outnumber those from other countries, and therefore face lengthy waits.
"These workers can't start companies, justify buying houses, or grow deep roots in their communities"
during these waiting periods, writes Vivek Wadhwa, vice president of academics and innovation at
Singularity University. "They could be required to leave the United States immediately--without notice--if their
employer lays them off. Rather than live in constant fear and stagnate in their careers, many are returning
home."
There is Not Feasible Alternative AMS
Ed Krayewski. “5 Reasons to Grant Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants.” Reason Magazine.
February 7, 2013. http://reason.com/archives/2013/02/07/5-reasons-for-amnesty-forillegal-immigrants
According to the latest estimates, there are about 11 million illegal immigrants in America. That’s a lot of
people. It would be exceedingly difficult to deport them all—if not totally impossible. Indeed, even
attempting to do so would require a massive expansion of government bureaucracy, particularly in the form of
new government workers to round up illegal immigrants, process them, and deport them. The inhumanity of this
approach goes without saying: Individuals would be ripped away from their families and communities. And
there would also be dire economic consequences from removing millions of hard-working residents from the
domestic labor pool.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 68 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Better than alternatives
The go-between of expanded guest worker programs brings a litany of issues, DAT
Krikorian, Mark. “Guestworker Programs: A Threat to American Agriculture.” Center
for Immigration Studies. June 2001. Web.
The detrimental impacts of such a program are numerous. One major problem is the high cost of such cheap
labor. The importation of workers with very low levels of education into a modern, high-tech economy
imposes a huge burden on America's taxpayers. Analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies shows
that two-thirds of Mexican immigrant workers lack even a high school education; as a consequence, two-thirds
of Mexican immigrants and their young children live in or near poverty, 31 percent use at least one major
federal welfare program (twice the rate of native-born households), and Mexican immigration since 1987 has
added 3.3 million people to the ranks of the uninsured….
But there has been little discussion of another critical aspect of such a program; namely, the impact it would
have on the various industries that would hire these workers. It is simply assumed that large swaths of the
American economy simply could not function without low-skilled, low-wage foreign labor. In Sen. Gramm's
words, "They are vital to our economy, yet they are violating our laws."
Not only is this untrue, but the large-scale availability of such labor actually impedes economic progress. This is
especially noticeable in the production of fresh fruit and vegetables, since the immigrant portion of the
agricultural workforce is higher than in any other major occupation.
Deportation is not feasible, Fj
Kasperkevic, Jana. “Deporting All Of America’s Illegal Immigrants Would Cost A
Whopping $285 Billion” Business Insider. January 30, 2012.
A year ago, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deputy director Kumar Kibble told Congress
it costs about $12,500 to deport an undocumented immigrant.
However, a 2010 report by Center for American Progress and Rob Paral and Associates took a close look at all
the budget appropriations for ICE and broke down the costs per person for each one of the four stages of
deportation process: apprehension, detention, legal proceeding and transportation. The whopping cost of
deportation per person that they came up with is $23,480.
The report states that ICE and US Customs and Borders Protection budgets have increased by 80% since 2005,
amounting to $17.1 billion in FY2010. If US were to undertake a mass deportation campaign its cost over
five years would be $285 billion, which "would mean new taxes of $922 for every man, woman, and child
in our country. $5,100 fewer dollars for the education of every public and private school student from
prekindergarten to the 12th grade."
foundationbriefs.com
Page 69 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Better than alternatives
SAFE Act alternative is harmful to a wide range of people. LOR
Garcia, Anna. "Who Would the SAFE Act Endanger?" Center for American Progress.
Center for American Progress, 28 Oct. 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
The SAFE Act does not attempt to resolve the status of the 11.7 million undocumented immigrants living
in the United States nor does it modernize our country’s legal immigration system. Rather, the SAFE Act
puts immigration enforcement on steroids, making undocumented status and overstaying a visa federal
crimes instead of civil offenses punishable only by deportation. Here are a few examples of people who
would run afoul of the SAFE Act’s unlawful presence and visa violation provisions and could be swept into the
criminal justice system:
The undocumented: The SAFE Act makes the act of being in the country without authorization a criminal
offense, punishable by fines, arrest, and jail time; it is currently not a criminal offense and can only be punished
by removal. A mother who entered the United States without inspection 20 years ago and raised a family here
would be criminally liable under the SAFE Act. Under the SAFE Act, all state and local police are deputized to
enforce immigration law. So if local police stopped that mother on her way to drop off her kids at school, she
could face six months in prison before being placed in deportation proceedings. Because the SAFE Act would
prevent immigration officials from using prosecutorial discretion to focus their limited resources on serious
criminals and repeat immigration offenders rather than parents working to feed their families, this mother would
have no chance of being able to remain in the United States with her family.
Visa violators: An international student in the United States on an F-1 student visa who drops a class and does
not meet the visa’s full course-load requirement would be considered to have violated the visa requirements
after just a single day and could face up to two years in prison in the United States before being deported. Under
the SAFE Act, the student would be ineligible to be readmitted to the United States on a visa and would not be
able to finish his studies in the United States.
Visa overstayers: A CEO who has overstayed her authorized period of admission by a single day due to an
event such as a cancelled flight could face up to two years in prison in the United States before being deported.
Like the student, the CEO would be ineligible to be readmitted to the United States on a visa.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 70 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Better than alternatives
Maintaining the status quo is wasteful. LOR
Freilich, Ellen. "Amnesty for Undocumented Immigrants Would Not Burden U.S.
Economy-Levy Economics Institute." Reuters. Thomas Reuters, 9 Aug. 2013. Web.
01 Nov. 2013.
The Levy research argues that “legalizing a significant proportion of the undocumented immigrant population
would not impose serious costs on either the economy in general or the social insurance system in particular.”
In fact, author Selçuk Eren, a Levy research scholar, finds maintaining the status quo would be
economically wasteful.
Legalization would lead to increased benefit payouts for social insurance programs, since it would make a
portion of the currently undocumented population eligible for benefits. At the same time, bringing
undocumented immigrants into the legal labor pool would boost capital accumulation in the U.S.
economy, the Institute said. Compared to legal immigrants, undocumented workers end up sending more
of their savings back to their home countries as remittances.
Moreover, offering a path to legal immigration status should increase labor productivity as newly legalized
immigrants become able to better match their skills to the jobs available without having to maneuver through
the shadows of the grey labor market.
When we ran the numbers on a scenario in which 50 percent of undocumented immigrants became legal
immigrants, the positive effects of the former outweighed the costs of the latter, leading to net benefits in
the form of overall increases in capital stock, output, consumption, and labor productivity. These positive
macroeconomic effects would also feed into improvements in the finances of the social insurance system.
As a result, the overall costs to the system would ultimately be negligible: in order to support new beneficiaries,
Social Security and unemployment insurance tax rates would need to increase by only 0.13 and 0.01 percentage
points, respectively. Moreover, for the sake of simplicity we assumed that all currently undocumented
immigrants pay into Social Security and unemployment insurance.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 71 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Examples of reform
Examples of Possible Reform
The Hamilton Project’s Reform Proposal AMS
Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney. “What Immigration Means for U.S. Employment
and Wages.” The Hamilton Project. Brookings Institute.
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/jobs/posts/2012/05/04-jobs-greenstone-looney
Our current immigration system has myriad challenges: dozens of overlapping visa categories—each
with different quotas, costs, and durations—characterize the system of legal immigration, supplemented
by country-specific caps, and even a randomized visa lottery. As a result, the system is plagued by
problems, ranging from its cumbersome and costly application systems, to its inefficient ability to meet the
needs of American families and an ever-changing economy. One measure of the inefficiency is the thousands
of dollars in legal fees that many visa applicants must spend.
In a forthcoming discussion paper for The Hamilton Project, “Immigration Policies for Jobs, Productivity,
and Growth,” University of California, Davis, Professor Giovanni Peri puts forward one approach to
immigration reform that focuses on addressing economic concerns about the U.S. immigration system. Peri’s
proposal has several steps, ranging from reforms of the current system to a wholesale restructuring. The first
step of his proposal is to introduce a market-based auction system to allocate existing temporary
employment visas. Rather than waiting in line to bring a worker into the country as an employer would
do in the current system, employers would bid on a permit to sponsor that worker in an auction.
Revenues from the auctions could be used to run the system and to compensate the state and local governments
that have the largest fiscal burdens from immigration. The discussion paper, which will be released on May 15,
details the other steps and reforms.
While Pro teams must be careful not to present a plan, providing one example of a pathway for
undocumented immigrants shows that it is possible to set up such a system.
Startup 2.0 Proposal AMS
Brianna Lee. “The U.S. Immigration Debate.” Council of Foreign Relations. April 19,
2013. http://www.cfr.org/immigration/us-immigration-debate/p11149
Within Congress, several proposals have been made to improve this process, including the
bipartisan Startup Act 2.0, which would introduce a "startup visa" for foreign entrepreneurs who
demonstrate intent to create businesses and jobs in the United States, as well as eliminate individual
country visa quotas and offer a new type of visa to foreign students graduating from U.S. universities in STEM
fields.
If the pro can provide solid examples of plans to make undocumented immigrants citizens, it will add
legitimacy to their arguments.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 72 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Examples of reform
The Gang of Eight Proposal AMS
Brianna Lee. “The U.S. Immigration Debate.” Council of Foreign Relations. April 19,
2013. http://www.cfr.org/immigration/us-immigration-debate/p11149
In early 2013, the so-called "Gang of Eight," a group of four Democratic and four Republican
senators, unveiled new immigration legislation based on months of closed-door negotiations and built on
four pillars: enhancing border security, providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented
immigrants already in the country, deterring employers from hiring undocumented workers, and
reforming legal immigration pathways.
The bill roughly doubles the number of H1-B visas allocated to high-skilled workers, and establishes
programs for guest workers and seasonal agricultural workers. Undocumented immigrants who fit a
specific set of criteria would be eligible to apply for a temporary "nonimmigrant visa" only after the
borders are secured to a specific level—after which they would have to wait a minimum of ten years without
federal benefits before applying for permanent residence. Young undocumented immigrants brought to the
United States as children would be eligible to apply for permanent residence and citizenship after five years. If
the bill passes, it will be the biggest overhaul to the U.S. immigration system in more than two decades.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 73 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Human rights violations
Prevention of Human Rights Violations
Illegal status puts undocumented victims in a double bind, DAT
Khokha, Sasha. “Silenced By Status, Farm Workers Face Rape, Sexual Abuse.” NPR. 5
November 2013. Web. http://www.npr.org/2013/11/05/243219199/silenced-by-statusfarm-workers-face-rape-sexual-abuse
Ladino is still visibly shaken by what happened back in 2006, when she says a farm supervisor constantly
harassed her and pressured her to sleep with him. She tried to rebuff him until one day, on the way back from
the fields, he took her to pick up some boxes. And, she says, he raped her. "I couldn't say anything. I couldn't
even scream because it's very traumatic. You don't know how to react," she says in Spanish.
Like many other undocumented women, she was afraid she would be branded a troublemaker if she
reported the supervisor to management. "I saw my choices: I lose my job, I can't feed my family," she
says.
But, she says, after seven months, she finally worked up the courage to lodge a complaint against the
supervisor. And she was fired. With the help of a legal aid group, Ladino eventually filed a civil suit against the
grower. The accused supervisor denied the allegations. But the company agreed to a confidential settlement in
2010.
Ladino agreed not to tell anyone the company's name and how much money it paid her in damages. She didn't
file a police report, and the supervisor never faced criminal charges or went to jail.
"Conditions that allow sexual assault to occur all revolve around who has power," says Bill Tamayo, a
regional attorney with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
With respect to social dynamics, the power imbalance that results from the position illegal immigrants
find themselves is beyond acceptable limits. While arguing for moral obligations likely isn’t tenable in a
PF round, upholding human rights is unquestionably a central tenet of US dogma and policy.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 74 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Human rights violations
Undocumented workers face an unhealthy power structure due to their status, DAT
Barcellos, Silvia Helena. “Legalization and the Economic Status of Immigrants.” RAND
Corporation. March 2010. Web.
Illegal status might also allow employers to exert monopsonistic power over the workers, such as the case in
immigrant smuggling networks (Rivera-Batiz (1999)). Another way to see it is that some employers might be
willing to trade off the greater risk of employing illegal workers with the benefit of paying lower wages.
Illegality might restrict the employment choices available to workers to few employers in marginal jobs where
they can be sheltered from detection, usually in declining industries that offer comparatively low pay (Cornelius
(1976); Gill and Long (1989); Taylor (1992)).
Undocumented Immigrants Suffer Working Laws’ Abuses AMS
Democratic Policy and Communications Center. “How the Bipartisan Immigration
Reform Bill Will Strengthen Labor.” 2012. http://www.dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-113-1159.pdf
Undocumented immigrant workers are more likely to experience wage violations than their native-born
counterparts. According to a recent survey, 76.3% of undocumented workers have worked off the clock
without pay. Nearly 40% of undocumented workers reported routine minimum wage violations.
Exploitation of Immigrant Workers AMS
Democratic Policy and Communications Center. “How the Bipartisan Immigration
Reform Bill Will Strengthen Labor.” 2012. http://www.dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-113-1159.pdf
The first nationwide study on day laborers indicated that three-fourths were undocumented immigrant
workers, and that more than half said employers had cheated them on wages in the previous two months.
A Seton Hall University Law School report highlights that 26% of undocumented immigrant workers
polled across New Jersey had been assaulted by their employer and only 14% reported the incident to the
authorities.
Undocumented immigrant workers are vulnerable to sexual exploitation. A recent study of 150 female
Mexican immigrant farm workers found that “sexual harassment and even brutal sexual assaults by male coworkers and supervisors are a constant threat for many of these workers” and 80% said they had experienced
sexual harassment. In interview of 150 undocumented female agricultural workers, the Southern Poverty Law
Center found that “virtually all women reported that sexual violence in the workplace is a serious problem.”
foundationbriefs.com
Page 75 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Human rights violations
Employers of Undocumented Immigrants Not Held Accountable AMS
Democratic Policy and Communications Center. “How the Bipartisan Immigration
Reform Bill Will Strengthen Labor.” 2012. http://www.dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-113-1159.pdf
Undocumented immigrant workers are at increased risk of retaliation from employers for raising concerns about
abuse on the job. Only 20% of immigrant hotel workers filed workers’ compensation claims for “fear or
getting ‘in trouble’ or being fired.”
Although undocumented immigrants are often subject to workers’ rights abuses, they cannot file claims
because of their citizenship status. Allowing these immigrants citizenship would allow for increased
transparency in workers rights’ laws throughout the U.S.
How Reform would Help Stop Abuse AMS
Democratic Policy and Communications Center. “How the Bipartisan Immigration
Reform Bill Will Strengthen Labor.” 2012. http://www.dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-113-1159.pdf
Reform would deter employer abuse of the immigration system. Employers would have to pay extra fees
and higher salaries in order to higher foreign workers, ensuring that they are truly needed and would not
undercut opportunities for American labor.
For example:

Employers with more than 50 employees that heavily rely on H-1B workers will be required to pay up
to a $10,000 fee per additional H-1B worker or L-1 employee as well as increased wages to deter abuse
and ensure that workers are truly needed.

Employers who meet reliance thresholds on H-1B and L-1 workers are restricted from engaging in
outplacement. An employer whose U.S. workforce consists of 15% or more L-1 workers may not
outplace a worker to a third-party site, and any outplacement carries with it a $500 fee.

The Secretary of Labor would create a toll-free hotline and website so that employees can anonymously
report violations of H1-B visas requirements.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 76 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Human rights violations
Tension between undocumented immigrants and law enforcement allows abuse to happen,
DAT
Brennan, Denise. “Ending Forced Labor by Securing Immigrant Workers’ Rights.”
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. 3 December 2009. Web.
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/ending-forced-labor-securing-immigrantworkers-rights
Forced labor exists today in part because a range of other exploitative labor conditions are allowed to
proliferate. Preventing trafficking requires securing greater workplace protections for U.S. and immigrant
workers.
When exploitation is the norm, forced labor not only can flourish, but also can blend into a background of
abuse. Since trafficked persons are not typically physically restrained, those who pick tomatoes, wash dishes,
sew clothes, or sell sex may appear to be working under the same conditions as their co-workers.
Workers in sites that are relatively hidden such as factories or private homes, or are geographically
isolated such as in agriculture, are particularly vulnerable to systematic labor violations. These workers
believe they, or their families, will be physically injured if they try to leave. All trafficked persons, regardless of
the industry-specific circumstances of their exploitation, live in fear and silence. They stay quiet in settings
where unsafe working conditions, wage violations, or abuses thrive, especially in the underground economy.
Exploited migrants have little incentive to come forward. ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)
raids on workplaces employing undocumented migrants, and the implementation of 287(g) programs to
empower local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws, have clearly chilled the relationship
between law enforcement and migrant communities. Those vulnerable to situations of forced labor are likely
to mistrust local and federal law enforcement, and labor abuses are less likely to get reported. As extreme
abuses become more difficult to detect or to prevent, rights-based organizing is needed within migrant
communities. This means building partnerships in migrant communities among law enforcement, migrant
leaders, and community-based organizations.
While undocumented immigrants are inherently considered criminals, a policy-driven focus on
persecution of this particular crime means that illegal status prevents far more egregious instances of
injustice from being rectified, which is unacceptable
foundationbriefs.com
Page 77 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Human rights violations
Employment laws and oversight programs have become meaningless, DAT
Kugler, Adriana, and Patrick Oakford. “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Will
Benefit American Workers.” Center for American Progress. 12 September 2013.
Web.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/09/12/74014/comp
rehensive-immigration-reform-will-benefit-american-workers/
To fully understand why American workers are harmed, one must first consider the role of immigration
enforcement in the workplace and how it affects the employment rights of immigrant workers. Under current
immigration law, it is illegal for employers to knowingly hire undocumented workers. Despite this
prohibition, unscrupulous employers use workers’ undocumented status to avoid compliance with
employment laws and deter them from filing formal employment complaints with federal agencies. Many
of these employers have therefore managed to go unpunished for their unlawful employment actions.
The enforcement of employment laws is triggered primarily by employees who file formal complaints with
federal agencies charged with employment-law enforcement. Therefore, when immigrants are unable to invoke
their labor and employment rights, the overall effectiveness of employment laws also declines, as fewer
employers are punished for their unlawful employment actions. This means that American workers are more
susceptible to workplace violations such as wage and hour violations or unsafe working conditions.
Despite the illegality of it, employers continue to use undocumented immigrants. This is the status quo,
and this means that the best methodology for preventing the accompanying abuses is to give illegal
immigrants a pathway to the same rights and media of expression as legal employees. In context of an
immigration overhaul, this constitutes legal status.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 78 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Human rights violations
Employers blackmail undocumented employees using immigration laws, DAT
Kugler, Adriana, and Patrick Oakford. “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Will
Benefit American Workers.” Center for American Progress. 12 September 2013.
Web.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/09/12/74014/comp
rehensive-immigration-reform-will-benefit-american-workers/
In one federal case, for example, an employer who had previously never abided by his I-9 form obligations only
started requiring employees to fill out I-9 forms after a union organizing campaign began. The employer, citing
compliance with IRCA, fired a majority of the workers—some documented, others undocumented—who were
involved in the organizing campaign. Yet the employer only chose to fire those involved in the union campaign,
even if other workers could not prove their work authorization. This case is a clear example of an employer
wrongfully using his or her immigration-related duties to attempt to deter employees from invoking their labororganizing rights.
In another reported federal case, an undocumented employee filed an employment complaint after experiencing
wage and hour violations. The employer told the employee that he would contact the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, or INS— the precursor to the Department of Homeland Security—if the employee did
not drop the complaint. The employee refused, and the employer contacted INS, which took the employee into
custody for almost 16 months. In this case, the employer, while not required to call INS under IRCA, was able
to use his knowledge of the employee’s immigration status to retaliate against the employee for invoking his
employment rights.
These two cases are by no means outliers. Employers regularly trigger immigration-enforcement actions as a
means to chill immigrants’ employment rights. One study that investigated the overlap between workplace
immigration-related raids and labor inspections found that out of the 184 workplaces in New York City
that ICE investigated over a 30-month period, 102 were also subject to employment-related
investigations. This widespread overlap suggests that employers are using the presence of immigration
enforcement as a means to escape liability under labor and employment laws. While it is unclear whether,
in each of these cases, employers triggered the immigration investigations after labor investigations began or the
investigations were simply a coincidental overlap, the takeaway is still the same: Employers are able to avoid
employment-law liability.
This card is useful in bringing together anecdotal evidence with broader statistics in verifying the notion
that illegal immigrants are systematically subject to abuse as a result of basic enforcement of what seem
to be sensible immigration laws. These problems don’t happen if these immigrants are legal and can
pursue the same pathways against employers as their documented colleagues.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 79 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Human rights violations
The statistical link between undocumented status and workplace violations, DAT
Kugler, Adriana, and Patrick Oakford. “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Will
Benefit American Workers.” Center for American Progress. 12 September 2013.
Web.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/09/12/74014/comp
rehensive-immigration-reform-will-benefit-american-workers/\
A 2010 National Employment Law Project, or NELP, study of low-wage industries in major U.S. cities found
that undocumented immigrants were nearly twice as likely to experience minimum-wage violations than legal
immigrant workers. Specifically, NELP found in its study that 29 percent of undocumented male workers and
47 percent of undocumented female workers experienced minimum-wage violations, compared to 17 percent
and 18 percent of native-born male and female workers, respectively. These findings are noteworthy because
they highlight significant labor-protection gaps connected to immigration status and gender, meaning that
undocumented women are some of the most exploited workers in our labor market.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 80 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Human rights violations
Denying a pathway to citizenship is a racial justice issue. LOR
Dianis, Judith Browne. "Immigration Reform: An Issue We Can All Support." The
Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 31 Oct. 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
Earlier this month, thousands gathered on the National Mall to show Congress they had not gone away and
would not be deterred in their quest for immigration reform with a path to citizenship. They were young, old,
union, non-union, students, and faith leaders of varying races and ethnicities. Many were willing to risk arrest,
sacrificing personal freedom to decry our nation's broken immigration system. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
observed, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Immigration is clearly a racial justice issue. In the past 20 years, the great majority of immigrants are people of
color. According to 2010 census data, less than 2 percent of unauthorized immigrants are from Europe or
Canada, while 87 percent are from Latin America, 3 percent from Africa and 7 percent from Asia. Now that the
racial composition of immigrants has changed, a number of draconian restrictions on immigrants' rights have
been enacted, making it impossible for this generation of immigrants to become "legal." This is one of the
dishonorable, hidden secrets of why 11 million people of color are undocumented and without access to
citizenship.
This issue is about right and wrong. Many millions of families are forced to live in the shadows, under fear of
arrest of deportation, feeding our nation's prison industrial complex, criminalizing the adults and separating
parents from children. It's a moral issue when people who appear to be immigrants are racially profiled,
especially in states like Alabama and Arizona, which passed laws that require police and other state officials to
determine immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" about their citizenship. These are moral issues to
which we can relate.
This article illuminates an interesting perspective on illegal immigration. It points out that most of the
illegal immigrants currently in the US are people of color, and that denying them citizenship, or making
it too difficult for them to gain citizenship is just another form of racial injustice. In order to continue the
progress the US has made in race relations among its people it must recognize that illegal immigrants will
always be part of its population and that allowing them a pathway to citizenship is the next logical step
for ensuring that racial injustice is avoided.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 81 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Human rights violations
Having illegal, exploitable workers in the job market hurts American employees, DAT
Given this system of enforcing labor and employment laws, it is not enough to simply declare that all workers
are covered under labor and employment laws. The workers covered by these laws need to be able to assert their
rights in order for employment laws to be effective at securing safe and fair working conditions. Immigrants’
inability to invoke their rights results in weakened employment protections for all American workers—and in
some instances, means that American workers are subject to violations of minimum-wage and overtime
protections, wage theft, and other forms of employment violations, such as unsafe working conditions.
In New York City, for example, many workers in the retail industry—specifically, in low-end discount stores—
are immigrants who lack legal status. A 2007 study by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University
School of Law of low-wage workers in New York City found that retail workers faced pervasive workplace
violations, including discrimination based on immigration status and immigration-related retaliation. These
employment violations against immigrants have consequences for other American workers in the
industry, evidenced by the fact that the typical hourly wage for all workers in low-end discount stores is
at most $6.00. What’s more, workers are rarely if ever paid overtime, despite working more than 50 hours a
week. This story is not unique to the retail industry or to New York City. All across America, employers are
able to take advantage of U.S. workers by using our immigration system to exploit immigrant and
undocumented workers. Moreover, given that many of the workers in these industries are immigrants, no
matter how hard American workers try to lodge complaints against their employers, the widespread
exploitation of undocumented workers will still result in poor wage and working conditions for the
industry as a whole. This research supports the view that it is the broken immigration system, not the
immigrants themselves, which leads to unlawful employment practices.
Not providing a pathway to citizenship violates basic principle of our country. LOR
Muñoz, Cecilia, and Gene Sperling. "The Economic Benefits of Providing a Path to
Earned Citizenship." The White House Blog. The White House, 13 Aug. 2013.
Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
A strong majority of Americans from diverse states and political backgrounds support a path to earned
citizenship. However, some in Congress have suggested that immigration reform should provide only legal
status, without any opportunity for those who are getting on the right side of the law to earn their way to
citizenship. This “legalization-only” approach violates a basic principle of our country: that anyone, no matter
where they came from, can become an American citizen if they’re willing to work for it and take on the
responsibilities of citizenship. We cannot afford a system that creates a group which can never become fully
American, denying equal rights to people who pay the same taxes and play by the same rules even after they've
paid a penalty and gotten on the right side of the law.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 82 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Undocumented children
Children should not be held accountable for their
parents’ actions
Children should not be held responsible for their parent's actions. JCD
Wasem, Ruth. "Overview of Immigration Issues in the 112th Congress." Congressional
Research Service (n.d.): n. pag. 12 Jan. 2012. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
In addition to the legalization options mentioned above, there are more narrowly drawn proposals (commonly
referred to as the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, or the DREAM Act) that would
enable some unauthorized alien students to become LPRs. In most cases, these bills have proposed to repeal a
1996 provision that discourages states and localities from providing certain postsecondary education benefits to
unauthorized aliens. The DREAM Act would also enable unauthorized alien students to adjust to LPR status in
the United States if they meet specified conditions. Supporters point out that these unauthorized alien students
were brought, as children, to the United States by their parents, and should not be held responsible for their
parents’ violation of immigration law.
This goes along the idea of the fairness principle that some con teams will be running. This shows how
children who are brought along with their parents should not be punished.
Children lose out on constitutional privilege and basic human rights, DAT
Chang, Cindy. “Health Care for Undocumented Immigrant Children: Special Members of
an Underclass.” Washington University Law Review, Vol. 83:4. Washington
University in St. Louis. 2005. Web.
http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1254&context=law
review
Conversely, not qualified immigrant children receive no special protections in PRWORA. Thus, PRWORA
only provides undocumented immigrant children and other not qualified immigrants with emergency care,
immunizations, and treatment for communicable diseases through public assistance. Although undocumented
immigrant children have never been eligible for federally-funded health care benefits, before PRWORA
some states afforded them state-funded benefits, and many publicly-supported health care providers
provided undocumented immigrant children with free or discounted non-emergency care. PRWORA
requires these states to enact subsequent laws to “affirmatively” provide undocumented immigrants with such
state or locally-funded services if they wish to continue providing them. Moreover, the Act deems that any state
choosing to follow the federal classification system for eligibility must use the “least restrictive means available
for achieving the compelling governmental interest of assuring that aliens be self-reliant in accordance with
foundationbriefs.com
Page 83 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Undocumented children
national immigration policy.” Thus, with states following a federal guideline, undocumented immigrant
children cannot even mount strong constitutional challenges under the Fourteenth Amendment.
PRWORA creates a dilemma for many states and publicly-funded health care institutions that treat individuals
regardless of their immigration status. Since passage of PRWORA, approximately half of the states have
enacted affirmative legislation to provide qualified immigrant children with health care benefits lost through the
Act. Yet, few have extended these measures to undocumented immigrant children. While some local health care
institutions continue to treat all individuals irrespective of immigration status, they do so under threat of legal
sanctions. Consequently, undocumented immigrant children must rely on alternative sources of health care.
Community clinics and charities have assumed much of the burden for providing care. Though some
community clinics receive government funds, their services are an exception to the restricted government
benefits. Furthermore, these clinics are often overtaxed and scarce.44 In many instances, immigrants depend on
“informal or unlicensed health care providers, self-diagnosis, or medications purchased in questionable
settings.”
PRWORA is the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. If con teams
can illustrate the absurdist near non-difference between illegal immigrant children and children of illegal
immigrants who have birthright citizenship, this card effectively demonstrates the kind of difference that
arises as a result—lost rights and lost healthcare for something out of the children’s control. The United
States can be shown as legislatively ordaining conditions unbecoming of an immigrant-accepting firstworld country.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 84 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Asylees unfairly labeled
In the Current System Asylees are Unfairly Labeled
Illegal Immigrants
The current 1 year asylum deadline unfairly labels LGBT asylees as illegal. JCD
Gruberg, Sharita. "What Immigration Reform Means for the LGBT Community." Center
For American Progress (2013): n. pag. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
In addition to legalization for LGBT undocumented immigrants, the bill also contains an important provision
for asylum seekers in the United States, which would have a special impact on people requesting asylum based
on persecution due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. Despite a failed attempt by Sen. Chuck
Grassley (R-IA) to strip this provision from the bill during Judiciary Committee debate last month, the bill
would remove the one-year asylum-application filing deadline for asylum seekers. This provision currently
prevents one in fivepeople with legitimate asylum claims from being considered for relief simply because they
fail to apply for asylum within a year of entering the United States. Since the filing deadline was introduced in
1996, more than 79,000 asylum applications have been rejected solely because of this arbitrary deadline.
While this deadline unfairly affects all asylum applicants, the bar has a disproportionate effect on the LGBT
asylees coming from the nearly 80 countries that have laws criminalizing homosexuality. Many of these
immigrants are often unaware that they are eligible for asylum based on persecution related to their sexual
orientation or gender identity. Bamby Salcedo is one such transgender asylum seeker, who, despite facing
persecution in Mexico, was unable to successfully apply for asylum because she didn’t know she had to file her
claim within one year of entering the United States. Although a judge determined that Bamby would be
extremely likely to face persecution based on her gender identity if she was deported to Mexico, the judge was
only able to grant “withholding of removal”—a category that prevents enforcement from a final order of
removal or deportation but leaves Bamby in legal limbo and unable to ever apply for residency.
The purpose of this section is to show how asylees who otherwise would have received protection have
been labeled illegal immigrants because of an ambiguous and arbitrary issue with the current law. Thus
providing this massive population of “illegal immigrants” a path to citizenship would be serving justice.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 85 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Asylees unfairly labeled
Providing citizenship to illegals helps protect LGBT asylees. JCD
Gruberg, Sharita. "What Immigration Reform Means for the LGBT Community." Center
For American Progress (2013): n. pag. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Beyond offering undocumented immigrants a road map to citizenship, the bill before the Senate also offers
critical safeguards to LGBT asylees seeking protection in the United States from the dozens of countries that
criminalize homosexuality. It also helps protect LGBT individuals in immigration detention facilities, who are
often at a high risk for abuse, mistreatment, and physical and sexual violence.
[…]
The most significant part of the bill is the creation of a road map to citizenship for the more than 11 million
undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. Of these 11 million, more than 267,000 adults
identify as LGBT. The actual number of LGBT individuals this bill would benefit, however, is much higher
since this number does not include undocumented LGBT children or adults who do not openly identify as
LGBT.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 86 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Improve labor market
How Citizenship Would Improve U.S. Labor Market
Immigrants Strengthen Key U.S. Industries AMS
Nathaniel Flannery. “Immigration Debate: What’s More Important, Border Security or
Protecting Migrant Workers?” Forbes. September 9, 2013.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanielparishflannery/2013/09/09/immigrationdebate-whats-more-important-border-security-or-protecting-immigrant-workers/
In 2013 construction, manufacturing, meatpacking, food service, and maintenance are major sectors in
the U.S. economy and also important employers of immigrant laborers. In 2012 construction spending in
the U.S.totaled $857 billion. Builder Jacobs Engineering reported nearly $11 billion in revenue in 2012 and is
poised for strong growth in 2013. Construction and maintenance giant Fluor Corporation reported revenues of
$27.6 billion in 2012. Meat producer Tyson Foods reported $33 billion in revenue in fiscal 2012. In the U.S.
major businesses have a stake in promoting immigration reform as an economic priority.
(…)
Doug Oberhelman, Chairman and CEO of Caterpillar, Inc, an Illinois based company that earned $65.9 billion
in revenues in 2012, has emerged as a pro-reform advocate. “Providing consistent, reliable access to both highskilled and low-skilled talent is critical to sustain our nation’s global competitiveness in many industries
including healthcare, technology, manufacturing, hospitality, and tourism. We need reform that will provide
opportunities for immigrants and foreign students to enter the U.S. and our workforce legally, attracting
and keeping the best, the brightest, and the hard working,” he announced during a recent public event.
How Reform Will Help U.S. Economy
Democratic Policy and Communications Center. “How the Bipartisan Immigration
Reform Bill Will Strengthen Labor.” 2012. http://www.dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-113-1159.pdf
According to the Center for American Progress, under a plan that provides undocumented workers with
legal status and eventually allows them to earn citizenship after at least 10 years, GDP would increase by
$832 billion, Americans’ incomes would increase by $470 billion, and the economy would add an average of
121,000 more jobs per year over a decade. Additionally, income of unauthorized workers would be 15.1 %
higher within 5 years, resulting in $69 billion more in federal taxes and $40 billion more to state and local
governments.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 87 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Improve labor market
Importance of Immigrants to U.S. Businesses AMS
Democratic Policy and Communications Center. “How the Bipartisan Immigration
Reform Bill Will Strengthen Labor.” 2012. http://www.dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-113-1159.pdf
In 2011 approximately 8 million undocumented workers made up a 5.2% share of the labor force.
Nearly two-thirds of these workers are employed in three broad categories, compared to 31% of
U.S.-born workers in the same occupations, including: [Pew Hispanic Center]
1. 33% as service workers;
2. 16% as construction workers;
3. 14% as production and installation workers.
Overall Wage Increases AMS
Democratic Policy and Communications Center. “How the Bipartisan Immigration
Reform Bill Will Strengthen Labor.” 2012. http://www.dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-113-1159.pdf
The real wages of less-skilled newly legalized workers would increase by roughly $4,405 per year, while
higher-skilled workers would see their income increase $6,185 per year. The wages of native-born highskill and low-skill U.S. workers also increase modestly under comprehensive immigration reform because the
“wage floor” riess for all workers.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 88 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Improve labor market
Studies based on 1986 show that pathway to citizenship would increase wages. LOR
Madland, David, and Nick Bunker. "Legal Status for Undocumented Workers Is Good
for American Workers." Center for American Progress. Center for American
Progress, 20 Mar. 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
After the United States granted legal status to a large number of undocumented workers in 1986 through the
Immigration Reform and Control Act, economists have been able to directly study the wage effects of granting
legal status. The research of this period that focused on how the legalization of undocumented workers
impacted native-born American workers finds that wages were unharmed.
Perhaps the most directly relevant study of the effect of legalization is by economists Elaine Sorensen of the
Urban Institute and Frank D. Bean of the University of Texas at Austin. The study looked at the trends in
wages of several groups and compared trends before the passage of the 1986 immigration reform to
trends afterward. Researchers studied native-born workers and immigrants who had been in the United States
for varying lengths of time. Each of these groups—native born and immigrant—was then divided into those of
Mexican origin and white, non-Hispanic workers. These gradations allowed the authors to determine which
groups, if any, newly legalized immigrants were competing against. The authors found that the wages of
native workers, whether white or of Mexican origin, were not affected by the legalization of
undocumented workers. The wages of more tenured immigrants of Mexican origin were decreased,
however, because they tend to compete for the same jobs as newly legalized immigrants.
Legalization has positive effect on wages in manufacturing sector. LOR
Madland, David, and Nick Bunker. "Legal Status for Undocumented Workers Is Good
for American Workers." Center for American Progress. Center for American
Progress, 20 Mar. 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
The other study most directly on topic is by economists Deborah A. Cobb-Clark, Clinton R. Shiells, and B.
Lindsay Lowell, of Illinois State University, the International Monetary Fund, and the U.S. Department of
Labor, respectively. Their research examined the effect of legalization on average wages for production workers
in the manufacturing sector, a sector known at the time to frequently hire undocumented workers. Their study
estimated the effect of legalization by looking at how average manufacturing wages differed across
metropolitan areas with differing amounts of newly legalized workers. Cobb-Clark, Shiells, and Lowell found
that legalization had a statistically significant positive effect on wages, though the magnitude of the
increase was very small.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 89 of 201
December 2013
Pro: Improve labor market
These results on the effects of legalization are consistent with a large and growing body of research on
immigration and wages. An emerging consensus in the academic literature concludes that the wages of
native-born workers, even low-skilled workers, are not significantly decreased by increases in
immigration. In fact, immigration may very well increase their wages because the research suggests that
the complementary effect may outweigh any impact from an increase in competition.
Not providing pathway to citizenship harms US farming industry. LOR
Dinan, Stephen. "White House: Illegal Immigrants Key to Rural Economy." The
Washingtion Times. The Washington Times, 29 July 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
The White House warned Monday that U.S. farmers could experience a shortage of workers if the
administration were to begin enforcing immigration laws, and President Obama made another push to
rejuvenate the faltering prospects for passing an immigration bill this year.
In a 20-page report looking at immigration and American agriculture, the White House said farmers are already
having trouble recruiting workers, and many are cutting back on what they grow or are moving operations
abroad as a result of the labor shortage.
That comes even at a time when the administration says it isn’t targeting those rank-and-file illegal immigrants
for deportation — something the administration hinted could change, and could harm farms and rural
communities.
“Without providing a path to earned citizenship for unauthorized farmworkers and a new temporary
program that agriculture employers would use, a significant portion of this farm workforce will remain
unauthorized, thereby susceptible to immigration enforcement actions that could tighten the supply of
farm labor,” the report said.
Numbers are difficult to pinpoint, but the White House said anywhere from 50 percent to 60 percent of farm
workers are in the U.S. illegally.
[...]
“Under the current system, rural America is losing opportunity and harvests due to lack of a stable
workforce,” the White House said. “Coupled with a decline in native-born rural populations, the strength
and continuity of rural America is contingent on common-sense immigration reform that improves job
opportunity, provides local governments with the tools they need to succeed, and increases economic
growth.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 90 of 201
Con Evidence
foundationbriefs.com
Page 91 of 201
December 2013
Con: Sends wrong message
Granting Undocumented Immigrations Citizenship
Sends the Wrong Message
Amnesty Is Not the Answer to Unlawful Immigration AMS
David S. Addington. The Heritage Foundation. “Encouraging Lawful Immigration and
Discouraging Unlawful Immigration. March 27, 2013.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/encouraging-lawful-immigrationand-discouraging-unlawful-immigration
On occasion, proposals arise that would grant amnesty to aliens who have entered the country unlawfully, or
who entered lawfully but whose authorization to remain has expired. The term “amnesty” is often used
loosely with reference to aliens unlawfully in the United States. Sometimes it refers to converting the
status of an alien from unlawful to lawful, either without conditions or on a condition such as a payment
of a fee to the government. Sometimes it refers to granting lawful authority for an alien unlawfully in the U.S.
to remain in the U.S., become a lawful permanent resident, or even acquire citizenship by naturalization, either
without conditions or on a condition such as payment of a fee to the government or performance of particular
types of work for specified periods. Amnesty comes in many forms, but in all its variations, it discourages
respect for the law, treats law-breaking aliens better than law-following aliens, and encourages future
unlawful immigration into the United States.
(…)
Grants of amnesty, regardless of the form of the reward they give to aliens who knowingly entered or
remain the U.S., discourage respect for the law, treat law-breaking aliens better than law-following
aliens, and encourage future unlawful immigration into the United States. If America suddenly awards
legal status to aliens unlawfully in the United States, it will treat them better than aliens abroad who follow
America’s immigration procedures and patiently await their opportunity to get a visa authorizing them to come
to the United States. And, of course, if America suddenly awards legal status to aliens unlawfully in the U.S., it
will, as the IRCA amnesty proved, spur more aliens to enter or remain unlawfully in the United States, in the
confident expectation that Congress will continue enacting future amnesties that provide aliens unlawfully in
the U.S. a shortcut to legal status. The government should pursue a measured set of approaches to a wide variety
of immigration issues, but in all events exclude amnesty for aliens unlawfully in the United States.
This piece both defines one important term for this topic, “amnesty,” and explains why simply allowing
undocumented immigrants citizenship conflicts with the rule of law.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 92 of 201
December 2013
Con: Sends wrong message
The idea that immigrants need to remain in America is a false ideal, DAT
Howley, Kerry. “Guests in the Machine.” Reason. Reason Foundation. Web.
http://reason.com/archives/2007/12/17/guests-in-the-machine
Because U.S. immigration is so readily conflated with Americanization, the mythology of America’s immigrant
past cuts against acceptance of a guest worker program. The story of the American Dream does not include a
chapter for those who want to take the money they’ve earned and buy a home with a white picket fence and
two-car garage in Mexico. The narrative allows no space for transience. Even the terms we use, from
“anchor baby,” to “chain migration,” belie an inability to accept the essentially fluid nature of world
migration patterns.
“There is that traditional mythology—that the rest of the world is just dying to be American,” says the Princeton
sociologist Douglas Massey. “In the past that wasn’t true. There was heavy return migration of Italians and
Poles in the 20th century, but it gets lost in historical memory.”
Because the collective memory is largely shaped by the immigrants who stay, it’s easy to forget how many
came and left. According to the historian Mark Wyman, author of Round-Trip to America, at least a quarter of
the 23 million immigrants who came to the states between 1880 and 1930 eventually made their way back
home. The return migration rate for Italians was even higher, at 50 percent.
Statistics show a similar fluidity today, though these numbers tend to get lost in our culturally narcissistic
debates over contemporary immigration patterns. Massey heads Princeton’s Mexican Migration Project, which
has been collecting data on immigration for 25 years. In 1997, the Public Policy Institute analyst Belinda Reyes
used that data to conduct a study of 42,000 documented and undocumented immigrants from western Mexico.
Fifty percent, she found, returned in two years; 70 percent in 10 years. The immigrants who decided to stay
were also the most desirable from a policy perspective: the most educated and the most integrated into
the labor market. Those most likely to leave were uneducated men—the demographic that peoples guest
worker programs from Saudi Arabia to Singapore.
This card helps build an argument against a key implicit assumption the con needs to subvert with lay
judges in each judges: immigration has a reciprocal in emigration. Just because an individual comes to
the United States does not entail that the individual ought to remain. The last paragraph also makes an
important distinction between who makes the decision to stay: the actor (an immigrant) or authority
(U.S. policy allowing that individual to stay, as a naturalization program most strongly and directly
would). Con teams can center an argument around individualism in advocating for remaining in the
United States to be a matter of individual tendency, which would be a net benefit given that more
“desirable” individuals tend to stay and currently the migration pattern is overall going back to Latin
America.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 93 of 201
December 2013
Con: Sends wrong message
Legalization would encourage future illegal immigration, magnifying the harms in the
current system. JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Finally, the most harmful effect of the adoption of a new amnesty would be the message it would send around
the world. Amnesty would be seen as another indication that we are periodically prepared to forgive persons
who violate our immigration laws by granting them entitlement to the jobs they came seeking. As long as
foreigners are encouraged by our actions to ignore our immigration laws, we will forever be hard pressed to
defend our borders. And, not only will America’s most vulnerable workers suffer from unfair competition
against illegal aliens for jobs, but that competition will become even harsher because of the newly legalized
workers competing for jobs from employers who scrupulously hire only legal workers.
Birthright citizenship is already creating an overpopulation issue that will be magnified with
legalization. JCD
Taylor, Paul, Mark H. Lopez, Jeffrey Passel, and Seth Motel. "Unauthorized Immigrants:
Length of Residency, Patterns of Parenthood." Pew Hispanic Center. 1 Dec. 2011.
Web. 01 Nov 2013
About 5 million unauthorized adult immigrants—49%—are in families with minor children. Along with the
approximately 1 million unauthorized immigrants who are children, an additional 4.5 million people younger
than 18 were born in the U.S. to at least one unauthorized immigrant parent. While the population of
unauthorized immigrant children has decreased from a peak of 1.6 million in 2005, the number of U.S.-born
children with at least one unauthorized immigrant parent has more than doubled since 2000. Unauthorized
immigrants comprise slightly more than 4% of the adult population of the U.S., but because they are relatively
young and have high birthrates, their children make up a much larger share of both the newborn population
(8%) and the child population (7% of those younger than age 18) in this country.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 94 of 201
December 2013
Con: Sends wrong message
Pathway to citizenship does not solve problem of illegal immigration. LOR
Walshe, Shushannah. "RNC Calls for Immigration Reform, but No Pathway to
Citizenship." ABC News. ABC News Network, 16 Aug. 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
The Republican National Committee passed a resolution Friday calling on President Obama and Congress to
pass immigration reform legislation before the end of the year, but it did not include a pathway to citizenship for
any of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country, unlike the bipartisan legislation passed by the
Senate in June.
The resolution criticized the current system, calling it “premised upon obsolete public policy” and
“outdated technology,” and said the “best deterrent to illegal immigration is a well-functioning program
for legal immigration, which we do not have.”
The resolution called on the president and Congress to create a new work permit program, which, according to
the resolution, would “allow foreign nationals who are currently in the country and have not violated any other
laws of the U.S. to come forward and register and be allowed to remain and work in the U.S.”
The language, though, specifically excluded a path to citizenship. The work permit, which would need to be
renewed every two years, would “not not result in application for citizenship nor any family members entering
the U.S.” It would also require the immigrant to have “proof of continuous employment,” with no more than
two months per year of unemployment.
[...]
The resolution called for increased border security, including the completion of a border fence and increased
law enforcement or military patrols, as well as mandatory employer use of the E-verify system.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 95 of 201
December 2013
Con: Lower wages
Large Increases in Immigration Lower Wages
Past Results Show that Immigration Lowers American Wages AMS
James Pethokoukis. “How does Immigration Affect U.S. Wages and Jobs?” American
Enterprise Institute. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/how-does-immigration-affectus-wages-and-jobs/
George Borjas and Lawrence Katz, two Harvard labor economists who tend to be more skeptical of the benefits
from immigration, beg to differ. Between 1980 and 2000, U.S. workers saw their wages fall in the short-run
by 3.4 percent due to immigration.
Harms from Increased Immigration AMS
Giovanni Peri. “The Effects of Immigration on U.S. Employment and Productivity.”
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. August 2010.
http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economicletter/2010/august/effect-immigrants-us-employment-productivity/
However, in the short run, when businesses have not fully adjusted their productive capacity, immigrants
reduce the capital intensity of the economy. Finally, immigration is associated with an increase in average
hours per worker and a reduction in skills per worker as measured by the share of college-educated workers
in a state. These two effects have opposite and roughly equal effect on labor productivity.
When it comes to the economic effects of allowing undocumented workers citizenship, con teams must
focus on the negative immediate effects. These teams should argue that although the economy may
eventually adjust to reflect the influx, the short term results are not sustainable for the economy’s
current condition.
Immigration is especially hard on blue collar workers Fj
Borjas, G., (2003). “The Labor Demand Curve is Downward Sloping: Re-examining the
Impact of Immigration on the Labor Market.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 118,
1335-1374.
These estimates, combined with the very large immigrant influx in recent decades, imply that
immigration has substantially worsened the labor market opportunities faced by many native workers. Between
1980 and 2000, immigration increased the labor supply of working men by 11.0 percent. Even after
accounting for the beneficial cross effects of low-skill (high-skill) immigration on the earnings of high-skill
(low-skill) workers, my analysis implies that this immigrant influx reduced the wage of the average native
worker by 3.2 percent. The wage impact differed dramatically across education groups, with the wage
falling by 8.9 percent for high school dropouts, 4.9 percent for college graduates, 2.6 percent for high
school graduates, and barely changing for workers with some college.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 96 of 201
December 2013
Con: Lower wages
Amnesty Hurts Documented Immigrant Workers AMS
Pia M. Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny. “The Economic Consequences of Amnesty for
Undocumented Immigrants.” Cato Institute. 2012.
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2012/1/cj32n17.pdf
Amnesties can lead to effects on labor market outcomes among natives and other immigrants. If newly
legalized immigrants move out of ethnic enclaves or into higher-skilled occupations or better jobs, those
movements are likely to affect natives and other immigrants. Labor market outcomes may worsen for
natives and other immigrants if newly legalized immigrants compete with them for jobs. If the immigrants
who adjust status are long-term U.S. residents they are more substitutable for native workers than newly
arriving immigrants, which heightens the labor market effect (Orrenius and Zavodny 2007). Competing native
workers and other immigrants may choose to move or switch occupations in response.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 97 of 201
December 2013
Con: Welfare costs
Welfare Costs
U.S. Welfare Programs Cannot Afford the Strain AMS
Derrick Morgan. “Why America Can’t Afford Amnesty.” Heritage Foundation. October
11, 2013. http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/10/why-america-cantafford-amnesty
The Senate-passed bill anticipates granting amnesty to some 11 million people who are living in America
illegally. Although proponents of this so-called path to citizenship blithely assure us that it won’t cost the
taxpayer a dime, rigorous analysis by The Heritage Foundation reveals that’s just not so. In fact, it will
cost at least several trillions. (…)
Heritage’s Robert Rector examined the fiscal effect of adding amnestied immigrants to the rolls of federal
entitlement programs such as Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare and the more than 80 means-tested federal
welfare programs.
Some background: More than half of illegal immigrants who head households don’t yet have a high school
diploma; about a quarter have only a high school diploma. That contrasts sharply with the native-born
population, where under 10 percent of heads of households have less than a high school diploma.
In our modern economy, education usually is the key to higher earnings. Those with less education – whether
immigrants or native born – tend to earn less (thus paying less taxes) and receive more in government services
and benefits.
Today, the typical illegal immigrant is 34 years old, has a 10th-grade education and lives in a household that
already receives $14,387 more in government benefits than it pays in taxes. After an “interim” period of 13
years set by the Senate bill, that typical household would become eligible for the full panoply of welfare and
entitlements.
(…)
These are the same programs that federal actuaries say will be strained soon to the point of collapse,
without adding millions of beneficiaries whose claim on the benefits began when they entered or stayed in
the country illegally.
Amnesty and the welfare state simply don’t mix. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman once
observed: “It is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to
welfare. You cannot have both.”
Although the United States has always been proud to take in a diverse array of immigrants, the nation
simply cannot withstand the welfare strain that would come with the citizenship of the current millions of
undocumented immigrants.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 98 of 201
December 2013
Con: Welfare costs
Unsustainable Costs AMS
J.D. Heyes. “Immigration Amnesty Bill Would Instantly put Millions on Welfare.”
Natural News. May 10, 2013.
http://www.naturalnews.com/040277_immigration_reform_welfare_illegal_aliens.ht
ml#
At a time when the U.S. government is spending a trillion dollars more a year than it takes in, it makes no
sense at all for our elected leaders to be considering any legislation that adds to the federal deficit, which
is already more than 100 percent of our entire gross domestic product.
And yet, that's exactly the kind of legislation dominating the discussion and debate in Washington, D.C. What's
worse, the people who would benefit from this new, costly legislation, aren't even American citizens.
(…)
The new "immigration reform" bill making the rounds in our nation's capital is nothing more than an amnesty
for 95 percent of the illegal immigrants currently in our country (…).
(…)
The immigration bill introduced to the Senate a week and a half ago would, if passed, allow illegal
immigrants to access state and local welfare benefits immediately. ... The financial impact of allowing
potentially millions of immigrants onto state and local public assistance could overwhelm these
programs' budgets.
The ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., found the welfare loophole in
the mammoth, nearly 900-page bill, as well as several others that has circulated in a memo, which was obtained
exclusively by Breitbart in advance.
"The Gang of Eight made a promise that illegal immigrants will not be able to access public benefits," Sessions
said in a statement to Breitbart News. "We already know that, once granted green cards and ultimately
citizenship, illegal immigrants will be able to access all public benefit programs at a great cost to
taxpayers. We have, however, identified a number of loopholes that would allow illegal immigrants to draw
public benefits even sooner than advertised."
foundationbriefs.com
Page 99 of 201
December 2013
Con: Welfare costs
Tenable welfare states rely on a degree of exclusivity to remain solvent, DAT
“Welfare and Amnesty.” The Economist. 8 May 2013. Web.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/immigration-reform
First let's set the record straight on Milton Friedman's oft-misunderstood "warning" about open borders and the
welfare state. In a lecture titled "What is America?" Mr Friedman offers this thought:
“[I]t is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And
you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promised a
certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or
not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.
Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that
Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good
thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as its
illegal.”
Please note that this is an argument in favour of large-scale illegal immigration, which is not what Messrs
Demint and Rector wish to recommend. In the context of a large welfare state, Friedman favoured illegal over
legal immigration because, (a) immigration to jobs is "a good thing" for everyone involved, and (b) illegal
immigrants are ineligible for most forms of government transfer payments and therefore must be immigrating
for jobs, which is just great. Friedman's argument here amounts to little more than the simple observation
that it's infeasible to give lots of free money to anyone who shows up, because scads of people will then
show up just for free money, and there won't be enough money to go around.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 100 of 201
December 2013
Con: Welfare costs
Illegal aliens partake in widespread Medicaid fraud. JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Although illegal aliens are precluded from Medicaid coverage, some fraudulently access this program. Only
anecdotal information is available about the amount of Medicaid usage by illegal aliens who use stolen
identities of U.S. citizens or qualified “green card holders.
“‘I didn't think to do harm to anyone; I only wanted the pain to end,’ murmured Mariana de la Torre, 28,
nearly two years after her cervical cancer pushed her, an illegal Mexican immigrant, into secretly using
another woman’s name and Social Security number for Medicaid benefits and other aid. …Trinity [hospital]
has absorbed roughly $317,000 in treatment costs for de la Torre, with Medicaid picking up an additional
$106,000, the hospital said.”
—Chicago Tribune, 2009
The above case documented medical costs of more than a half million dollars for treatment provided to the
illegal alien. Commenting to the Chicago Tribune about this case, an organizer for the League of United Latin
American Citizens (LULAC) in Chicago who works with low-income immigrants seeking medical assistance
said that “undocumented immigrants” are using stolen IDs more frequently than officials suspect. “It’s
absolutely common.”
In three recent state fiscal cost studies, we found estimates of uncompensated medical care for illegal aliens that
appear to provide a median level of such outlays, i.e., $184 per year per illegal alien in Colorado, $192 per
illegal alien in Florida, and $185 per illegal alien in Nevada. Most illegal aliens will be healthy and have no use
of emergency medical services, some will have employer-provided medical insurance, and some, like Mariana
de la Torre, above, will have enormous costs. We assume that an average cost of about $190 per illegal alien per
year would apply to the half of the illegal alien population — not including U.S.-born children of illegal aliens
— that may be fraudulently using Medicaid
foundationbriefs.com
Page 101 of 201
December 2013
Con: Welfare costs
Legalizing illegal aliens will increase the number who already heavily rely on the existing
welfare program. JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The TANF welfare program replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program in 1997. A
GAO report in 1997 estimated that in fiscal year 1995 155,000 illegal alien-headed families received AFDC
payments of $700 million. In addition 224,000 illegal alien-headed families received Food Stamps at a value of
$430 million per year.
From 1990 to 2000, child-only cases increased as a share of all TANF cases rose from 11.6 percent to 34.5
percent. The number of child-only cases over that decade grew by more than 70 percent.53 Child-only TANF
cases are not exclusively children of illegal aliens as these cases also arise, as noted above, when legal alien
parents are barred from eligibility for their first five years as immigrants and when a parent has placed a child in
the care of a grandparent or other relative who is not eligible in his or her own right for benefits.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 102 of 201
December 2013
Con: Welfare costs
The impacts of mass naturalization can’t be predicted and will likely be worse than expected,
DAT
Goldman, Dana et al. “Immigrants and the Cost of Medical Care.” Health Affairs. Vol.
25:6. Web. http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/6/1700.full.pdf+html
However, comparisons of native- and foreign-born residents belie substantial heterogeneity within the
immigrant population. In 2000, undocumented immigrants were 94 percent Hispanic, while half of immigrant
citizens were white or Asian. Undocumented immigrants were twelve years younger, on average, than
immigrant citizens and eight years younger than permanent legal residents. Only 5 percent of
undocumented immigrants had a college degree, compared with 32 percent of immigrant citizens and 18
percent of permanent legal residents. Mean household income of immigrant citizens ($56,386) was about
three times that of undocumented workers ($17,511). Although labor-force participation rates were similar
between the native- and the foreign-born, immigrants were much more likely to work in food and agriculture,
personal services, or textiles—industries known to be less likely to offer health insurance to their employees.
Health insurance is an important determinant of health care costs. Whether coverage is privately or publicly
provided affects who bears these costs. Uninsurance rates for the foreign-born were twenty-four percentage
points higher than those for natives. But differences within the foreign-born population were even greater
(Exhibit 1⇑), with rates of noninsurance as high as 68 percent for undocumented immigrants compared
to 23 percent for naturalized immigrants.
Access to private rather than public insurance explains much of the coverage disparity among the foreign-born.
Fewer than 23 percent of undocumented immigrants had employer coverage in 2000, compared with 59 percent
of immigrant citizens. The foreign-born generally have somewhat lower rates of publicly provided coverage
than natives. Understanding the impact of different rates and types of coverage of the native- and foreign-born
is important, but equally central are the enormous differences within the foreign-born population.
There are two worrying signs (at least) to get out of the disparities in data between documented and
undocumented foreign-born individuals in the United States: 1) The impact of illegal immigrants on the
welfare system cannot be reliably extrapolated from general immigrant data, and 2) The cost of illegal
immigrants, due to their relative incoming disadvantage, is thus prone to be much higher.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 103 of 201
December 2013
Con: Welfare costs
Social security’s failure would be expedited if amnesty is granted. JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The proponents of an amnesty for illegal aliens cite the contributions of illegal alien workers to the social
security trust fund without their receiving a commensurate benefit as a justification for adoption of an amnesty.
They also suggest that a benefit would accrue from an amnesty by moving illegal alien workers into the aboveground economy where they would then be paying social security taxes. Nevertheless, they fail to note that if an
amnesty were adopted, the benefit from unclaimed payments would cease because from then on the taxes paid
by those workers would be credited towards their receiving retirement benefits. They also fail to note that the
same workers would be able to claim preamnesty payments into the trust fund as counting towards the 40
quarters necessary to qualify for retirement benefits, thereby erasing the earlier benefit to the system. Finally,
they also neglect to mention that the social security system is a redistributive tax system, meaning that low
wage earners receive more in benefits compared to contributions than is the case for high wage earners. lowwage earners are likely to receive much more in benefits than they contribute in payments. that implies that the
adoption of an amnesty will contribute to the speed of the approaching insolvency of the social security trust
fund.
Granting amnesty would lead to an increase on the drain on Medicare funding. JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
While the amnesty advocates are quick to point to the tax contributions of illegal aliens in the above-ground
workforce as a fiscal benefit, they fail to alert policymakers to the fact that the benefit would disappear if an
amnesty were adopted. This would happen because the newly legalized population would become eligible to
draw against the Medicare system. While it is generally accepted that the illegal alien population resorts to
taxpayer supported medical care less often than the general population, largely because of a younger average
age and greater reluctance to access government benefits because of their illegal status, the latter factor would
change following an amnesty. the presumed results of an amnesty would be an increase in workers in the aboveground economy — and, therefore, payments in Medicare taxes — offset by increased demands on Medicare
services by this newly eligible and generally low-wage earning population.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 104 of 201
December 2013
Con: Welfare costs
Birthright citizenship will make Medicaid exploitation even more widespread. JCD
Graglia, Lino A. Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens: An Irrational Public
Policy. Rep. University of Texas Review of Law and Policy, 11 Jan. 2010. Web. 01
Nov. 2013.
Many of the welfare costs associated with illegal immigration, therefore, are due to the current birthright
citizenship policy. Put another way, greater efforts at barring illegal aliens from federal welfare programs will
not significantly reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access the benefits. Nationwide, 40
percent of illegal alien-headed households receive some type of welfare. In some states, the rate is higher: in
New York, 49 percent receive welfare; in California, the rate is 48 percent; in Texas, it is 44 percent; and in
Georgia, 42 percent of illegal alien-headed households receive welfare.5 Only 19 percent of households headed
by native-born citizens make use of a major welfare program.
Illegal immigrants help keep social security afloat, DAT
Brugless, Gary, and Audrey Singer. “The Earnings and Social Security Contributions of
Documented and Undocumented Mexican Immigrants.” Brookings Institution. 7
December 2010. Web.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2010/12/07%20immigrant
%20earnings%20burtless%20singer/1207_immigrant_earnings_summary_burtless
_singer.pdf
An estimated 11 million immigrants live in the United States without legal authorization to do so. Most of these
immigrants work, and many hold jobs that are covered by social security. Their social security taxes increase
the OASDI Trust Fund and, at least temporarily, improve the solvency of the social security program.
Using information supplied by Mexican migrants to the United States in the Mexican Migration Project (MMP),
we analyze the social security coverage of jobs held by legal and other-than-legal Mexican immigrants who
work in the United States. We also track changes in the legal status of undocumented workers who enter the
United States and earn wages inside and outside the social-security-covered sector. If undocumented workers
eventually legalize their status, it is possible their social security contributions could eventually result in a
claim on social security, reducing the net gain to the OASDI Trust Fund from undocumented workers’
contributions.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 105 of 201
December 2013
Con: Welfare costs
On balance, the absence of a legal pathway is beneficial to government finances, DAT
Brugless, Gary, and Audrey Singer. “The Earnings and Social Security Contributions of
Documented and Undocumented Mexican Immigrants.” Brookings Institution. 7
December 2010. Web.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2010/12/07%20immigrant
%20earnings%20burtless%20singer/1207_immigrant_earnings_summary_burtless
_singer.pdf
The MMP surveys provide some information about changes in the legal status of Mexican immigrants who
either entered or stayed in the United States without legal authorization. Only a small proportion of these
migrants report a change in their status that allowed them to live and work legally in this country. Two-thirds of
these changes in legal status occurred within five years of passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act
(IRCA) in 1986. This finding implies that an overwhelming share of the legalizations observed in the MMP
sample were traceable to that one-time change in the standard for admitting undocumented migrants to
permanent residency status. IRCA provided the opportunity for a large number of undocumented immigrants to
legalize their residency status under a program that ultimately provided legal status to more than 3 million
immigrants by 1992. The law attempted to reduce the size of the population that was illegally residing in the
United States through legalization of those who were undocumented. One presumed and desired labor
market effect was that legalized immigrants would be more likely to enter into jobs in the formal sector
and have taxes withheld from their pay after they legalized. In the absence of new legislation to permit
unauthorized immigrants to convert their legal status, only a small percentage of undocumented workers are
likely to be granted permanent residency status in the future. Thus, the social security-covered earnings of
most of the undocumented workers who earn them will never result in an increased claim for social
security benefits.
This card presents a tradeoff: legalization results in income tax getting taken (the taxes are withheld from
initial income) but social security claims can also be filed. Given that the United States’ status quo is that
the government can continue to finance itself through increased efficiency and controlled loans
(essentially covering costs that income taxes don’t cover) while social security is on the brink of
insolvency, the con can show preserving social security and welfare programs as best as possible to be the
priority in the economic approach to the round.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 106 of 201
December 2013
Con: Welfare costs
Costs of providing pathway to citizenship outweigh fiscal benefits. LOR
"Cost of Giving Illegal Immigrants Path to Citizenship Could Outweigh Fiscal Benefits."
Fox News. FOX News Network, 29 Jan. 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
Research shows creating a path to citizenship for so many illegal immigrants would result in significant
costs to state, local and federal governments.
“This doesn’t make them bad people, but (lawmakers) should be honest with the public,” Steve Camarota,
director of research for the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, says. “Don’t sell them a bill of
goods.”
While most studies, including one by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, have focused on the impact
at the state and local levels, where most of the socials services for illegal immigrants are provided, Camarota
has also looked at the impact on the federal government.
He estimated in an often-cited 2004 study that illegal immigrants paying taxes and getting access to such social
services as Medicaid or food stamps would cost taxpayers $29 billion annually.
Contrary to the conventional wisdom, he argued, the main reason illegal immigrants create a large deficit is not
their heavy use of social services but their lack of education, which results in low-paying jobs and small
income-tax contributions.
“On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other
households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households,” writes Camarota, in his 2004
study “The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget.”
Providing path to citizenship will cost the US trillions of dollars. LOR
Dann, Carrie. "Conservative Group Pegs Cost of 'path to Citizenship' at $6.3T." NBC
News. NBC, 6 May 2013. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.
A new study from the conservative Heritage Foundation estimates that granting a path to citizenship for illegal
immigrants will cost US taxpayers at least $6.3 trillion. [...]
The $6.3 trillion calculation derives from the federal benefits Rector and co-author Jason Richwine
believe an estimated 11 million newly legalized immigrants will receive over their lifetimes versus the
taxes they will pay.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 107 of 201
December 2013
Con: Welfare costs
A summary of the report, for example, states that "former unlawful immigrants together would receive
$9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes, for a lifetime 'fiscal deficit'
- at minimum -- of $6.3 trillion (total benefits minus total taxes.)"
Those benefits, the study states, will eventually include means-tested welfare benefits and health care as well as
Social Security payments.
The report's authors acknowledge that their estimated price tag concentrates only on the citizenship piece of
proposed immigration reform legislation rather than estimating the costs of the massive bill as a whole. But they
argue that the economic benefits of a comprehensive reform that includes a path to citizenship would still be
minimal compared to cost of "amnesty." [...]
But Rector states that, because the average age of an undocumented immigrant is just 34 years old, the
accumulated benefits after these individual become citizens will far outweigh their contributions to the
economy.
Undocumented immigrants in the US will bring more immigrants, straining welfare system.
LOR
Seminara, Dave. "Legalizing Illegal Immigrants a Bad Idea." Chicago Tribune. Chicago
Tribune, 08 Feb. 2013. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.
It's not just 11 million people. A substantial percentage of illegal immigrants are here alone, and once they get
green cards, they will be able to petition for their wives and children to join them in the U.S. And if they
become U.S. citizens, they will also be able to petition for their siblings and parents. Those migrants, in turn,
can petition for their relatives and so on. Not all of the immigration preference categories are immediate, but
within 10 to 15 years, legalizing 11 million migrants could result in possibly 30 million new arrivals.
Strain on social services. Legalizing millions of mostly poor people, many of whom have no job security or
health insurance, will put a strain on already strapped social services agencies. A study by the Center for
Immigration Studies estimated that 57 percent of immigrant households (legal and illegal) used at least one
welfare program in 2009. Illegal immigrants aren't eligible for most benefits, but once this group has legal
status, they'll be eligible for the full range of benefits.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 108 of 201
December 2013
Con: Dual citizenship problems
Increased Cases of Dual Citizenship Create Problems
Dual citizenship leads to divided loyalty when voting. JCD
Renshon, Stanley A. "Reforming Dual Citizenship in the United States Integrating
Immigrants into the American National Community." Center for Immigration
Studies. N.p., Sept. 2005. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Bruce Fein writes that, “Approximately 60 countries permit expatriates or migrants to vote via absentee ballots,
including Venezuela, Columbia, Brazil, and Honduras.” Immigrants from these countries to the United State
number in the millions.
[...]
[T]he conflicted attachments that underlie his concern about American citizens voting in foreign elections
leading to conflicts have equally worrisome implications for American domestic politics and the community
attachments that underlie them. American citizen nationals from country X may be tempted to vote in ways
consistent with their home country’s interests in measures or votes brought before the American people for
resolution. Country X, for example, may want its languages to be the language of instruction at school, whereas
American community interest would be for all its members to be fluent in English. Multiple and conflicted
attachments are a problem at home, as well as abroad
Countries have begun to take advantage of the loyalty issues of dual citizenship. JCD
Renshon, Stanley A. "Reforming Dual Citizenship in the United States Integrating
Immigrants into the American National Community." Center for Immigration
Studies. N.p., Sept. 2005. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
These countries realize that voting is one principal way of organizing and extending their influence and of
reestablishing and reinforcing immigrant ties to their “home” countries. And voting does not entail simply
marking a ballot or pulling a lever — it is preceded by a campaign. When Mexico was considering whether or
not to encourage dual citizenship for its nationals abroad (primarily in the United States), it conducted a study
of the possible benefits. That study envisioned a scenario in which “Thousands of Mexican election officials
have fanned out across the United States to supervise the balloting which caps a campaign in which candidates
have barnstormed through Mexican population centers, lambasting United States immigration, narcotics, and
other policies unpopular in Mexico.”
foundationbriefs.com
Page 109 of 201
December 2013
Con: Dual citizenship problems
Dual citizenship creates a large population of uninformed voters unable to sufficiently fulfil
their civic duties. JCD
Renshon, Stanley A. "Reforming Dual Citizenship in the United States Integrating
Immigrants into the American National Community." Center for Immigration
Studies. N.p., Sept. 2005. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Americans do not have, and are not acquiring, the levels of basic information and proficiencies that are essential
to living in and supporting a democratic republican form of government. These deficiencies apparently extend
from our average students to our “best and brightest.” They raise severe questions about whether American
children will have the tools to shoulder the responsibilities of living in and helping to guide the United States
through dangerous and difficult times. And they certainly don’t give much comfort to those who believe it is no
difficult matter to be sufficiently versed in the history, politics, and policies of two cultures. It remains to be
seen whether it is truly possible to be conversant with the traditions and policy debates of two countries.
Evidence keeps mounting that doing so even in one country is a task beyond the reach of increasing numbers of
American citizens.
Dual citizenship gives a large portion of the population an unfair and unproportional
amount of representation. JCD
Renshon, Stanley A. "Reforming Dual Citizenship in the United States Integrating
Immigrants into the American National Community." Center for Immigration
Studies. N.p., Sept. 2005. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Martin points out that, “as the globe shrinks and international cooperation increases, political decisions made
by other nations have an increasing effect outside their own borders. … Human beings are generally represented
in these settings by elected national political leaders, or by their delegates. A person who has a say in selecting
two or more sets of those leaders … secures an advantage.”
foundationbriefs.com
Page 110 of 201
December 2013
Con: Dual citizenship problems
Dual citizens don't bear the consequences of their second votes. JCD
Renshon, Stanley A. "Reforming Dual Citizenship in the United States Integrating
Immigrants into the American National Community." Center for Immigration
Studies. N.p., Sept. 2005. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
However the issues go deeper that whether select groups have a larger voice through multiple voting. There is
also a very large issue of who bears the consequences of second, foreign votes. Certainly, not the dual citizens
who continue to live in the United States while voting abroad.
Israel is a good example of this issue. In their 1999 elections, the two parties stood for very divergent policies
with regard to the security of that country. Yet every American Jew who voted in that election, whether left or
right in their political views, would not be in Israel for the consequences. It was, in effect, a free ride from the
real responsibility that comes with living where the consequences will be most directly felt. Living with the
consequences of your choice is one mechanism that helps to ensure focus and perspective.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 111 of 201
December 2013
Con: Fairness Principle
Legalization will be a Violation of the Fairness Principle
in the Immigration System
Most justifications to seek legality in the current system are groundless. JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
In addition to asylum cases, illegal aliens may choose to fight their deportation on the basis of hardship. To do
so they must establish more than 10 years presence in the United States, good moral character, and that
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship would occur to an immediate family member who is a U.S. citizen
or legal resident.41 Only a small percentage of these are granted, and it may be assumed that all of the expenses
of the unsuccessful cases relate to illegal aliens attempting to prolong their illegal stay in the United States.
These cases are heard by immigration judges in EOIR.
A further avenue for an illegal alien to attempt to avoid deportation is to apply for relief from deportation under
the Convention against Torture (CAT) provisions. The most recent data available indicate that most of these
cases are not judged meritorious. In 2007, for example, immigration courts considered 28,130 claims for CATbased relief, and granted such relief in 541cases (1.9%) About four percent of CAT cases were granted in
2008.42 These cases also are heard by immigration judges in EOIR Roughly, no more than a quarter of all the
cases decided in the immigration court system are meritorious, and an estimated three-fourths of the EOIR
expenditures may be considered federal outlays on illegal aliens. The fiscal year 2011 appropriation for EOIR
was favorably reported by the House (report 111-149) at $296,685,000.
By granting illegal aliens citizenship, the government would betray all notions of justice in the
immigration system.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 112 of 201
December 2013
Con: Fairness Principle
Repeat offenders for illegal immigration are considered felons. JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
As a disincentive to repeated attempts by illegal aliens to sneak into the country, a trial program was established
to prosecute repeat violators as felons rather than simply putting those who were Mexican back across the
border. In fiscal year 2010, $33,000,000 was appropriated for this effort. For fiscal year 2011, the
administration has requested an additional $10 million for investigative and prosecutorial activities in the
Southwest.
This re-emphasizes that we would essentially be giving criminals preference in the immigration process
over law abiding members of society.
Using dependence on unlawful labor as a justification for illegal immigrants is simply unjust.
JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
In their effort to convince the public that illegal alien workers are an economic benefit, their advocates tend to
ignore that many of those workers are being exploited. Neither indentured servitude nor sweat shops nor
prostitution nor other types of unlawful labor should be rationalized economically. Policymakers should not
tolerate unfair competition based on hiring illegal aliens. They have an obligation to uphold the law and,
thereby, create a level playing field for all entrepreneurs.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 113 of 201
December 2013
Con: Fairness Principle
Illegal immigrants use birthright citizenship to gain an unfair advantage in the immigration
system. JCD
Feere, Jon. "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global
Comparison."Backgrounders and Reports. Center for Immigration Studies, Aug.
2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2013
A child born to illegal aliens in the United States can initiate a chain of immigration when he reaches the age of
18 and can sponsor an overseas spouse and unmarried children of his own. When he turns 21, he can also
sponsor his parents and any brothers and sisters.9 Family-sponsored immigration accounts for most of the
nation’s growth in immigration levels. Of the 1,130,818 immigrants who were granted legal permanent
residency in 2009, a total of 747,413 (or, 66.1 percent) were family-sponsored immigrants. A change to U.S.
immigration laws in the late 1950s — one that allowed for the admission of extended family members outside
the nuclear family — resulted in the average annual annual flow increasing from 250,000 then, to over 1 million
today. This number continues to rise every year because of the ever-expanding migration chains that operate
independently of any economic downturns or labor needs.10 Although automatic and universal birthright
citizenship is not the only contributor to chain migration, ending it would prevent some of this explosive
growth.
Illegal immigrants use birthright citizenship to circumvent the possibility of deportation. JCD
Feere, Jon. "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global
Comparison."Backgrounders and Reports. Center for Immigration Studies, Aug.
2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2013
The U.S. State Department is not permitted to deny a woman a temporary visitor visa simply because she is
pregnant and the legal document she obtains means she is not likely to be stopped at the border.19
Consequently, the practice of granting automatic birthright citizenship allows a seemingly temporary admission
of one foreign visitor to result in a permanent increase in immigration and grants of citizenship that were not
necessarily contemplated or welcomed by the American public. Add to this the fact that immigration authorities
are less likely to deport a visitor who overstays their permitted time if they have a U.S. citizen child […]
foundationbriefs.com
Page 114 of 201
December 2013
Con: Fairness Principle
Amnesty violates the fairness principle in the immigration system. JCD
Morgan, Derrick. "Immigration Reform Without Amnesty." The Heritage Foundation.
N.p., 08 Oct. 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
We must have immigration laws, of course. It’s vital that we know who is in the country and restrict entry for
those who threaten national security. Embracing an amnesty for those here unlawfully -- something enacted in
1986 and proposed again in the Senate’s “comprehensive” approach -- would be unfair, costly and unworkable.
Unfair because of those already in line. Under our current system, in which we don’t really enforce the law,
those who respect the law and wait to come are languishing in line. Those without such scruples are allowed to
reside here and ultimately get legal status.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 115 of 201
December 2013
Con: Less educated harms
Immigrants will Interfere with Less Educated Americans
Picture is Bleak for Less Educated Americans AMS
Steven A. Camarota. “Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants and the Employment Picture for
Less-Educated Americans. February 2013. Center for Immigration Studies.
http://cis.org/amnesty-for-illegal-immigrants-and-the-employment-picture-for-lesseducated-americans
President Obama, and the so called "gang of eight", seems to believe that the kinds of jobs done by such
workers are plentiful. However, data from the fourth quarter of 2012 show that the employment picture is
bleak for less-educated native-born Americans, who are the most likely to compete with illegal
immigrants for jobs.
Among the findings:
In the fourth quarter of 2012, the standard unemployment rate (referred to as U-3) for U.S.-born adults
who have not completed high school was 18.7 percent.
Using the broader measure of unemployment (referred to as U-6), which includes those who want to work but
have not looked recently, the rate for U.S.-born adults who have not completed high school was 30.8 percent.
The U-3 unemployment rate for U.S.-born workers who have only a high school education and no
additional schooling was 9.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012. Using the U-6 measure, the
unemployment rate was 17.3 percent.
The total number of U.S.-born working-age adults (18 to 65) not working was 50 million in the fourth quarter of
2012. This is up almost 8.3 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2007, when the recession began.
If we consider all American citizens (U.S.-born and naturalized), the number of working-age adults not holding
a job was 53.7 million.
More than half (26.9 million) of working-age American citizens not holding a job have no education beyond
high school. This is a huge pool of potential less-skilled workers.
The above figures for less-educated citizens not working do not include the 3.2 million adults forced to work
part-time, nor do they include the 7.1 million teenagers (16 and 17) not working. They also do not include the
142,000 less-educated U.S. citizens over age 65 who are actively looking for a job.
It is difficult to overstate the size of the pool of potential workers that now exists in the United States. If
through enforcement a significant fraction of illegal immigrants returned to their home countries rather than
being allowed to stay with legal status, there would seem to be an ample supply of idle workers to replace them,
foundationbriefs.com
Page 116 of 201
December 2013
Con: Less educated harms
particularly workers who have relatively little education. Of course, employers might have to pay more and
offer better benefits and working conditions in order to attract American citizens. But improving the
living standards and bargaining power of the least-educated and poorest American workers can be seen
as a desirable social outcome. The contention that there is a general labor shortage that has to be satisfied by
giving work authorization and/or citizenship to illegal immigrants rather than encouraging them to return to
their home countries is entirely inconsistent with the available evidence. Further both the President and the
"gang of eight" have proposed increasing legal immigration, including for jobs that require relatively little
formal education. Again the data do not support the contention that there is a general labor shortage in the
United States or a shortage of less-educated workers.
While many Americans are struggling with unemployment, the nation cannot afford a huge influx of lesseducated immigrants.
Legalization would put additional stress on the financial aid system for college students. JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Similarly, the legalization of college age illegal alien students, as proposed in the DREAM Act and other
proposed legislation would expose the states to additional expenditures of further billions of dollars in
educational subsidies and applications for financial assistance. Perversely, the states that have heeded the
federal law enacted in 1996 to deny in-state tuition to illegal aliens could see their expenditures rise faster than
the minority of states that have chosen to ignore the federal prohibition and are already placing that burden on
their taxpayers.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 117 of 201
December 2013
Con: Guest worker better
Guest Worker Programs Are More Lawful and Effective
Con times will find themselves in a tough spot trying to argue against the path to citizenship presented in
the resolution if they fail to also provide a cogent advocacy for something superior—well-pointed legal
and financial criticisms of legislation including a path to citizenship are strengthened when the con can
present an advocacy—in this case, a large-scale guest worker program—that clearly eschews the pitfalls
of what the pro is being asked to argue for. Treating undocumented immigrants in the U.S. as guest
workers also presents a more balanced approach for con teams than advocating for deportation.
A guest worker program can effectively balance policy, wage, and labor requirements, DAT
Miroff, Nick. “Canada’s Guest Worker Program Could Become Model for U.S.
Immigration Changes.” The Washington Post. 5 January 2013. Web.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/canadas-guest-worker-program-couldbecome-model-for-us-immigration-changes/2013/01/05/2b82a468-551b-11e2-89de76c1c54b1418_story.html
Overall, nearly as many Mexicans are now leaving the United States, whether voluntarily or as deportees, as the
number who arrive, a trend that has raised alarms of labor shortages in industries such as food service and
farming that are historically dependent on low-paid migrants.
“For anybody who believes that there will be a wild and endless flow of [Mexican migrants] into the
future, that’s just not realistic,” said Craig Regelbrugge, vice president for government relations at the
American Nursery and Landscape Association, a trade group.
According to industry estimates, U.S. farms hire more than 2 million workers each year, at least half of whom
are thought to be in the country illegally.
Farm laborers already tend to earn minimum wage or more, experts say, so employers wouldn’t
necessarily have to pay higher wages to guest workers than what they currently pay illegal migrants.
Still, some U.S. farmers and other employers fear that if the illegal workforce is granted legal status or
“amnestied,”, many of those workers will seek jobs in less-arduous occupations.
Guest worker programs reciprocally benefit origin countries, DAT
Howley, Kerry. “Guests in the Machine.” Reason. Reason Foundation. Web.
http://reason.com/archives/2007/12/17/guests-in-the-machine
As the world gradually learns to locate Singapore on a map (it’s on the tip of the Malaysian Peninsula), Little
India is expanding. The Ministry of Manpower says the construction industry will need between 40,000 and
50,000 more foreign workers if projects like the Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort are to rise from the page.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 118 of 201
December 2013
Con: Guest worker better
When the visas are granted, these workers will add to a non-resident workforce of 670,000. That may not sound
like much by the standards of the United States, where 670,000 doesn’t even capture the number of
undocumented workers who cross the border in a single year. But Singapore is a city-state little larger, and far
more densely populated, than the city of Chicago. Its growing foreign population is party to a radical
experiment in labor mobility.
…
If larger economies were to introduce guest worker programs like Singapore’s, the impact on migrant
welfare would be enormous. The number of foreign-born residents in the wealthy countries of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is now a mere 7 percent of the total
population, as compared with the Asian city-state’s 43 percent. The Harvard economist Dani Rodrik
estimates that if OECD nations were to administer small temporary labor schemes, with the imported
workers totaling just 3 percent of the countries’ labor forces, the result would “easily yield $200 billion
annually for the citizens of developing nations,” dwarfing the $60 billion the same countries offer in
official development aid.
At its simplest, this can be presented as a basic financial cost-benefit demonstration. Throwing $60 billion
spent on development against $200 billion plus addressing the undocumented labor force is the kind of
heavily imbalanced statistic that can help swing a round.
The U.S. faces a labor shortage, and targeted visa distribution is the solution, DAT
Clemens, Michael. “More Unskilled Workers, Please.” Foreign Policy. 8 July 2013. Web.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/07/08/immigration_bill_unskilled_labor
?page=0,0
People who acquire higher skills create less-skilled jobs that they themselves aren't suited for. Less-skilled
immigrants fill that gap. Machines may be able to take over a few of these jobs; that's why you're seeing more
self-checkout registers in retail stores. But no machine we'll have anytime soon can help the elderly bathe
safely, clear tables at restaurants, or profitably pick cucumbers. People who do less-skilled essential jobs
make skilled work in America possible, and together they make American competitiveness possible. You
might never see the people who clean Google's offices, but the company's massive contribution to U.S.
competitiveness would not exist without them.
There's nothing new here. This is how America has been filling essential jobs since 1776 -- by giving
opportunities to hardworking, less-skilled people from around the world. My great-great-great-grandfather came
to the United States from Germany as a livestock tender because the bankers and architects of the 1840s needed
him to do that work. The Senate's immigration reform bill continues that tradition with employment visas
specific to less-skilled work: the "blue card" for farmworkers and the W visa for nonagricultural
foundationbriefs.com
Page 119 of 201
December 2013
Con: Guest worker better
workers. It is essential to include those provisions and make them as flexible as possible to meet needs for
decades to come. They are a sign of U.S. workers' skill, excellence, and productive power. Without
provisions like these, any reform of immigration law will leave only two roads ahead: either throwing
away economic growth and competitiveness that the United States could have had, or a continued,
escalating crisis of unauthorized immigration.
Necessary labor can be provided while upholding enforcement of basic immigration laws,
DAT
Haden, Peter. “Canadian Guest Worker Program Could Be Model for U.S.” Cronkite
Borderlands Initiative. Arizona State University. 24 September 2013. Web.
http://cronkite.asu.edu/buffett/canada/guestworkers.html
The Canadian program has been looked at by those crafting new legislation in the United States, according to
Kristi Boswell, director of Congressional Relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation. She said it was a
good model, except that Canada — employing an agricultural workforce of 280,000 in 2011 — had much
smaller labor needs than the United States.
Boswell considers the current U.S. immigration system broken. The industry needs workers yet runs huge risks
in employing so many undocumented immigrants. One part of the current proposal would force employers to
use the federal government’s legal worker verification system – known as E-Verify. If workers did not pass the
E-Verify check they would be dismissed.
“Currently, we approximate over one million hired workers in the industry of agriculture,” said Boswell. “We
know, and are one industry that will admit, that a large percentage of them are undocumented — about 60-70
percent. And with the looming threat of E-Verify, we recognize that agriculture would face big economic losses
in productivity if we could not access our labor force.”
While this card appears to subvert the negative impacts of illegal immigrants, it legitimizes a cogent con
advocacy by establishing the legal framework upon which a migrant worker framework (whose benefits
other cards in this section already explain) would be tenable.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 120 of 201
December 2013
Con: Focus on ROI
Government Focus Should Be On Return On Investment
Through financial outlays such as public education and emergency medical services, the United States
government essentially “invests” into illegal immigrants. From a quantifiable financial cost perspective,
then, the onus should be on the United States government to achieve a return on that investment through
immigration reform. This entails measures that do not go to the extent of citizenship pathways for illegal
immigrants or their children
The U.S. can recover education spending through an expansion of Plyler v. Doe, DAT
Johnson, Kevin R. “Bias in the Legal System? An Essay on the Eligibility of
Undocumented Immigrants to Practice Law.” University of California, Davis Law
Review, Vol. 46:1655. University of California, Davis. 2013. Web.
http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/46/5/Bias/46-5_Johnson.pdf
The issues raised by the applications to practice law by persons like Sergio Garcia are part of a larger set of
issues concerning the status of undocumented immigrants in American social life. Eligibility for state driver’s
licenses, for example, has been a contentious political issue. For at least a generation, the U.S. Supreme Court
has addressed the questions surrounding the constitutional treatment of undocumented persons like Garcia
brought to this country by their parents. A number of undocumented immigrants in the United States are in a
similar position to Sergio Garcia.
If denied a license to practice law, Sergio Garcia would in effect be punished for the decisions of his parents to
unlawfully bring him as a toddler to this country, precisely the result that the Supreme Court in Plyler v. Doe
sought to avoid. Pursuant to the Court’s holding in that case, undocumented students attend public elementary
and secondary schools, and some, like Garcia, have beaten the odds to succeed academically. Garcia’s
licensing as a lawyer would allow the state of California, which subsidized his elementary, secondary, and
postsecondary education, to benefit from his economic and other contributions to the state as a lawyer. In
addition, having spent virtually his entire life in the United States and succeeding in the American education
system, Garcia, in almost all respects but his immigration status (which is set for regularization as soon as a visa
is issued), is fully integrated into American society.
The study contains exposition on Sergio Garcia who was brought to the United States illegal when he was
under 2 and eventually passed the bar exam in hopes of becoming a lawyer. Essentially, the state can
broaden its gamut of privileges for the undocumented and see mutual benefits without resorting to
naturalization pathways.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 121 of 201
December 2013
Con: Focus on ROI
Naturalization, if anything, precludes the economic gains of immigration, DAT
Bandow, Doug. “Immigration Benefits the U.S., So Let’s Legalize All Work.” Forbes. 16
September 2013. Web.
Immigration reform, once the top priority coming out of the 2012 presidential election, has stalled. The Senate
has passed legislation, but the House is badly divided.
…
Anyway, immigration benefits the U.S. The economic advantages are significant. Many immigrants are natural
entrepreneurs, establishing companies, creating jobs, and driving innovation. Well-educated and highlytrained foreign workers are inventive and productive. Expanded work forces increase business
flexibility, allowing companies to quickly respond to changing demands. Larger labor forces also
encourage specialization. Labor productivity rises as companies adjust to larger work forces and invest in
employees.
…
To move forward Congress should separate employment from citizenship. Since the most obvious benefits of
immigration are economic, legislators should expand work visas for multiple skill levels. Renewable
permits should be issued to individuals; compliance could be enforced by requiring immigrants to post a bond
or deposit some of their earnings in a bank account, payable upon their departure. Immigration auctions or
tariffs also would be innovative alternatives.
Congress also should regularize the status of those currently in America illegally. Washington should grant
residence and employment permits, renewable or permanent, to the undocumented, freeing them of the
fear of deportation. They then would be more likely to invest in education and training and integrate
into the larger surrounding community.
In contrast, Congress should leave debate over turning illegal aliens into fellow citizens as well as legal workers
for the future. In fact, some policymakers are considering just such a compromise.
This card comes down to explaining the idea of picking your battles wisely. Any advocacy for a
naturalization pathway runs into the necessity of pragmatism, which at this point amounts to something
less than a path to citizenship. The pressing need for a) political consensus, b) some kind of immigration
reform, and c) a tenable way to maximize the economic returns on all immigrants makes the citizenship
pathway a suboptimal policy option.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 122 of 201
December 2013
Con: Focus on ROI
A path to citizenship is unnecessary and redundant, DAT
Bandow, Doug. “Immigration Benefits the U.S., So Let’s Legalize All Work.” Forbes. 16
September 2013. Web.
The world is filled with people who would be productive, creative, law-abiding, decent, and otherwise worthy
American citizens. Not all of them can share in the benefits and responsibilities of American
citizenship. Immigration policy requires making choices, imposing criteria, and establishing procedures. Those
who come illegally have no greater claim to citizenship than anyone else.
Moreover, for immigrants seeking economic opportunity—which typifies the undocumented—legal
residency and employment are more important than political participation. With the former two they
would enjoy most of the benefits of American society. Naturalization would result in some additional “rights,”
but regularization even without citizenship would dramatically improve the status of today’s illegal immigrants.
Indeed, many of those here illegally appear to prefer legality over citizenship. Only 40 percent of those
eligible for citizenship under the 1986 legislation naturalized. Two-thirds of the 5.4 million Mexican
immigrants eligible for citizenship have not done so.
Newly legalized residents who desired to become citizens could apply for citizenship under existing
rules. Indeed, Rep. Goodlatte proposed granting illegal aliens provisional legal status, after which they could
use existing law to apply for a green card and ultimately citizenship, but “none of those would be special ways
that have been made available only to people who have come here illegally.”
This card establishes that there is a balance is pragmatic real-world impacts from both naturalization
and simple legality (or legal residency). Thus, con teams can shift a debate to a discussion of what is more
pragmatic, simple, etc. This is an arena where, given the greater potential for political gridlock and
public disapproval toward a path to citizenship, the con can make a compelling case.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 123 of 201
December 2013
Con: National security concerns
Mass Legalization would raise National Security
Concerns
Proponents of amnesty severely downplay the crime rates of illegal aliens. JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
A number of studies assert that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes and be in prison than the general
population. Data that support this finding ignore the fact that the share of aliens in federal prisons is much
higher than the share of the foreign-born population of the country. Some studies also disguise the issue of the
crime incidence of illegal aliens by lumping foreign-born individuals who are U.S. citizens and those who are
legal permanent residents (LPRs) together with those who are illegal aliens. Because immigrants have been
screened to prevent the entry of persons with criminal records, both when they apply for entry and when they
apply for U.S. citizenship, they have an extremely low incidence of criminality. It is, therefore, unlikely that the
population of either naturalized U.S. citizens or LPRs will contain many criminals, and those that are still
present should be on the path to deportation. For that reason, grouping the legal immigrant population with the
illegal alien population for comparison with the general population significantly misrepresents the crime
incidence of the illegal alien population.
Admitting illegal aliens into the general population is a threat to public safety. JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Data that identify only illegal and deportable illegal aliens is, however, available in annual reports for the State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). This program was established to compensate the states for costs
of incarceration of deportable aliens. Unfortunately, not all jurisdictions that imprison deportable aliens are
filing claims for this compensation — perhaps because the level of compensation represents only a small
fraction of the expenditures. This fact means that the data on imprisoned deportable aliens is understated.
Nevertheless, our study based on the SCAAP data found that as a percentage of the adult population criminal
aliens were about 50 percent more likely to be incarcerated than U.S. citizens and legal residents
foundationbriefs.com
Page 124 of 201
Pro Counters
foundationbriefs.com
Page 125 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Alleviate work problems
Citizenship Reform Will Alleviate Illegal Work Problems
Allowing Undocumented Workers Citizenship Will Decrease Incentives of Hiring Illegal
Immigrants AMS
Ed Stoddard. “Exclusive: Over A Million Immigrants Land American Jobs 2008-2010.”
Reuters. January 20, 2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/20/us-usaimmigrants-employmentexclusive-idUSTRE70J37P20110120
With a national unemployment rate of 9.4 percent, domestic job creation is at the top of President Barack
Obama's agenda and such findings could add to calls to tighten up on illegal immigration. But much of it is
Hispanic and the growing Latino vote is a key base for Obama's Democratic Party.
Many of the new arrivals, according to employers, brought with them skills required of the building trade and
found work in sectors such as construction, where jobless rates are high.
"Employers have chosen to use new immigrants over native-born workers and have continued to displace large
numbers of blue-collar workers and young adults without college degrees," said Andrew Sum, the director of
the Center for Labor Market Studies.
"One of the advantages of hiring, particularly young, undocumented immigrants, is the fact that
employers do not have to pay health benefits or basic payroll taxes," said Sum.
(…)
There are a number of programs by which the United States lets foreign workers into the country to fill
gaps in its domestic labor market but employer groups complain little is done in this area for legal,
unskilled workers.
"There is basically no unskilled immigration that is legal. There are basically no provisions in the law for
unskilled immigrants," said Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business.
Many employers focus on undocumented workers because they don’t have to pay the same wages or
benefits that would be required for a citizen. Making the citizenship process easier will allow these
workers to obtain proper working status and decrease the incentives pushing employers towards illegal
workers.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 126 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Alleviate work problems
Employer sanctions alone ultimately fail to stop illegal immigration. JCD
Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raúl. "Raising the Floor for American Workers The Economic Benefits
of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Center For American Progress. N.p., Jan.
2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Unauthorized immigration to the United States initially declined following the passage of IRCA.31 But IRCA
failed to create flexible legal limits on immigration that were capable of responding to ups and downs in future
U.S. labor demand. It attempted to stop unauthorized immigration through “employer sanctions” that imposed
fines on employers who “knowingly” hire unauthorized workers. Yet it was unable to put an end to
unauthorized immigration given the U.S. economy’s continuing demand for immigrant labor in excess of
existing legal limits on immigration, as well as the ready availability of fraudulent identity documents and the
inherent difficulty of proving that an employer has “knowingly” hired an unauthorized worker.
This card provides more context for the cards above and below. It shows how the current system is
flawed and why citizenship will remedy this situation.
Legalizing the current illegal immigrant population decreases the demand for low wage, low
skill labor. JCD
Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raúl. "Raising the Floor for American Workers The Economic Benefits
of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Center For American Progress. N.p., Jan.
2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The U.S. government in this scenario enacts immigration reform that allows unauthorized immigrants to come
forward and register, pay an application fee and a fine, and—if they pass a criminal background check—earn
legal status and eventually U.S. citizenship. Applicants would also be required to learn English and pay any
back taxes owed. And future levels of permanent and temporary immigration to the United States would be
based on the demand for labor. All immigrant workers in this scenario have full labor rights, which results in
higher wages—and higher worker productivity—for all workers in industries where large numbers of
immigrants are employed. As wage and productivity levels rise, the U.S. economy’s demand for new immigrant
workers actually declines over time as the market shrinks for easily exploited, low-wage, low-productivity
workers.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 127 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Alleviate work problems
Specific data on why regulating employers is insufficient, DAT
Kugler, Adriana, and Patrick Oakford. “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Will
Benefit American Workers.” Center for American Progress. 12 September 2013.
Web.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/09/12/74014/comp
rehensive-immigration-reform-will-benefit-american-workers/
While employer sanctions seemed in theory to be a logical way to eliminate the incentives driving
undocumented immigration, IRCA’s provisions did little in practice to eliminate economic opportunities for
undocumented immigrants, for a variety of reasons.
First, the employer sanctions were rarely enforced in the years immediately following IRCA, and employers
were therefore only minimally deterred from hiring undocumented workers. Within the first decade following
IRCA’s passage, the number of employers audited each year peaked at 10,000 in 1990, and the number of
employers fined each year never exceeded 1,000. In the few cases where employers were fined for hiring
undocumented workers, the punishments amounted to little more than a slap on the wrist.
Secondly, the way in which employer sanctions were crafted created an opportunity for employers to
technically comply with IRCA while still hiring undocumented immigrants. As discussed above, employers are
penalized if they “knowingly” hire an undocumented worker. But since employers are only required to confirm
that documents appear “on their face” to be valid—and many documents can be forged—some employers who
in good faith complete the I-9 form still end up unknowingly hiring undocumented workers. Other employers,
though, take advantage of this problem and use it as an opportunity to avoid liability under IRCA by
completing an I-9 form while knowing that they are hiring undocumented workers. This type of
compliance in name only is perpetuated by the fact that many employers and industries rely heavily upon
immigrant labor.
IRCA is the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 128 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: No infringement on welfare
Will not Infringe on Current Citizens’ Welfare Benefits
Amnesty has Little Effect on Current Citizens Overall AMS
Joel Carneiro. “On the welfare impacts of an Immigration amnesty.” Institut de
Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES)
http://sites.uclouvain.be/econ/DP/IRES/2012010.pdf
In general an amnesty has limited effects on the native population, with the variation of lifetime
consumption remaining between -.3% and +.1% and -.5% and 0% for the UK and Germany
respectively. Independently of the country considered and the agent’s education level, the old generation living
at the period of the shock [s]uffers a welfare reduction due to the lower interest factor. However, a difference is
observed for the agents born in period T. in the UK their utility is slightly higher than the previous generation’s
because the positive contribution of the [new citizens] to the public budget partially compensates the lower
wage and interest factor that the amnesty causes.
Immigrants generally utilize fewer government resources, DAT
Ku, Leighton and Brian Bruen. “Poor Immigrants Use Public Benefits at a Lower Rate
than Poor Native-Born Citizens.” Cato Institue. 4 March 2013. Web.
http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/poor-immigrantsuse-public-benefits-lower-rate-poor
Low-income non-citizen adults and children generally have lower rates of public benefit use than native-born
adults or citizen children whose parents are also citizens. Moreover, when low-income non-citizens receive
public benefits, the average value of benefits per recipient is almost always lower than for the native-born. For
Medicaid, if there are 100 native-born adults, the annual cost of benefits would be about $98,400, while for the
same number of non-citizen adults the annual cost would be approximately $57,200. The benefits cost of noncitizens is 42 percent below the cost of the native-born adults. For children, a comparable calculation for 100
non-citizens yields $22,700 in costs, while 100 citizen children of citizen parents cost $67,000 in benefits. The
benefits cost of non-citizen children is 66 percent below the cost of benefits for citizen children of citizen
parents. The combined effect of lower utilization rates and lower average benefits means that the overall
financial cost of providing public benefits to non-citizen immigrants and most naturalized immigrants is lower
than for native-born people. Non-citizen immigrants receive fewer government benefits than similarly poor
natives.
This excerpt is from the study’s conclusion. The brunt of the study goes into breakdowns between
naturalized citizens and natives which also shows this same tendency for higher native usage.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 129 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: No infringement on welfare
Immigrants as a whole pose a relatively small burden on the healthcare system, DAT
Goldman, Dana et al. “The Public Spends Little to Provide Health Care for
Undocumented Immigrants.” RAND Corporation. N.D. Web.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/2006/RAND_RB9230.
pdf
Nonelderly participants—those between 18 and 64—were asked about their health status, whether they had
health insurance, the type and amount of care used, and the type of immigrant they were. Aft er deriving
estimates for the county, researchers extrapolated the estimates to the national level.
■ Of the $430 billion in national medical spending in 2000, native-born residents accounted for 87 percent
of the population but for 91.5 percent of the spending. Foreign-born residents, who include
undocumented immigrants, accounted for 13 percent of the population but for only 8.5 percent of the
spending. Undocumented immigrants—3.2 percent of the population—accounted for only about 1.5
percent of medical costs.
■ Foreign-born residents use less funding from public insurers (such as Medicare and Medicaid) and pay more
out-of-pocket costs for health care than do native-born residents—a pattern that is even more pronounced for
undocumented immigrants.
■ The lower medical spending is driven by lower utilization of services. Utilization data from Los Angeles
County show that many foreign-born residents had almost no contact with the formal health care system. For
example, whereas only about a tenth of native-born residents had never had a checkup, that fraction jumped to a
quarter for foreign-born residents and to a third for undocumented immigrants. Moreover, because Los Angeles
County is known as an immigrant-friendly location for services, the estimates for the nation may be lower for
undocumented immigrant service use and, thus, may be lower for medical costs.
■ A number of reasons account for the lower utilization, but one key reason is that immigrants—especially the
undocumented—appear to be healthier than native-born residents.
While the study acknowledges that illegal immigrants pose less of a burden than legal ones, the greater
takeaway is that even when legalized, these immigrants would pose a smaller cost at an individual level to
the healthcare system and government health services than natives.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 130 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: No infringement on welfare
Immigrant populations are generally far cheaper to cover, even adjusted for tax burden, DAT
Goldman, Dana et al. “Immigrants and the Cost of Medical Care.” Health Affairs. Vol.
25:6. Web. http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/6/1700.full.pdf+html
A useful way of thinking about the scale of publicly financed medical costs is to express them in terms of the
taxes paid per household to finance medical care. The public sector spent approximately $89 billion in 2000 to
provide care to all non-elderly adults; with 105 million households in the United States, this translated into a
cost per household of $843 that year. However, only a small fraction of this spending financed care for the
foreign-born. Because of their lower rates of use—and less reliance on public sources—the per household
tax for the provision of public care to the foreign-born was $56, and only $11 for the undocumented.
There are many legitimate issues surrounding the provision of health care to the nonelderly foreign-born,
but high taxpayer burden is not one of them.
Health care costs are not the major component around which a policy debate about the fiscal benefits or burden
of immigrants should focus. A more comprehensive analysis would incorporate the taxes paid by immigrants,
including some Social Security taxes for which they might not ever claim benefits. But it also should include
other public benefits received—in particular, public school costs. Unlike health care, where immigrants’ take-up
rates are relatively low, the school-age children of all types of immigrants attend school. Our primary debate
should be about the benefits and costs of financing the schooling of the children of immigrants, not about
providing them with health care.
This card is effective at taking a holistic view of the cost estimate with respect to healthcare; because it
incorporates taxes paid by individuals, it represents a clear comparison of intake and output for pro
teams to frame financial arguments.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 131 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Still limits on citizenship
Restrictions would still stop some illegal immigrants
from becoming legal
Not all illegal aliens would be admitted and fairness would be maintained. JCD
Wasem, Ruth. "Overview of Immigration Issues in the 112th Congress." Congressional
Research Service (n.d.): n. pag. 12 Jan. 2012. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Foreign nationals residing in the United States without legal authorization (i.e., unauthorized aliens) pose an
especially thorny issue. Proposals to enable unauthorized aliens to legalize their status generally would require
unauthorized aliens to meet specified conditions and terms as well as pay penalty fees to legalize their status.
Examples of conditions include documenting physical presence in the United States over a specified period;
demonstrating employment for specified periods; showing payment of income taxes; or leaving the United
States to obtain a legal status. Using a point system that credits aliens with equities in the United States (e.g.,
work history, tax records, and family ties) would be another possible option. Other potential avenues for
legalization would be guest worker visas tailored for unauthorized aliens in the United States or a legalization
program that would replace guest worker visas.
Path to citizenship would not be disproportionately easy. LOR
Kaplan, Rebecca. "Walking the Path to Citizenship." National Journal. National Journal
Group, 2 Sept. 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
Any pathway to citizenship passed by Congress will not be easy.
Under the Senate bill, [illegal immigrants] would have to spend 10 years as a registered provisional immigrant
and be subject to a host of requirements. If they are continuously employed; speak or are learning English;
study U.S. history; pay a processing fee, a fine, and back taxes; and pass a background check, they can apply for
a green card—provided the backlog has been cleared. After three years of lawful permanent resident status,
people may apply to naturalize as citizens.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 132 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Still limits on citizenship
Many will choose not to become citizens. LOR
Kaplan, Rebecca. "Walking the Path to Citizenship." National Journal. National Journal
Group, 2 Sept. 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
Even if a law is passed that offers illegal immigrants the chance to gain legal status and citizenship, history
shows that many will not take advantage of the opportunity.
A study conducted by the Homeland Security Department found that of the 2.7 million people who were given
legal permanent resident status under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, only 41 percent chose to
naturalize by 2009.
Even now, immigrants who are granted legal permanent residency don't always become citizens. According to a
study by the Pew Hispanic Center released earlier this year, the number of eligible immigrants from Latin
America and the Caribbean who had not yet naturalized by 2011 exceeded those who did seek citizenship. Rates
of naturalization are particularly low among Mexican immigrants, the largest population that stands to benefit
from legislation that includes a pathway to citizenship.
More than nine in 10 Latino legal permanent residents express a desire to naturalize, but 45 percent have
cited personal or administrative barriers to applying, such as insufficient English (26 percent). Nearly all
of those who cite administrative barriers (18 percent) say the $680 cost of a citizenship application is
prohibitive—and undocumented immigrants being offered provisional status would have to pay
additional fines before even getting the chance to naturalize.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 133 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Deportation infeasible
Deportation is simply infeasible
Deporting all the illegal immigrants is simply economically infeasible – JCD
Fitz, Marshall. "The Costs of Mass Deportation Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective."
Center For American Progress (2010): n. pag. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The second option, mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, is essentially the enforcement-only status
quo on steroids. As this paper demonstrates, this option would be prohibitively expensive and trigger profound
collateral consequences. Our analysis is comprised of a detailed review of all federal spending to prevent
unauthorized immigration and deport undocumented immigrants in FY 2008, the last "scale year (ending in
October 2008) for which there is complete data (see box on page 5).
[…]
Specifically, this report calculates a price tag of $200 billion to enforce a federal dragnet that would snare the
estimated 10.8 million undocumented immigrants in the United States over five years
The Con is likely to stress that illegal immigration should be dealt with in a variety of other ways
including a gradual deportation approach. However, this next section shows how that approach causes
far more harms than good.
Keeping the illegal immigrants out after they have been deported would also be very
expensive. JCD
Fitz, Marshall. "The Costs of Mass Deportation Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective."
Center For American Progress (2010): n. pag. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
That amount, however, does not include the annual recurring border and interior enforcement spending that will
necessarily have to occur. It would cost taxpayers at least another $17 billion annually (in 2008 dollars) to
maintain the status quo at the border and in the interior, or a total of nearly $85 billion over five years.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 134 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Deportation infeasible
Enforcement is barely struggling to stay afloat and the problem is only getting worse. JCD
Fitz, Marshall. "The Costs of Mass Deportation Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective."
Center For American Progress (2010): n. pag. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The worst economic downturn since the Great Depression has clearly diminished the number of people
attempting to enter the country illegally–the absence of jobs eliminates the predominant incentive to migrate.10
And yet, even with diminished pressure at the border, the dramatic increases in spending on immigration
enforcement have not significantly altered the net number of undocumented immigrants in the country. In fact,
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, reports that the undocumented immigrant population as of
January 2009 stood at 10.8 million, or 300,000 more than it was in 2005. In other words, the massive outlays in
enforcement resources are barely making a dent in the current population.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 135 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Deportation infeasible
Illegal immigrants would adapt to rising enforcement measure making this process even
more expensive in the long term. JCD
Fitz, Marshall. "The Costs of Mass Deportation Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective."
Center For American Progress (2010): n. pag. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
For several reasons, however, this report assumes constant returns to enforcement spending, meaning no
economies of scale are built in to this analysis. First, there is a great deal of uncertainty in how a mass
deportation program would impact the behavior of immigrant communities and undocumented individuals.
Would they go subterranean? Would immigrant communities organize to help hide their family members and
neighbors? Would they move residences and change employers more frequently? Questions like these make it
difficult to predict how much savings the government could expect from the initial ramp up and how costly it
would be to continue this nationwide sweep afterwards. Indeed, the remaining undocumented immigrants are
likely to be more deeply ensconced in communities around the country. Those who intend to remain would
burrow in further, taking with them their wages that are now taxed, or forcing them to use more advanced false
documents. !e cost of identifying and apprehending them would thus rise substantially.
The cost to build new jails for these illegal immigrants add to the long term costs if
deportation. JCD
Fitz, Marshall. "The Costs of Mass Deportation Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective."
Center For American Progress (2010): n. pag. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Second, some diseconomies of scale are already built in to our assessment. For instance, we do not include
capital expenditures to build new facilities to jail these people and then bring them before judges in the
projection. !e challenge of detaining and processing massive new numbers of immigrants in current facilities
would create obvious and costly challenges.
[…]
But one thing is certain, the costs would be enormous. The calculation here represents an absolute bare
minimum estimate and is based on the assumption that DHS could accomplish its deportation strategy with 100
percent efficiency:
With an average detention period of 30 days, one detention bed could hold approximately 60 different detainees
over a five-year period. With a total population of 8.64 million immigrants, that means they would need to
create 144,000 beds (8.64 million divided by 60).
foundationbriefs.com
Page 136 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Deportation infeasible
Averaging the construction costs of four recent prison projects, we see that it costs approximately $181 million
to build a facility with 1,520 beds.* That breaks down in to an average per-bed construction cost of a little
more than $11,900.
Multiplying the total number of beds required (144,000) by a per-bed construction cost ($11,900) yields a cost
of more than $17 billion.
The anticipated cost of lawsuits associated with human rights violations would increase long
term costs. JCD
Fitz, Marshall. "The Costs of Mass Deportation Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective."
Center For American Progress (2010): n. pag. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Third, the compliance costs of deploying such a program consistent with constitutional requirements would
diminish the savings expected from large-scale operations. Alternatively, the costs of defending against lawsuits
alleging rights violations in these operations would also diminish savings. Given that the size of the economies
and diseconomies of scale are uncertain and that the modeling of both would be speculative at best, we assume
for purposes of this report that the costs and savings balance out that there will be constant returns on
enforcement spending.
Complications with families involving American citizens would further prolong this process.
JCD
Fitz, Marshall. "The Costs of Mass Deportation Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective."
Center For American Progress (2010): n. pag. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
A key factor in evaluating the cost of removing this many undocumented immigrants is how many of them
would leave the country voluntarily in response to a massive government crackdown. The deep integration of
millions of these individuals in the U.S. economy and society suggests the number who would leave voluntarily
would be smaller than if they were short-term residents concentrated in specific states and working in specific
industries. Of the 10.8 million unauthorized immigrants in 2009, only 0.9 million— or about 8 percent—arrived
in the United States between 2005 and 2008, with the remainder arriving earlier. A large portion of the
undocumented population now boasts deep roots in America. Many work multiple jobs, actively engage with
their faith congregations, and have children and spouses who are U.S. citizens. While it is impossible to predict
with any certainty how the specter of mass deportation would affect decision making by individuals and
families across the country, this report assumes that 20 percent of the current population, or 2.16 million people,
would depart before any contact with authorities. That would leave 80 percent—8.64 million people—subject to
foundationbriefs.com
Page 137 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Deportation infeasible
forcible deportation. In short, our nation’s already stretched law enforcement agencies would have to manage
8.64 million separate arrests, detentions, legal proceedings and, to a lesser extent, transportation out of the
country.
[…]
Seventy-three percent of the children of undocumented immigrant parents are U.S. citizens by birth.57
Deportation would mean taking away one or both parents of 4 million citizen children with unacceptable and
incalculable social consequences.
The legal system can't handle the sheer number of adjudications a mass deportation strategy
would entail. JCD
Fitz, Marshall. "The Costs of Mass Deportation Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective."
Center For American Progress (2010): n. pag. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
As with other areas of the deportation process, immigration courts are structurally flawed and severely
ill equipped to serve the current caseload. It is difficult to fathom how the immigration legal system would
handle 8.64 million new adjudications that would come from a deportation campaign. The current system’s
failings were extensively documented in a February 2010 report prepared for the American Bar Association’s
Commission on Immigration.
Among the report’s recommendations are an immediate restructuring to make the immigration courts
independent of politics or any administrative agency, and the immediate hiring of 100 new judges plus
necessary law clerks to handle the surge in cases stemming from current enforcement policies. These
recommendations did not take into account any mass deportation strategy. In 2008, there were 291,781 legal
proceedings for undocumented immigrants, or just over 3 percent of the 8.64 million cases necessary to
complete a mass deportation.
Deportation incurs more costs in legal processing. JCD
Fitz, Marshall. "The Costs of Mass Deportation Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective."
Center For American Progress (2010): n. pag. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
To calculate the legal processing costs for EOIR of a mass deportation, we identified the FY 2008
appropriations dedicated to the processing of undocumented immigrants, which was $238.32 million. !at was
applied to the 291,781 legal proceedings for undocumented immigrants to arrive at an average cost of $817 for
each legal proceeding. The average was then multiplied by 8.64 million undocumented immigrants for a total
legal processing cost of more than $7 billion.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 138 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Deportation infeasible
The deportation of illegal immigrants would be infeasible with current logistics because they
originate from countries across the globe. JCD
Fitz, Marshall. "The Costs of Mass Deportation Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective."
Center For American Progress (2010): n. pag. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The transportation of 6.22 million undocumented immigrants under a deportation scenario would be a massive
undertaking because they arrive in the United States from all over the world.
Currently, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection have different
programs for transporting undocumented immigrants. Most undocumented immigrants from Mexico who are
apprehended at the border by CBP are bused across the border. Other undocumented immigrants are transported
by plane.
Transportation costs make deportation an unfavorable option. JCD
Fitz, Marshall. "The Costs of Mass Deportation Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective."
Center For American Progress (2010): n. pag. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The Office of the Federal Detention Trustee also reported a per person transportation cost for federal detainees,
including deportees, of $999 in FY 2008, and projected a $1,190 per person cost in FY 2011.49 For purposes of
this report, the cost was rounded out to $1,000. That means the total cost to transport 6.22 million people
overseas at $1,000 apiece equals more than $6 billion.
Mass deportation would lower wages for high skill, American workers. JCD
Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raúl. "Raising the Floor for American Workers The Economic Benefits
of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Center For American Progress. N.p., Jan.
2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The mass deportation scenario reduces U.S. GDP by 1.46 percent, compared to comprehensive e immigration
reform, which increases it by 0.84 percent, and the temporary-workers s program, which increases it by 0.44
percent. This amounts to a cumulative $2.6 trillion in lost GDP over 10 years, compared to $1.5 trillion in
additional GDP under comprehensive immigration reform and $792 billion in additional GDP under the
temporary worker program (see Figure 7 and Appendix 2).33 Wages do rise for less-skilled native-born workers
under this scenario, but they fall for higher-skilled natives and the U.S. economy loses large numbers of jobs.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 139 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Deportation infeasible
An exodus of illegal immigrants through deportation has a chilling economic effect, DAT
Constable, Pamela. “Alabama Law Drives Out Illegal Immigrants But Also Has
Unexpected Consequences.” Washington Post. 17 June 2012. Web.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-06-17/local/35462377_1_illegal-immigrantspoultry-workers-alabama-law
Alabama’s law makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to buy a house, pay a utility bill or sign a contract. It also
penalizes those who employ them, allows police to ask drivers at roadside checkpoints or routine traffic stops
about their immigration status and requires schools to ask about the legal status of all new students.
Although there is no doubt that many illegal immigrants have left Alabama since October, studies by
economists at the University of Alabama indicate that the drop in unemployment is partly due to other
factors. They report that the number of workers overall has been shrinking, in part from baby-boomer
retirements and in part from discouraged workers suspending their job searches.
At the Wayne Farms plant in Albertville, officials said that since the law took effect, they have spent
more than $5 million to train new workers and compensate for lost production. Singleton said the factory
had also lost some legal Hispanic workers, who left the state rather than be separated from their illegal
immigrant spouses. “This law has created a chilling effect on the whole Latino community,” he said.
This card is useful in linking together a multitude of impacts. Alabama’s situation is essentially a
microcosm of what would happen if this was instituted nationwide: pressures on legal immigrants, labor
shortage, and financial costs for employers.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 140 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Deportation infeasible
The threat of deportation gives recalcitrant employers an advantage, DAT
Kugler, Adriana, and Patrick Oakford. “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Will
Benefit American Workers.” Center for American Progress. 12 September 2013.
Web.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/09/12/74014/comp
rehensive-immigration-reform-will-benefit-american-workers/
Bad-apple employers who knowingly use immigration-related duties to exploit workers represent the most
extreme way in which aspects of our immigration system can undermine workers’ employment rights. But the
immigration system at large also has negative consequences for immigrant workers. Some immigrant
employees who are not directly threatened with immigration-related retaliation by their employers, for example,
are still hesitant to bring forth employment-related complaints because of the chilling effect our immigration
system has had on them.
Research has found that even when undocumented immigrants are aware of their labor and employment
rights, they rarely step up and file employment complaints against their employers, out of fear that
engaging with the government—even in a non-immigration-related context—will lead to their
deportation. Similarly, even immigrants with legal status may fear invoking their labor and employment rights
because of how it will affect their co-workers, family members, or friends who are undocumented. One court
noted that when employers use immigration-related duties to subvert labor- and employment-law effectiveness,
“even documented workers may be chilled … [they] … may fear that their immigration status would be
changed, or that their status would reveal the immigration problem of their family or friends.”
foundationbriefs.com
Page 141 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Deportation infeasible
Uprooting illegal immigrants in any regard is unacceptable
Self deportation through strict enforcement is not a tenable solution, DAT
Washington Post Editorial Board. “The ‘Self-Deportation Fantasy.” The Washington
Post. 28 January 2012. Web. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-0128/opinions/35440578_1_illegal-immigrants-illegal-population-immigrants-stream
“Self-deportation” is snappy and sound-biteable; hence its superficial appeal. Slap together a water-tight
employment verification law, issue IDs to legal workers, add some harassment from state and local authorities,
and watch the unpapered immigrants stream south over the border whence they came. If they want to return to
the United States, said Mr. Romney, they can get to the “back of the line.”
The idea’s inanity is masked by its allure for some who hate illegal immigration but concede that mass
roundups and deportations would be unseemly and prohibitively expensive. Better, they say, that illegal
immigrants leave under their own steam — and pay their travel expenses, too.
The problems start with economics. Undocumented workers comprise more than 5 percent of America’s labor
force and much more in agriculture, hospitality, landscaping and elsewhere. Their departure would be a blow to
the economy — and no, American-born workers, generally better educated and geographically remote from the
jobs immigrants do, would not fill their shoes.
Mr. Romney also wrongly imagines that illegal immigrants, who are mostly Mexicans, can be easily uprooted.
In fact, nearly two-thirds have been here for more than a decade, and more than 28 percent arrived more
than 15 years ago. Their roots here are deep: Almost half have children, and more than 80 percent of
those 5.5 million children were born here and are U.S. citizens. Does Mr. Romney expect them to “selfdeport” with their parents?
…
Undocumented immigrants in this country are highly resilient. During the economic meltdown of 2008-09, the
shrinking job market and beefed-up border security helped cut the illegal population by about a million. But
since then, the numbers have leveled off — despite a still-sluggish economy, stepped-up deportations, and
hostile state and local legislation. The vast majority of illegal immigrants are here to stay.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 142 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Deportation infeasible
The presence of illegal immigrants is neither structurally nor financially burdensome, DAT
Chang, Cindy. “Health Care for Undocumented Immigrant Children: Special Members of
an Underclass.” Washington University Law Review, Vol. 83:4. Washington
University in St. Louis. 2005. Web.
http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1254&context=law
review
The Plyler Court also rejected the State’s contention that undocumented immigrant children burden its ability to
provide high quality public education. Similarly, providing services to undocumented immigrant children does
not prevent the government from providing other children with quality health care. Rather, the American
Academy of Pediatrics advocates adequate care for all children, regardless of immigration status, arguing that
“[d]enying legal and illegal immigrants access to basic health care would not only deprive them of needed
services but also disrupt the provision of services to other children by redirecting resources from providing
services to sorting and enforcement of more restrictive eligibility standards.” From a public health perspective,
unnecessarily expose their citizen siblings and classmates to health risks. The rate of tuberculosis and other
infectious diseases is ten to thirty times higher in countries of origin for most immigrants. Once they arrive in
the United States, undocumented immigrant children often live in poor conditions, which exacerbate their
already vulnerable state. Even though PRWORA permits treatment for communicable diseases, many infectious
diseases such as tuberculosis are asymptomatic and thus easily overlooked by laymen.
In 1982, the Plyler Court concluded that illegal immigrants did not pose any significant burden on Texas’
economy. However, currently, many argue that illegal immigrants significantly drain both state and national
economies. In response to a United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) inquiry, a few states
reported annual costs for educating undocumented immigrant children to be between $50 million and $1.04
billion. While these figures are certainly substantial, burdens to state budgets, they are the product of
speculative assumptions and estimates because schools do not record immigration status data. Estimated
variables included the total undocumented immigrant population in the state, the percentage of the
undocumented population that is school-aged children, and the percentage of the children actually attending
public schools. Consequently, it is difficult to quantify the cost of educating undocumented immigrant children.
The PRWORA is the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Plyler
refers to the Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe, in which the Court struck down a state statute denying
education funding for illegal immigrants. The brunt of con justifications for deportation or measures
coming far short of amnesty will likely be that supporting illegal immigrants in the United States is
untenable. The evidence offered above subverts this premise.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 143 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Detaining is harmful
Detaining Illegal Immigrants produces a net harm
Detaining illegals would lead to even more civil rights violations. JCD
Fitz, Marshall. "The Costs of Mass Deportation Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective."
Center For American Progress (2010): n. pag. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Given the large number of detentions in jail spaces operated by various jurisdictions, ICE has had difficulty
managing the workload. There have been more than 100 documented deaths since October 2003, as well as
numerous cases of abuse. Alleged violators of civil codes in immigration law are frequently imprisoned in
facilities that were designed for offenders of more serious and violent crimes.
In addition, access to legal counsel is uneven at best, and information about problems within the detention
system has been suppressed. While DHS has made a concerted effort to start correcting the issues, its
overwhelming caseload has prevented it from making rapid progress on reforms.
Similar to the deportation alternative, the Con might try to provide a “more tame” solution than
deportation by choosing to detain illegal immigrants. However, this and the following cards prove how
this option is more absurd and ultimately just as harmful.
Detaining illegal immigrants incurs costs. JCD
Fitz, Marshall. "The Costs of Mass Deportation Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective."
Center For American Progress (2010): n. pag. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The estimated funding required to detain 8.64 million undocumented immigrants from the time of apprehension
until the time of removal involved determining the average daily cost to detain a noncitizen ($111.82) and the
average number of days (30) that an individual in removal proceedings is detained. That per person detention
cost was then multiplied by the 8.64 million undocumented immigrants to arrive at an estimated cost of
approximately $29 billion.
The current detention system can't handle the sheer number of new inmates. JCD
Fitz, Marshall. "The Costs of Mass Deportation Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective."
Center For American Progress (2010): n. pag. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The total incarcerated population for the United States in 2008 was 2.4 million prisoners. That included all
inmates held in local, state, federal (including ICE), military, and juvenile facilities in the United States, U.S.
territories, and Indian tribal lands.34 A deportation strategy that would take place over five years would add an
foundationbriefs.com
Page 144 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Detaining is harmful
additional 1.73 million inmates to those rolls, a 71 percent increase in the jail population, in each of those five
years. In other words, private or public construction of new facilities would be inevitable
There are serious restrictions on the ability to detain illegal immigrants. JCD
Andorra, Bruno. "Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress."
Congressional Research Service (n.d.): n. pag. 30 Sept. 2011. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Following the Court’s ruling in Zadvydas, new regulations were issued to comply with the Court’s holding.36
ICE generally can only detain an alien beyond the initial 90-day removal period if ICE determines that the alien
is likely to abscond if released or that the alien poses a danger to the public, or if ICE is likely to obtain travel
documents for the alien in the near future.37 Under regulation, ICE may not detain an alien for more than six
months unless the alien’s removal is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, except in special circumstances,
including aliens who are detained on account of (1) having a highly contagious disease that is a threat to public
safety, (2) serious adverse foreign policy consequences of release, (3) security or terrorism concerns, or (4)
being considered specially dangerous due to having committed one or more crimes of violence and having a
mental condition making it likely that the alien will commit acts of violence in the future.
Jailing illegal immigrants has substantial negative financial impacts, DAT
Shapiro, Ari. “Do Illegal Immigrants Burden the Justice System?” NPR. 27 April 2006.
Web. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5365863
SHAPIRO: Steve Levy is Suffolk County executive on Long Island.
Mr. LEVY: What matters is who's in our jail and who we have to pay for, and the fact that we're not getting
reimbursed for this from the federal government.
SHAPIRO: Levy says jailing illegal immigrants costs his county more than $10 million a year. In California,
where Dennis Zine is an L.A. city councilman, the state pays roughly $750 million a year to keep illegal
immigrants in jail. Zine was also a member of the L.A. Police Department.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 145 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Border security insufficient
Border Security Initiatives are not Sufficient to Address
Illegal Immigration
Previous border security initiatives have failed. JCD
Fitz, Marshall. "The Costs of Mass Deportation Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective."
Center For American Progress (2010): n. pag. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The expenditures on border and interior immigration enforcement have burgeoned since FY 2005. The U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement budgets increased by nearly 80
percent to $17.1 billion in FY 2010, from $9.5billion in FY 2005.50 And yet the net undocumented population
still slightly increased over that time from 10.5 million to 10.8 million, with the most significant drop in
population occurring after the start of the Great Recession in December 2007
On-going costs to ensure the illegal immigrants don't return incur massive long term costs.
JCD
Fitz, Marshall. "The Costs of Mass Deportation Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective."
Center For American Progress (2010): n. pag. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
To ensure sufficient border and interior resources to prevent new entries, apprehend those who make it through,
and identify and remove those who overstay their lawful visas or violate their status, the ICE and CBP budget
outlays would, at a minimum, need to remain constant. Congress appropriated $11.4 billion for U.S. Customs
and Border Protection and $5.7 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement in FY 2010, for a total of
$17.1 billion. Adjusting that amount to 2008 dollars so that it is consistent with the cost of deportation
calculations, we arrive at a continuing annual cost of around $17 billion.
Enforcement only approaches lead to increases in violence. JCD
Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raúl. "Raising the Floor for American Workers The Economic Benefits
of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Center For American Progress. N.p., Jan.
2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Making the southwestern border more lethal. The concentrated border-enforcement strategy has contributed to a
surge in migrant fatalities since 1995 by channeling unauthorized migrants through extremely hazardous
mountain and desert areas, rather than the relatively safe urban corridors used in the past. The U.S. Government
Accountability Office has estimated that the number of border-crossing deaths doubled in the decade following
the beginning of enhanced border-enforcement operations.13 A report released in October 2009 by the
foundationbriefs.com
Page 146 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Border security insufficient
American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties and Mexico’s National Commission of
Human Rights estimates that 5,607 migrants died while crossing the border between 1994 and 2008 (Figure
6).14
Enforcement only approaches create new opportunities for human tracffickers. JCD
Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raúl. "Raising the Floor for American Workers The Economic Benefits
of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Center For American Progress. N.p., Jan.
2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Stronger enforcement on US- Mexico border has been a bonanza for people smuggling industry. Heightened
border enforcement has closed safer, traditional routes and made smugglers essential to a safe and successful
crossing. Wayne Cornelius’ research in rural Mexico shows that more than 9 out of 10 unauthorized migrants
now hire smugglers to get them across the border. Use of smugglers was the exception rather than the rule only
a decade ago.15 And the fees that smugglers charge have tripled since 1993. The going rate for Mexicans was
between $2,000 and $3,000 per head in January 2006, and there is evidence of a further rise since that time.16
Yet even at these prices it is economically rational for migrants—and, often, their relatives living in the United
States—to dig deeper into their savings and go deeper into debt to finance illegal entry
foundationbriefs.com
Page 147 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Border security insufficient
Enforcement only approaches break circular migration and promote extended stays. JCD
Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raúl. "Raising the Floor for American Workers The Economic Benefits
of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Center For American Progress. N.p., Jan.
2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The high costs and physical risks of unauthorized entry give immigrants a strong incentive to extend their stays
in the United States; and the longer they stay, the more probable it is that they will settle permanently.17
Enforcement only approaches depressing low-wage labor markets. JCD
Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raúl. "Raising the Floor for American Workers The Economic Benefits
of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Center For American Progress. N.p., Jan.
2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The enhanced enforcement regime moves unauthorized workers further underground, lowering their pay, and
ironically creating a greater demand for unauthorized workers. A 2008 report from the Atlanta Federal Reserve
analyzes how this vicious cycle is activated and expands as firms find themselves forced to compete for the
supply of cheaper, unauthorized labor. When a firm cuts costs by hiring unauthorized workers for lower wages,
its competitors become more likely to hire unauthorized workers for lower wage, as well, in order to benefit
from the same cost savings.
Simply increasing border security would not be a cost effective solution to illegal
immigration. JCD
N, T. "Fantasies of the Frontier." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 20 June
2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
[Senators] Bob Corker and John Hoeven want to add 700 miles of fencing across the south-west border, and
nearly to double the number of Border Patrol agents, from 21,000 to 40,000 (the patrol has already seen its
manpower double in the last eight years). The latter proposal would cost an eye-watering $30 billion; thearticle
does not indicate whether the senators' proposal would replace or complement the bill's existing border-security
provisions, to which up to $6.5 billion has been devoted.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 148 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Eliminating birthright citizen
Ending Birthright Citizenship would Create more
Problems than it would Solve
Denying these immigrants citizenship while their children hold citizenship create second
class citizen that undermines democracy. JCD
“The Birthright Citizenship Amendment: A Threat to Equality” Harvard Law Review,
Vol. 107, No. 5 (Mar., 1994), pp. 1026-1043 06 Nov. 2013
Contradiction of the equality principle also warrants rejection of the citizenship amendment on practical
grounds, for, rather than facilitate resolution of the undocumented immigration issue, the amendment would
actually exacerbate societal inequities and would thereby threaten the social fabric of the United States. Because
the citizenship amendment would have little effect on migration, 12 7 the amendment's principal effect would
likely be to expand rather than contract the population of undocumented immigrants. This result would occur
because the amendment would likely lead to the classification of the American-born children of undocumented
immigrants as illegal aliens themselves. 128 Currently, newborn children with citizenship status, who receive
governmental support and the right to work in the future, have potential to become productive members of
society. 129 Yet just as the Plyler Court understood that denial of education would create "the specter of a
permanent caste of undocumented resident aliens" handicapped by illiteracy,130 the practical result of the
citizenship amendment would be to relegate the American-born children of undocumented aliens to the same
"shadow population" and thus to deny them "the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions."'131
If one presumes that many such children will remain in the United States indefinitely,132 the amendment would
cause the negative social effects of such a permanent underclass of residents to proliferate rather than to
dissipate.133 Because such a class presents "most difficult problems for a Nation that prides itself on adherence
to principles of equality under law,"'134 an amendment that would foster its growth should be rejected. (10411042)
Furthermore, the adoption of an amendment contradictory to equality would announce to certain American-born
children that, as the Court declared in Dred Scott,135 the Constitution discriminatorily excludes certain
American-born persons.136 As these children grow up, they may exhibit hostility and defiance toward society if
it denies-them equal treatment at birth.137 Whereas American-born children of immigrants, with automatic
birthright citizenship, have generally identified with American values and sought to belong, children of guest
workers in Europe, for whom citizenship is often difficult to attain, have frequently resisted assimilation.138
Yet social stability demands that such long term residents be included, for "[n]o state can in the long run accept
that a significant part of its population remain outside the political community. " (1042)
This section will address the potential con proposal to end birthright citizenship since the children of
illegal immigrants present a tricky situation when dealing with illegal immigrants. While Con’s natural
reaction will almost always be to simply end birthright citizenship as well, this section will show why that
is not the answer.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 149 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Eliminating birthright citizen
Illegal immigrants still fall under the protections of the equality principle. JCD
“The Birthright Citizenship Amendment: A Threat to Equality” Harvard Law Review,
Vol. 107, No. 5 (Mar., 1994), pp. 1026-1043 06 Nov. 2013
Just as illegitimate children are persons entitled to equal protec-tion,64 undocumented aliens and their children
fall within the scope of the equality principle because they are within the United States.65 This premise is based
primarily on the fact that the Equal Protection Clause is not limited to citizens or legal residents, but covers
"any person within [the] jurisdiction" of a state.66 Although under tradi-tional understandings of national
sovereignty, aliens outside the jurisdiction of the United States generally have no claim to constitutional
protections,67 the Supreme Court has held that equal protection ap-plies to "all persons within the territorial
jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race or color, or of nationality .."68 Because they are subject to
American laws, undocumented aliens and their children within the United States are generally encompassed by
the equality principle. (1033) This Note argues that Congress and the states should reject the proposed
citizenship amendment because it conflicts with one of the foundations upon which American society is built the principle of equality before the law. One facet of this constitutionally based principle, as illustrated by the
Supreme Court's jurisprudence relating to illegitimate children, demands that certain children not be treated
differently from other children solely on account of the actions or status of their parents. Because the equality
principle encompasses the case of American-born children of undocumented aliens, the citizenship amendment
would thus conflict with this ideal. Such a change would be problematic on two levels. Philosophically, the
injection of such a contradiction into the Constitution would weaken its inspirational and normative message
and raise doubts about the nation's adherence to a fundamental ideal that is integral to the American identity.
Practically, rather than defend the United States from perceived threats to unity, the citizenship amendment's
conflict with the equality principle is likely to alienate certain segments of society and thus to threaten social
cohesion. (1028)
foundationbriefs.com
Page 150 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Eliminating birthright citizen
Children should not have to suffer for their parents crimes. JCD
“The Birthright Citizenship Amendment: A Threat to Equality” Harvard Law Review,
Vol. 107, No. 5 (Mar., 1994), pp. 1026-1043 06 Nov. 2013
The underlying reasoning of the illegitimacy cases is not limited to that context. In Oyama v. California,59 the
Court struck down a law that created obstacles to ownership of land by a minor simply because the child's father
was ineligible for citizenship.60 The Court criticized the law because it "points in one direction for minor
citizens whose parents cannot be naturalized, and in another for all other children."'61 Similarly, the Fifth
Circuit invoked the illegitimacy cases to strike down a regulation that allowed suspension of children from
school on the basis of parental misconduct.62 Thus, out of the Supreme Court's holdings on illegitimacy arises a
general principle of equality: children should not be treated differently on the basis of parental circumstances
beyond their control. (1032-1033) Just as illegitimate children cannot, by themselves, remove the label of
"illegitimate," children of undocumented aliens lack the power to change their status. Legally and practically,
children must reside where their parents choose to reside.70 In Plyler v. Doe,71 the Court struck down a state
law that permitted exclusion of children of undocumented aliens from public schools because it discriminated
against certain children "on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control."72
Furthermore, children of the undocumented, like illegitimate children, are "morally blameless" in their status.73
Quoting Weber for the proposition that the "no child is responsible for his birth,"74 the Plyler Court noted that
the children's lack of accountability for their status casts doubt on the classification's consistency with
"fundamental conceptions of justice." (1033-1034) it is unclear whether the citizen-ship amendment is even an
alienage distinction, for it classifies new-born children, not their alien parents.97 Although their parents may be
aliens, the children are not necessarily in the same category, for they have not effected any entry, legal or
illegal.98 Indeed, throughout American history, such children have been considered citizens, not aliens, at the
time of birth.99 Second, even if the children are eventually classified as undocumented aliens,100 such a
determination would be based entirely on their parents' undocumented status. (1037) Invoking the view that "the
Equal Protection Clause does enable us to strike down discriminatory laws relating to status of birth,"46 the
Court has held in a long line of cases 47 that "a State may not invidiously discriminate against illegitimate
children by denying them substantial benefits accorded children generally."48 In explaining the constitutional
violation in such cases, the Court has focused on two objectionable aspects of illegitimacy laws. First, the Court
has found that the classifications violate equality in part because they discriminate on the basis of a status
derived from the parents' conduct, for which the children have no control or responsibility. Just as the equality
principle does not tolerate classifications based on immutable characteristics such as race or gender,49 it frowns
upon distinctions based on circumstances that the affected parties cannot alter. In Weber v. Aetna Casualty &
Surety Co.,50 the Court reasoned that, because "no child is responsible for his birth" disparate treatment of
illegitimate children violates the general principle that "legal burdens should bear some relationship to
individual responsibility or wrongdoing."'51 When it struck down a law that denied illegitimate children
intestate inheritance from their fathers, the Court noted in Trimble v. Gordon52 that "[t]he parents have the
ability to conform their conduct to societal norms, but their illegitimate children can affect neither their parents'
conduct nor their own status."53 Thus, a concern over inequality based on factors beyond children's control and
responsibility underlay the Court's illegitimacy cases. (1031-1032)
foundationbriefs.com
Page 151 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Eliminating birthright citizen
Lashing out against birthright citizenship is ineffective at best and downright immoral. JCD
“The Birthright Citizenship Amendment: A Threat to Equality” Harvard Law Review,
Vol. 107, No. 5 (Mar., 1994), pp. 1026-1043 06 Nov. 2013
Philosophically, the equality principle does not permit the government to "single out undocumented children as
a way of expressing opposition to illegal activity for which they are not responsible. "77 Practically, a
government effort "to control the conduct of adults by acting against their children"78 constitutes a "ludicrously
ineffectual attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration. "(1034)
Attacking birthright citizenship would undermine the rule of law. JCD
“The Birthright Citizenship Amendment: A Threat to Equality” Harvard Law Review,
Vol. 107, No. 5 (Mar., 1994), pp. 1026-1043 06 Nov. 2013
Similarly, to permit a constitutional amendment to contradict a fundamental value as deeply embedded in the
Constitution as the equality principle would create conflicting signals about this value and would weaken the
moral persuasiveness of the Constitution's message of equality. No amendment to the Constitution has ever
abrogated existing rights arising from the equality principle; to adopt one that does offend equality would sully
the document and would cast doubt upon the resolve of the polity to safeguard this value. Such an undesirable
result would be magnified by the paramount importance of the equality principle to the American identity, for a
notion of equal opportunity for all is at the core of the American psyche. 120 But to indicate through the
Constitution that certain children shall be treated differently from other children solely on the basis of their
parentage would shatter this inspirational value. How can society tell its immigrants, minorities, and
disadvantaged that, regardless of one's origins, everyone has a fair chance at success and social acceptance,
when through the Constitution, it erects these barriers against a class of innocent children? (1040) Perhaps the
most dangerous consequence of the adoption of an amendment that defies the equality principle would be the
message it would send to those who would place policy before principle...Until now, the equality principle has
been a sturdy mast to which society could bind itself to protect against the periodic siren song of sacrificing
minority rights for majoritarian purposes. Yet once the Constitution permits inequality that theretofore would
not have been tolerated, the talisman of equality loses its potency as a means to rebuff previously unthinkable
intrusions, such as future proposals to deny birthright citizenship to children whose parents or grandparents
were immigrants, or even the creation of a hierarchy of citizenship, with broader rights and privileges for
persons from well-established families. 125 Just as a Supreme Court ruling can create the "loaded weapon" of
an exception to constitutional principles "ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible
claim of urgent need,"126 an amendment to the Constitution that undermines the equality principle can be
invoked later to justify further intrusions. Thus, although Congress and the states may legally adopt the citizenship amendment, the philosophical cost is unacceptable. (1040-1041)Other Countries Gone Wrong
foundationbriefs.com
Page 152 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Eliminating birthright citizen
Attacking birthright citizenship undermines the constitution. JCD
“The Birthright Citizenship Amendment: A Threat to Equality” Harvard Law Review,
Vol. 107, No. 5 (Mar., 1994), pp. 1026-1043 06 Nov. 2013
Finally, the amendment's inequitable exclusion of a class of children composed mainly of racial or ethnic
minorities could further the detrimental use of ethnicity as a proxy for a foreignness or outsider status. In
Germany, where citizenship is based almost entirely on German heritage, anti-foreigner sentiments have
resulted in intensified violence against ethnic minorities.140 To dispel the popular assumption that minorities
are foreigners, the Christian Democratic Party has sought to facilitate the granting of citizenship to non-ethnic
Ger-mans. 141 By taking the opposite step of denying citizenship to certain minority members, the citizenship
amendment may "fix[] a badge of opprobrium on citizens of the same ancestry,"'142 particularly those of Latin
American or Asian descent, and fuel the resistance they frequently encounter as they seek acceptance as full
fledged Ameri-cans. 143 Whereas the equality principle acts as the "social cement" to hold the American
community together, 144 the citizenship amendment's contradiction of equality, by exacerbating divisions
within so-ciety, is likely to inflame rather than erase threats to the social cohesion of America. (1042-1043)
Second, the Court has stated that illegitimacy classifications are objectionable to equality because they
discriminate against certain children based on the impermissible distinction that they could be used as vehicles
by which to deter or influence the behavior of other persons, such as parents. Such a circuitous method of
achieving a state purpose is insufficient to justify such classifications.54 In Trimble, the Court stated that
government cannot "attempt to influence the actions of men and women by imposing sanctions on the children
born of their illegitimate relationships." (1032)
foundationbriefs.com
Page 153 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Eliminating birthright citizen
Ending birthright citizenship won't solve anything. JCD
Stock, Margaret. "The Birthright Citizenship Debate." The Birthright Citizenship
Debate. Ed. Aimee Rawlins. The Council on Foreign Relations, 26 Jan. 2011. Web.
01 Nov 2013.
[appealing] birthright citizenship would increase the number of illegal immigrants--because the second
generation would have no chance for documentation--and create a bureaucratic nightmare. "They never talk
about how expensive this would be, they never talk about funding it, and they never talk about the practical
aspects," says [University of Alaska Professor of Political Science Margaret] Stock. "Even the states that are
proposing this haven't talked about how they are going to administer this." (1)
Many people are upset that there are lots of undocumented immigrants in the country. They are upset that the
government hasn't been able to solve this problem. At some knee-jerk level, [they believe that] punishing [the
children of undocumented immigrants] will help solve the problem. There are some people who are convinced
that getting rid of birthright citizenship will stop illegal immigration. There is no evidence that this would be the
case. In countries that don't have birthright citizenship, they still have lots of illegal immigration. There is
plenty of evidence that it would increase the population of illegal immigrants because it would make [it
difficult] to cut off illegal immigration at the second generation.
Some argued, for instance, in France that they should get rid of birthright citizenship because it would reduce
illegal immigration. The French found out that it created more problems, so now they're going back to a
modified version of birthright citizenship. (1)
Ending birthright citizenship will call for even more complicated legal disputes. JCD
Stock, Margaret. "The Birthright Citizenship Debate." The Birthright Citizenship
Debate. Ed. Aimee Rawlins. The Council on Foreign Relations, 26 Jan. 2011. Web.
01 Nov 2013.
In addition to that, the United States has tremendously benefited from birthright citizenship over the centuries.
We have had illegal immigration for more than one hundred years and have always recognized the children of
those illegal immigrants as being citizens of our country. We have taxed them, we have drafted them, and we
have elected them to public office. We have put them in government jobs, considered them to be citizens just
like everyone else, and have taken tremendous advantage of their talents and abilities. This is going to be a sea
change in how we do business if we change this rule. We will lose a lot of benefits, [and] we are going to have
to set up a bureaucracy, hire thousands of lawyers to adjudicate people's applications and figure out whether
they are citizens or not. (1)
foundationbriefs.com
Page 154 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Eliminating birthright citizen
Ending birthright citizenship would burden current US citizens unjustly. JCD
Stock, Margaret. "The Birthright Citizenship Debate." The Birthright Citizenship
Debate. Ed. Aimee Rawlins. The Council on Foreign Relations, 26 Jan. 2011. Web.
01 Nov. 2013
Changing the rule about U.S. birth certificates [would] shock the entire country. It's going to affect whether you
can get a passport, whether you can get a Social Security number, whether you can get a driver's license. The
vast majority of people prove their U.S. citizenship through a birth certificate, and if that is no longer
considered proof that you are an American citizen, they are going to have to come up with something else. Will
it stop the illegal immigration problems? No. No more than stopping people from getting driver's licenses stops
terrorists from getting on an airplane. The Christmas bomber didn't need a driver's license to get on an airplane.
But when people are frustrated with a problem, they look for what appears to be an easy solution without
thinking it through. That is what has happened with birthright citizenship. There has been absolutely no
attention to the actual implementation. They never talk about how expensive this would be, they never talk
about funding it, and they never talk about the practical aspects. Even the states proposing this haven't talked
about how they are going to administer this. They don't seem to realize that it is tremendously complicated to
figure out someone's immigration status at any point in time. It requires a lot of documentation. Your baby isn't
going to get healthcare until the baby is recognized as a citizen. It's going to take a year. You can't get a Social
Security number for the child until you prove the child is a citizen. They are going to have to change the whole
Social Security verification system, which right now relies on U.S. birth certificates. Basically, there has been
no attention to how they would implement it if they did change it, or how costly [it would be]. (1)
Ending birthright citizenship would not end illegal immigration. JCD
Stock, Margaret. "The Birthright Citizenship Debate." Council of Foreign Relations. 26
Jan. 2011. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
There are some people who are convinced that getting rid of birthright citizenship will stop illegal immigration.
There is no evidence that this would be the case. In countries that don't have birthright citizenship, they still
have lots of illegal immigration. There is plenty of evidence that it would increase the population of illegal
immigrants because it would make [it difficult] to cut off illegal immigration at the second generation.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 155 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Eliminating birthright citizen
Most births resulting in birthright citizenship are not from birth tourism. JCD
Taylor, Paul, Mark H. Lopez, Jeffrey Passel, and Seth Motel. "Unauthorized Immigrants:
Length of Residency, Patterns of Parenthood." Pew Hispanic Center. 1 Dec. 2011.
Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
Nearly two-thirds of the 10.2 million unauthorized adult immigrants in the United States have lived in this
country for at least 10 years and nearly half are parents of minor children, according to new estimates by the
Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center.
The Pew Hispanic analysis finds that 35% of unauthorized adult immigrants have resided in the U.S. for 15
years or more; 28% for 10 to 14 years; 22% for 5 to 9 years; and 15% for less than five years.
The Pew Hispanic analysis also finds that nearly half (46%) of unauthorized adult immigrants today—about 4.7
million people—are parents of minor children. By contrast, just 38% of legal immigrant adults and 29% of
U.S.-born adults are parents of minor children.
Much of this disparity results from the fact that unauthorized immigrants are younger than other groups of
adults in the U.S. and more likely to be in their child-bearing and child-rearing years. The median age of
unauthorized immigrant adults is 36.2 years old, which is about a decade younger than the median age of legal
immigrant adults (46.1) and U.S. native adults (46.5). The age variation accounts for 78% of the difference in
the shares of unauthorized immigrants and U.S. natives who are parents.
This card proves that ending birthright citizenship would not be dealing with the crux of the issue since
birthright citizenship is not intentionally being misused.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 156 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Welfare not abused
Welfare and Health Services would not be abused
Current restrictions could be expanded to prevent welfare abuse. JCD
Anderson, Stuart. "Answering the Critics of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Cato
Institute. N.p., 09 May 2011. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
However, current law already restricts an immigrant’s access to food stamps and other programs. Moreover, any
future law that grants legal status to current illegal immigrants could raise the current legal standard for newly
legalized individuals even higher as part of a legislative agreement on comprehensive immigration reform.
Newly arriving immigrants to the United States are generally not eligible for federal means-tested benefits
programs. Except for refugees, eligibility for such programs normally requires immigrants to have lived in a
lawful immigration status in the United States for five years or more.
There has never truly been an issue with welfare abuse with immigrants before. JCD
Anderson, Stuart. "Answering the Critics of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Cato
Institute. N.p., 09 May 2011. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
Welfare use among immigrants declined significantly after Congress changed the eligibility rules in 1996. The
Urban Institute reported “substantial declines between 1994 and 1999” in the use of major benefit programs by
legal immigrants: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or, prior to 1996, its predecessor, Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) (-60 percent); food stamps (-48 percent); SSI (-32 percent); and
Medicaid (-15 percent).
The House Ways and Means Committee analyzed census data and concluded that the percentage of natives,
noncitizens, and naturalized citizens who use AFDC/TANF, Medicaid, and food stamps is similar for the three
groups. In addition, the vast majority of immigrants do not receive public benefits. Less than 1 percent of
naturalized citizens and noncitizens in 2006 received benefits under TANF.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 157 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Welfare not abused
Immigrants do not drain Medicare. JCD
Nowrasteh, Alex. "Welfare Shouldn’t Ruin Immigration Reform." Cato Institute. N.p., 14
June 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
There is a common argument that goes like this: Many immigrants are poor, and some poor people abuse
welfare. Therefore, we should not let in more legal immigrants, some of whom may abuse and eventually
bankrupt the welfare system.
Count on that to continue to be the core argument of immigration skeptics as the debate on that critical issue
continues. But a large and growing body of data refutes that notion and in fact suggests that the opposite is true:
Without immigration, America’s welfare state would go bankrupt sooner.
A recent study in the journal Health Affairs shows that in 2009, immigrants paid $13.8 billion more into
Medicare Part A than they received in benefits. Noncitizens were responsible for $10.1 billion of that $13.8
billion surplus. By contrast, native-born Americans drew $30.9 billion more from the system than they
contributed.
Immigrants tend to be younger so they actually contribute to a surplus in Medicare. JCD
Nowrasteh, Alex. "Welfare Shouldn’t Ruin Immigration Reform." Cato Institute. N.p., 14
June 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
From 2002 to 2009, immigrants contributed a total surplus of $115.2 billion to the Medicare trust fund.
Immigrants, especially non-citizens, contribute a surplus for two main reasons.
The first is that they are younger. Only 6.4 percent of non-citizens are 65 years old or older compared with 13.4
percent of natives. Eighty-five percent of non-citizens are also of working age, compared with just 60 percent of
the U.S.-born. Immigrants, especially non-citizens, are simply more likely to be in the workforce paying taxes
and less likely to currently draw benefits.
The second reason is that immigrants enrolled in Medicare receive, on annual average, about $1,465 less in
benefits individually than U.S.-born Americans.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 158 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Welfare not abused
The issue with Medicare spending isn't unique to immigrants, it's an issue with the system
itself. JCD
Nowrasteh, Alex. "Welfare Shouldn’t Ruin Immigration Reform." Cato Institute. N.p., 14
June 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
Immigration critics say that once immigrants age, they will then draw down far more benefits from Medicare
than they paid in. That is probably true, but it is also true of most Americans. The main problem with Medicare
is its financial unsustainability — which, as described above, immigration actually helps to alleviate in the short
term.
Poor non-citizens are about 25 percent less likely to be enrolled in Medicaid than poor native-born citizens.
When they are enrolled, they also use about $941 less in annual benefits than poor native-born Americans. On
average, a poor non-citizen will cost Medicaid 42 percent less than poor natives.
The story is similar for food stamps and Supplemental Security Income. Many immigrants are not legally
eligible for these programs, but when they are, they still use them at a lower rate than poor Americans.
Immigrants are needed to keep the welfare system afloat long enough for entitlement reform
to be passed. JCD
Nowrasteh, Alex. "Welfare Shouldn’t Ruin Immigration Reform." Cato Institute. N.p., 14
June 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
The welfare state makes voters look at immigrants as costs rather than seeing them as human capital that helps
enrich America in numerous ways. A far better solution, short of eliminating the welfare state altogether, is to
find ways of denying welfare to immigrants but allowing more to come legally.
Far from ruining the welfare state by driving it to bankruptcy, immigrants are currently helping to financially
sustain it long enough to pass real entitlement reform. The welfare state turns voters against immigration in a
way that few other institutions can. Overcoming the welfare hurdle is essential to producing positive
immigration reform.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 159 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Welfare not abused
Past restrictions on welfare would be reimplented and revised as part of comprehensive
immigration reform. JCD
Griswold, Daniel. "The Fiscal Impact of Immigration Reform: The Real Story." Cato
Institute. N.p., 21 May 2007. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
The right policy response to the fiscal concerns about immigration is not to artificially suppress labor migration
but to control and reallocate government spending. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act was a step in the right
direction. It recognized that welfare spending was undermining the longterm interests of low-income
households in the United States, whether native-born or immigrant, by discouraging productive activity. The
law led to a dramatic decrease in the use of several major means-tested welfare programs by native-born and
immigrant households alike. Further restrictions on access to welfare for temporary and newly legalized
foreign-born workers would be appropriate.
Illegal immigrants are not responsible for overcrowding of hospitals. JCD
Griswold, Daniel. "The Fiscal Impact of Immigration Reform: The Real Story." Cato
Institute. N.p., 21 May 2007. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
As for hospitals, especially emergency rooms, the presence of uninsured, low-skilled workers in a particular
area does impose additional costs on hospitals in the form of uncompensated care. There is no evidence,
however, that illegal immigration is the principal cause of such costs nationwide. Indeed, low-skilled
immigrants tend to underuse health care because they are typically young and relatively healthy.
A recent report from the Rand Corporation found that immigrants to the United States use relatively few health
services. The report estimates that all levels of government in the United States spend $1.1 billion a year on
health care for undocumented workers aged 18 to 64. That compares to a total of $88 billion in government
funds spent on health care for all adults in the same age group. In other words, while illegal immigrants account
for about 5 percent of the workforce, they account for 1.2 percent of spending on public health care for all
working-age Americans.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 160 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Not more illegal immigration
Will not Encourage More Illegal Immigration or Illegal
Work
Without work visas, illegals will continue to work illegally. JCD
Anderson, Stuart. "Answering the Critics of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Cato
Institute. N.p., 09 May 2011. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
Some observers might argue that even if the authors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta study are correct
that the 1986 amnesty did not increase illegal immigration, the 1986 law failed to reduce illegal immigration.
It’s true the 1986 law did not prevent future illegal immigration. However, that is not because of the legalization
program but because Congress failed to include a generous supply of legalwork visas for lower-skilled jobs in
the United States. Without such visas, individuals have continued to enter America and work illegally
Previous amnesty laws did not increase illegal immigration. JCD
Anderson, Stuart. "Answering the Critics of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Cato
Institute. N.p.,
09 May 2011. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
Did the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act result in increased illegal immigration? A Federal Reserve
Bank of Atlanta study looked closely at Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) apprehensions data
before and after 1986. The authors concluded that the 1986 amnesty did not increase illegal immigration. “It
appears that amnesty programs do not encourage illegal immigration. If anything, IRCA reduced the number of
illegal immigrants in the short run, perhaps because potential migrants thought that it would be more difficult to
cross the border or get a job in the United States after the law was passed,” wrote authors Pia M. Orrenius
(Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas) and Madeline Zavodny (Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta). “An amnesty
program also does not appear to encourage illegal immigration in the long run in the hopes of another amnesty
program; we do not find a significant difference between apprehensions after the IRCA amnesty expired and
before the program was created
foundationbriefs.com
Page 161 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Not more illegal immigration
Illegal immigration is already taking care of itself, DAT
Cave, Damien. “Better Lives for Mexicans Cut Allure of Going North.” The New York
Times. 6 July 2011. Web.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/06/world/americas/immigration.html?h
p&_r=0
Douglas S. Massey, co-director of the Mexican Migration Project at Princeton, an extensive, long-term survey
in Mexican emigration hubs, said his research showed that interest in heading to the United States for the first
time had fallen to its lowest level since at least the 1950s. “No one wants to hear it, but the flow has already
stopped,” Mr. Massey said, referring to illegal traffic. “For the first time in 60 years, the net traffic has gone
to zero and is probably a little bit negative.”
The decline in illegal immigration, from a country responsible for roughly 6 of every 10 illegal immigrants in
the United States, is stark. The Mexican census recently discovered four million more people in Mexico than
had been projected, which officials attributed to a sharp decline in emigration.
American census figures analyzed by the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center also show that the illegal
Mexican population in the United States has shrunk and that fewer than 100,000 illegal border-crossers
and visa-violators from Mexico settled in the United States in 2010, down from about 525,000 annually
from 2000 to 2004. Although some advocates for more limited immigration argue that the Pew studies offer
estimates that do not include short-term migrants, most experts agree that far fewer illegal immigrants have
been arriving in recent years.
Any con argument concerning the influx of illegal immigrants to the United States takes on the implicit
assumption that this is a large problem with impacts that need to be addressed. This card helps pro teams
mitigate those impacts.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 162 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Not more illegal immigration
Illegal immigration numbers are based on societal factors, not direct U.S. policy actions,
DAT
Cave, Damien. “Better Lives for Mexicans Cut Allure of Going North.” The New York
Times. 6 July 2011. Web.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/06/world/americas/immigration.html?h
p&_r=0
In simple terms, Mexican families are smaller than they had once been. The pool of likely migrants is shrinking.
Despite the dominance of the Roman Catholic Church in Mexico, birth control efforts have pushed down the
fertility rate to about 2 children per woman from 6.8 in 1970, according to government figures. So while
Mexico added about one million new potential job seekers annually in the 1990s, since 2007 that figure has
fallen to an average of 800,000, according to government birth records. By 2030, it is expected to drop to
300,000.
Even in larger families like the Orozcos’ — Angel is the 9th of 10 children — the migration calculation has
changed. Crossing “mojado,” wet or illegally, has become more expensive and more dangerous,
particularly with drug cartels dominating the border. At the same time, educational and employment
opportunities have greatly expanded in Mexico. Per capita gross domestic product and family income have
each jumped more than 45 percent since 2000, according to one prominent economist, Roberto Newell. Despite
all the depictions of Mexico as “nearly a failed state,” he argued, “the conventional wisdom is wrong.”
A significant expansion of legal immigration — aided by American consular officials — is also under
way. Congress may be debating immigration reform, but in Mexico, visas without a Congressionally mandated
cap on how many people can enter have increased from 2006 to 2010, compared with the previous five years.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 163 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: No to economic harms
Will not have Negative Economic Consequences
Amnesty will not lead to an increase in unemployment. JCD
Anderson, Stuart. "Answering the Critics of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Cato
Institute. N.p., 09 May 2011. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
Would an increase in temporary visas lead to more unemployment for American workers? In their 2009 report
for the Cato Institute, Peter Dixon and Maureen Rimmer found that would not be the case: “Among other key
findings is that additional low-skilled immigration would not increase the unemployment rates of low-skilled
U.S. workers.”
Dixon and Rimmer show that the U.S. economy is dynamic, not static as many critics of immigration either
assume or at least appear to argue. “While our modeling suggests that there would be reductions in the number
of jobs for U.S. workers in low-skilled occupations, this does not mean that unemployment rates for these U.S.
workers would rise,” according to Dixon and Rimmer. “With increases in low-skilled immigration, the U.S.
economy would expand, creating more jobs in higher-skilled areas. Over time, some U.S. workers now in lowpaying jobs would move up the occupational ladder, actually reducing the wage pressure on low-skilled U.S.
workers who remain in low-skilled jobs.
Visa fees will realistically help balance the additional federal spending incurred by
immigrants. JCD
Griswold, Daniel. "The Fiscal Impact of Immigration Reform: The Real Story." Cato
Institute. N.p., 21 May 2007. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
Specifically, the CBO estimated that federal spending would increase $53.6 billion during the period 2007-16 if
the legislation became law, primarily because of increases in refundable tax credits and Medicaid spending. The
additional spending would be more than offset in the same period by an even greater increase in federal
revenues of $65.7 billion, mostly due to higher collections of income and Social Security taxes but also because
of increased visa fees.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 164 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: No to economic harms
Most studies calculate the cost of educating the children without considering their potential
future tax revenue. JCD
Griswold, Daniel. "The Fiscal Impact of Immigration Reform: The Real Story." Cato
Institute. N.p., 21 May 2007. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
One frequently cited figure on the cost of low-skilled immigrants comes from the authoritative 1997 National
Research Council study, The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. The
study calculated the lifetime fiscal impact of immigrants with different educational levels. The study expressed
the impact in terms of net present value (NPV), that is, the cumulative impact in future years expressed in
today’s dollars. The study estimated the lifetime fiscal impact of a typical immigrant without a high school
education to be a negative NPV of $89,000.4 That figure is often cited by skeptics of immigration reform.
What is less often considered is that the NRC study also measured the fiscal impact of the descendants of
immigrants. That gives a much more accurate picture of the fiscal impact of low-skilled immigrants. It would be
misleading, for example, to count the costs of educating the children of an immigrant without considering the
future taxes paid by the educated children once they have grown and entered the workforce. The children of
immigrants typically outperform their parents in terms of educational achievement and income. As a result, the
NRC calculated that the descendants of a typical lowskilled immigrant have a positive $76,000 fiscal impact,
reducing the net present value of the fiscal impact of a lowskilled immigrant and descendants to $13,000.
Driving out, rather than embracing, illegal immigrants entails a negative economic impact,
DAT
Constable, Pamela. “Alabama Law Drives Out Illegal Immigrants But Also Has
Unexpected Consequences.” Washington Post. 17 June 2012. Web.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-06-17/local/35462377_1_illegal-immigrantspoultry-workers-alabama-law
Hidden behind the Banco del Sol and the Tienda El Nino is the economic pillar of this rural town: A massive
factory that processes 130,000 chickens a day. Inside, headless plucked birds move along conveyor belts while
300 workers, in repeated deft strokes, slice each passing carcass into chunks of kitchen-ready meat.
For years, most poultry workers here were Mexican immigrants, including some who were in the country
illegally. But last fall, after a tough state law against illegal immigrants took effect, many vanished
overnight, rattling the town’s large Hispanic community and leaving the poultry business scrambling to
find workers willing to stand for hours in a wet, chilly room, cutting up dead chickens.
…
foundationbriefs.com
Page 165 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: No to economic harms
The state senator said he had “absolutely no doubt” that the law, and the resulting exodus of illegal workers, has
started putting more Alabamians to work. Beason noted that the state’s unemployment rate has fallen sharply
since last fall, from 9.8 percent to 7.2 percent, and he said the new law was “a big part” of the reason. “I get
phone calls from people thanking me all the time,” he said.
Nevertheless, a variety of employers in Alabama said they have not been able to find enough legal
residents to replace the seasoned Hispanic field pickers, drywall hangers, landscapers and poultry
workers who fled the state. There was an initial rush of job applications, they said, but many new employees
quit or were let go.
It is tempting to assume that illegal immigrants hold menial or trivial jobs that are thus replaceable—this
would help con teams make the case for a non-lenient policy option with respect to immigration reform.
This card subverts such a framework.
Illegal immigrants incur a net negative fiscal burden for every echelon of government, DAT
“The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local
Governments.” Congressional Budget Office. December 2007. Web.
The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total
cost of services provided to those immigrants. Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized
immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a
portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health
care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the
unauthorized population on state and local budgets , that impact is most likely modest.
Federal aid programs offer resources to state and local governments that provide services to unauthorized
immigrants, but those funds do not fully cover the costs incurred by those governments. Some of the reports that
CBO examined did not include such federal transfers when estimating the net effect of the unauthorized
population on state and local governments
Any debates about the economic impact of legalization with respect to federal ledgers needs to start on
the premise that undocumented immigrants present a net burden on every level of government.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 166 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: No to economic harms
Revenue sharing would also help deal with the initial up-front costs that state governments would be
forced to bear. JCD
Griswold, Daniel. "The Fiscal Impact of Immigration Reform: The Real Story." Cato
Institute. N.p., 21 May 2007. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
Another appropriate policy response would be some form of revenue sharing from the federal to state and local
governments. The federal government could compensate state and local governments that are bearing especially
heavy up-front costs due to the increase in low-skilled immigration. The transfers could offset additional costs
for emergency room health care services and additional public school enrollment. Such a program would not
create any new programs or additional government spending; it would simply reallocate government revenues
in a way that more closely matched related spending.
Immigrant Households Not More Costly than Poor American Households. JCD
Rector, Robert, Christine Kim, and Shanea Watkins. The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill
Households to the U.S. Taxpayer. Rep. The Heritage Foundation, 4 Apr. 2007. Web.
01 Nov. 2013.
On average, low-skill households receive more government benefits and services than do other households. In
FY 2004, low-skill households received $32,138 per household in immediate benefits and services (direct
benefits, means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services). If public goods and the cost of
interest and other financial obligations are added, total benefits rose to $43,084 per low-skill household. In
general, low-skill households received about $10,000 more in government benefits than did the average U.S.
household, largely because of the higher level of means-tested welfare benefits received by low-skill
households.
In contrast, low-skill households pay less in taxes than do other households. On average, low-skill households
paid only $9,689 in taxes in FY 2004. Thus, low-skill households received at least three dollars in immediate
benefits and services for each dollar in taxes paid. If the costs of public goods and past financial obligations are
added, the ratio rises to four to one.
Strikingly, low-skill households in FY 2004 had average earnings of $20,564 per household. Thus, the $32,138
per household in government immediate benefits and services received by these households not only exceeded
their taxes paid, but also substantially exceeded their average household earned income.
A household's net fiscal deficit equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. If the costs of
direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services alone are counted, the average
foundationbriefs.com
Page 167 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: No to economic harms
lowskill household had a fiscal deficit of $22,449 (expenditures of $32,138 minus $9,689 in taxes). The average
net fiscal deficit of a low-skill household actually exceeded the household's earnings.
Benefits for Economy from Citizenship AMS
Elise Foley. “Senate Immigration Reform Bill Passes with Strong Majority.” The
Huffington Post. June 27, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/senateimmigration-reform-bill_n_3511664.html
The bill adds huge increases in border security, bolstered by an amendment from Corker and Hoeven that
helped bring on board unsure Democrats and Republicans. The amendment would prevent green card status for
undocumented immigrants until the government deploys 20,000 additional border agents, mandates E-Verify to
prevent businesses from hiring unauthorized workers, completes a 700-mile border fence and adds to entry-exit
systems to track whether foreign nationals overstay their visas.
Although those border security measures and other pieces of the bill come at a cost, the Congressional
Budget Office has estimated that the legislation would shrink the deficit by nearly $900 billion, minus
expenses from the Corker-Hoeven amendment.
This card both addresses the costs of the added border security amendment and explains why these costs
will not hurt American citizens. As this brief explains at great length, the economic advantages of
granting citizenship to immigrants are huge. This source stipulates that these advantages override all
costs enough to shrink the deficit by $900 billion.
Native-born American workers are not in direct competition with immigrants for
jobs. LOR
Madland, David, and Nick Bunker. "Legal Status for Undocumented Workers Is Good
for American Workers." Center for American Progress. Center for American
Progress, 20 Mar. 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
Contrary to common fears, immigrants are not frequently in direct competition with native-born American
workers, in part because they tend to have different skill sets. Native-born American workers, for example, are
likely to have much greater English language skills than new immigrants, allowing native-born workers to
access more skill-intensive jobs.
American workers are not harmed and may even benefit from immigration, because immigrants tend to be
complementary workers who help make Americans more productive. Bussers at a restaurant, for example, help
to make waiters more efficient by increasing the number of tables a waiter can cover.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 168 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: No to economic harms
Other immigrants—those who are better established in the workforce—however, may find themselves in more
direct competition with newly legalized workers, and the research suggests that the wages of the former group
may suffer. Still, the small negative wage effect the research finds for existing immigrants is at least partially
ameliorated for many mixed-status families—families that contain both documented and undocumented
immigrants—by the increased wages that are a result of legalization for formerly undocumented workers.
Immigration will not displace American Workers. LOR
Porter, Eduardo. "Immigration and American Jobs." The New York Times. The New
York Times Company, 19 Oct. 2012. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
The belief that immigration would simply displace American workers relies on the assumption that employers
would do nothing but replace their costly domestic labor force with cheap imports. But that’s not typically what
happens. For one thing, immigrants and domestic workers are not identical. Even the least-educated Americans
are likely to be more fluent in English — better at talking with bosses or communicating with customers. When
a contractor in Fresno expands into roofing, it will not just need a bunch of cheap immigrant roofers. It will also
need an American supervisor and maybe an extra clerk.
Faced with a new, different pool of workers, companies often invest to reap the higher profits that the labor
allows. Contractors, for instance, will be able to take on projects that would not have been profitable paying
higher wages to domestic workers – like the roofing example in Fresno. This provides new opportunities for
immigrants and for more highly paid domestic workers alike.
Mr. Peri and Chad Sparber of Colgate University found that American workers in states with large shares of
less-educated immigrants gravitate toward occupations like cashiers and bank tellers, waiters or sales floor
clerks, which require more communications skills. Foreigners, in turn, stick to manual tasks and physical labor.
By encouraging this specialization and capital investment, immigration contributes to productivity growth.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 169 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: No to overcrowding
Legalization will not lead to overcrowding
Illegal immigration is not to blame for increased strain on infrastructure or the associated
costs. JCD
Griswold, Daniel. "The Fiscal Impact of Immigration Reform: The Real Story." Cato
Institute. N.p., 21 May 2007. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
Increased immigration has also been blamed for crowded roads, hospitals, public schools, and prisons. In all
four of those cases, the negative impact of immigration has been exaggerated.
As for congestion of roads, immigration has played a secondary role in population growth nationally and at a
more local level. Nationally, net international migration accounts for 43 percent of America’s annual population
growth, with natural growth still accounting for a majority of the growth. On a local level, an analysis of U.S.
Census data shows that, for a typical U.S. county, net international migration accounted for 28 percent of
population growth between 2000 and 2006. Natural growth from births over deaths accounted for 38 percent of
growth on a county level and migration from other counties 34 percent.7 One-third of U.S. counties actually lost
population between 2000 and 2006 as birthrates continue to fall and Americans migrate internally to the most
economically dynamic metropolitan areas. If local roads seem more crowded, it is not typically immigration but
natural growth and internal migration that are mostly responsible.
Illegal immigrants are not to be blamed for crowded public schools. JCD
Griswold, Daniel. "The Fiscal Impact of Immigration Reform: The Real Story." Cato
Institute. N.p., 21 May 2007. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
As for alleged overcrowding at public schools, low skilled immigrants cannot be singled out for blame.
Enrollment in the public school system has actually been declining relative to the size of America’s overall
population. The share of our population in K-12 public schools has fallen sharply in recent decades, from 22
percent of the U.S. population in 1970 to 16 percent today. As with roads, overcrowding in certain school
districts is more likely to be driven by new births and internal migration than by newly arrived immigrants.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 170 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: No to overcrowding
Illegal immigrants are not more likely to be jailed and are not responsible for prison
overcrowding. JCD
Griswold, Daniel. "The Fiscal Impact of Immigration Reform: The Real Story." Cato
Institute. N.p., 21 May 2007. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
As for crime and the inmate population, again, immigration is not the major driver. Indeed, the violent crime
rate in the United States has actually been trending down in recent years as immigration has been increasing.
After rising steadily from the 1960s through the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the United States
dropped from 758 offenses per 100,000 population in 1991 to 469 offenses in 2005. As a recent study by the
Immigration Policy Center concluded, “Even as the undocumented population has doubled since 1994, the
violent crime rate in the United States has declined 34.2 percent and the property crime rate has fallen 26.4
percent.”
Immigrants are less likely to be jailed than are their native-born counterparts with similar education and ethnic
background. The same IPC study found that “for every ethnic group without exception, incarceration rates
among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are least educated.” Other studies reveal that
immigrants are less prone to crime, not because they fear deportation, but because of more complex social
factors. All the available evidence contradicts the misplaced fear that allowing additional low-skilled
immigrants to enter the United States will somehow increase crime and incarceration rates.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 171 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Already pay taxes
Immigrants Already Pay Taxes
Immigrants Paying Into Welfare Already AMS
“5 Reasons to Grant Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants.” Reason Magazine. February 7,
2013. http://reason.com/archives/2013/02/07/5-reasons-for-amnesty-for-illegalimmigrants
One of President Obama’s markers on the path to citizenship is “paying taxes,” but most illegal immigrants
already do so. As Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia has reported, in 2006 an estimated 8
million illegal immigrants—up to two thirds of the total—paid taxes, including both income taxes and
Medicare and Social Security taxes. Indeed, revenue from illegal immigrants is estimated at $11 billion a
year to Social Security alone, and there's not even a pretense of those payments leading toeventual
benefits. And of course everyone who buys things in the U.S. pays sales taxes, irrespective of their immigration
status. Undoubtedly, even more illegal immigrants would pay taxes if they didn’t have to worry about possible
deportation as a consequence.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 172 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Crime
Granting Citizenship Will Not Cause More Crime
Last Amnesty Caused Drop in Crime AMS
Ed Krayewski. “5 Reasons to Grant Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants.” Reason Magazine.
February 7, 2013. http://reason.com/archives/2013/02/07/5-reasons-for-amnesty-forillegal-immigrants
While illegal immigration is a crime, the act of crossing the border without authorization is a
mere misdemeanor. Immigrants, in fact, may help drive crime down. The vast majority want to stay in the
country in order to work and so naturally steer clear of breaking any laws. And as The Future of Freedom
Foundation's Sheldon Richman pointed out a few years ago, all manners of violent crimes dropped
dramatically since 1986, the last time an amnesty was granted to illegal immigrants. Yes, 14 percent of
federal inmates are illegal immigrants, but they are largely there for immigration violations. On the state
level, Richman notes, less than 5 percent of inmates are illegal immigrants. Not exactly the makings of a crime
wave.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 173 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: Crime
Immigrants, particularly first generation or illegal, are typically the least problematic, DAT
Shapiro, Ari. “Do Illegal Immigrants Burden the Justice System?” NPR. 27 April 2006.
Web. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5365863
SHAPIRO: Academics who study immigration and crime have almost all reached the same conclusion. Robert
Sampson teaches sociology at Harvard.
Professor ROBERT SAMPSON (Department of Sociology, Harvard University): This idea that there's this
immigrant flow that's disorderly, criminal, disrupted families, I'm just saying doesn't match up necessarily with
the facts.
SHAPIRO: Sampson's research showed that first-generation immigrants are 45 percent less likely to
commit crimes than third generation immigrants. Rutgers economics Professor Anne Piehl found a similar
pattern when she looked at incarceration rates.
Professor ANNE PIEHL (Department of Economics, Rutgers University): Immigrants are extremely unlikely to
be incarcerated relative to natives.
SHAPIRO: They're about one-fifth as likely to end up in prison. And what's more...
Prof. PIEHL: When we control for things like race and education, immigrants actually start to look even
better, relative to natives.
SHAPIRO: At Florida International University in Miami, criminal justice professor Romero Martinez, Jr. has
studied violent crime rates among Latinos. Like the other researchers, his conclusions contradict the image of
immigrants as a criminal, violent bunch.
Professor ROMERO MARTINEZ, JR. (Florida International University): For the most part, places with heavy
levels of immigrants, or a high percentage of immigrants, have traditionally had relatively low levels of crime.
SHAPIRO: Martinez says most immigrants have strong work ethics and family ties that don't leave them any
time or incentive to be violent. These studies don't distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. But
Harvard Professor Sampson says...
Prof. SAMPSON: One can make the argument that illegals have greater incentive not to commit crime,
because then it would bring increased visibility, deportation, arrests, and so forth.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 174 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: FAIR biased
The Federation for American Immigration Reform is a
highly biased source
The founder is known for his unconventional perspectives Fj
DeParle, Jason. “The Anti-Immigration Crusader” The New York Times. April 17, 2011.
…Dr. Tanton helped start all three major national groups fighting to reduce immigration, legal and illegal, and
molded one of the most powerful grass-roots forces in politics.
One group that Dr. Tanton nurtured,Numbers USA, doomed PresidentGeorge W. Bush’s legalization plan
four years ago by overwhelming Congress with protest calls. Another, the Federation for American
Immigration Reform, or FAIR, helped draft the Arizona law last year to give the police new power to
identify and detain illegal immigrants.
A third organization, the Center for Immigration Studies, joined the others in December in defeating the
Dream Act, which sought to legalize some people brought to the United States illegally as children.
But if anything, Dr. Tanton grew more emboldened to challenge taboos. He increasingly made his case against
immigration in racial terms.
“One of my prime concerns,” he wrote to a large donor, “is about the decline of folks who look like you
and me.” He warned a friend that “for European-American society and culture to persist requires a
European-American majority, and a clear one at that.”
Dr. Tanton acknowledged the shift from his earlier, colorblind arguments, but the “uncomfortable truth,” he
wrote, was that those arguments had failed. With a million or more immigrants coming each year — perhaps a
third illegally — he warned, “The end may be nearer than we think.”
He corresponded with Sam G. Dickson, a Georgia lawyer for the Ku Klux Klan, who sits on the board
of The Barnes Review, a magazine that, among other things, questions “the so-called Holocaust.” Dr.
Tanton promoted the work of Jared Taylor, whose magazine,American Renaissance, warned: “America
is an increasingly dangerous and disagreeable place because of growing numbers of blacks and
Hispanics.” (To Mr. Taylor, Dr. Tanton wrote, “You are saying a lot of things that need to be said.”)
Beyond immigration, he revived an old interest in eugenics, another field trailed by a history of racial and class
prejudice.
“Do we leave it to individuals to decide that they are the intelligent ones who should have more kids?” he
wrote. “And more troublesome, what about the less intelligent, who logically should have less. Who is
going to break the bad news to them?”
foundationbriefs.com
Page 175 of 201
December 2013
Pro Counters: FAIR biased
The organization is very radical FJ
Baumgarten, Gerald. “Is FAIR Unfair?” The Anti-Defamation League. 2000.
However, in recent years, FAIR has:

Acknowledged and defended having received grants reportedly totaling around
$600,000 from the Pioneer Fund, which has been described by The New York Times as having
been established for the express purpose of promoting research into eugenics, and which has
sponsored projects based on the notion that Blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites.

Expressed support for an anti-immigration op-ed article by John Tanton, a FAIRfounder and
board member, in which immigrants were compared to bacteria. (Linda Chavez, a former official of
the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, has called Tanton’s views “anti-Hispanic, anti-Catholic, and not
excusable.”)

Reflected hostility toward Hispanics and the Catholic Church when FAIR’s executive director,
Dan Stein, told an interviewer, “Certainly we would encourage people” in other countries to have
small families. Otherwise they’ll all be coming here, because there’s no room at the Vatican…
Many [immigrants] hate America, hate everything the United States stands for. Talk to some of
these Central Americans.”

Sponsored a newspaper ad critical of a U. S. Senator’s position on immigration legislation, in
which a photo of the Senator, who is of Lebanese ancestry, was juxtaposed with one of a notorious
Middle East terrorist; the ad suggested that the senator’s position would cause Americans to be
“needlessly exposed to the threat of terrorism from criminals like Osama bin Laden.” The Detroit
Free Press recently described FAIR’s ad campaign regarding the senator (Spencer Abraham, R-MI) as
“hysterical rhetoric … disingenuous and nativistic. It comes perilously close to a smear.”

Provided a link on its Internet web site to that of the California-based Voice of Citizens Together (VCT),
a strident anti-immigration group whose web site has referred to “Mexico’s invasion of the United
States,” and predicted that “California will be taken over by Third World forces, led by Mexico, who
have an axe to grind against European Americans.”
foundationbriefs.com
Page 176 of 201
Con Counters
foundationbriefs.com
Page 177 of 201
December 2013
Con Counters: Illegal immigration continues
Will not Stop Illegal Immigration
History Shows this Approach Does Not Work AMS
Derrick Morgan. “Why America Can’t Afford Amnesty.” Heritage Foundation. October
11, 2013. http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/10/why-america-cantafford-amnesty
Worst of all, perhaps, is that the Senate-passed “comprehensive” bill won’t actually stop illegal immigration.
Under the bill, the CBO predicts, millions more immigrants would come and stay illegally over the next
few decades -- meaning in all likelihood we’d debate amnesty again within a generation.
This finding should not surprise us; it merely fits the historical pattern. We granted amnesty in 1986 to fewer
than 3 million illegal immigrants and now have some 11 million. Granting another amnesty would
encourage more illegal immigrants who are hoping for the next amnesty.
All of this would be grossly unfair to those who did not enter or stay in the country unlawfully or those who
endured our overly bureaucratic immigration system to comply with the law.
A path to citizenship misses the impetus of effective immigration policy, DAT
“Now Let Us Praise Labour-Market Integration.” The Economist. 8 July 2011. Web.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/07/mexico-migrationand-growth\
America may have, per Tyler Cowen's "great stagnation" thesis, picked most of its "low-hanging fruit", but in
Mexico low-hanging fruit has for decades rusted on the vine. As Mexico continues to improve its physical and
institutional infrastructure, educate its populace, and put productivity-enhancing technology to better and more
widespread use, its standard of living will swiftly approach America's. "Catch-up" growth is swift. When a
typical Mexican can expect to live at a level of comfort comparable to a typical 1960s American, the
"problem" of Mexican immigration will be no more. An overwhelming majority of Mexicans want to stay in
Mexico and, as we are seeing, they do stay when Mexico offers even a relatively middling level of opportunity
and material welfare.
That Mexican development is the main solution to America's complaints about Mexican immigration suggests
that American immigration reform should focus on speeding Mexican development. That means seeking a level
of economic integration with Mexico that goes well beyond NAFTA. I would prefer an EU-like common North
American labour market, as well as expanded Mexican access to American colleges and universities. But I
foundationbriefs.com
Page 178 of 201
December 2013
Con Counters: Illegal immigration continues
would happily settle for a large guest-worker programme that would make it much easier for Mexicans
to legally live and work in America, as well as taking the risk out of cycling back home.
This piece is helpful in not only helping to alternately frame the debate in terms friendly to the con, but
also presenting an effective advocacy that presents a direct alternative to citizenship paths.
Streamlining the guest worker system, rather than offering amnesty, is potentially effective,
DAT
Miroff, Nick. “Canada’s Guest Worker Program Could Become Model for U.S.
Immigration Changes.” The Washington Post. 5 January 2013. Web.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/canadas-guest-worker-program-couldbecome-model-for-us-immigration-changes/2013/01/05/2b82a468-551b-11e2-89de76c1c54b1418_story.html
The United States gives out about 50,000 seasonal agricultural visas per year, nearly all of them to Mexican
workers. But U.S. farmers, immigrant advocate groups, labor unions and Mexican officials say that the current
U.S. program is a mess: inefficient, bureaucratic and vulnerable to abuses by swindlers and shady
recruiters who charge potential workers thousands of dollars to find jobs for them and prepare their visa
applications.
…
Under the U.S. program for seasonal agriculture workers, there is no cap on the number of visas that can be
issued. But many U.S. employers prefer not to use it because the system is slow and onerous, experts say, and
they instead rely on illegal migrants.
Illegal immigration will still be an issue due to birthright citizenship. JCD
Graglia, Lino A. Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens: An Irrational Public
Policy. Rep. University of Texas Review of Law and Policy, 11 Jan. 2010. Web. 01
Nov. 2013.
American law, as currently understood, provides an enormous inducement to illegal immigration: namely, an
automatic grant of American citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born in this country. As a result, it
has been estimated that over two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals, more than one-half of all
births in Los Angeles, and nearly 10% of all births in the nation in recent years were to illegal immigrant
mothers. Many of these mothers frankly admitted that the reason they entered illegally was to give birth to an
American citizen.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 179 of 201
December 2013
Con Counters: Economic gains exaggerated
Economic Gains are Exaggerated
Wages gained by amnesty for illegals are severely exaggerated. JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The claimed benefits of an amnesty for the illegal alien workers are misleading. Wages for immigrants did rise
after the 1986 amnesty. But so did wages in general. It was an inflationary period. 2 According to the
Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), beneficiaries of the Immigration Reform and Control
Act (IRCA) amnesty saw inflation adjusted wages rise by a meager 15 percent between 1986 and 1991. Relative
to the wage gains of other workers, the legalized workers did not make any gains.
Illegal Immigrants incur heavy costs for society. JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002
and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating an annual net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per
household
[…]
“On average, low-skill immigrant households [used as a surrogate for illegal immigrant households] received
$30,160 per household in immediate government benefits and services in FY 2004, including direct benefits,
means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services. By contrast, low-skill immigrant households
paid only $10,573 in taxes. Thus, low skill immigrant households received nearly three dollars in benefits and
services for each dollar in taxes paid.”
foundationbriefs.com
Page 180 of 201
December 2013
Con Counters: Economic gains exaggerated
The amount of money dedicated to education funding is disproportionately spent on illegal
immigrant children. JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I is aimed at providing supplemental funding to
increase educational opportunities and improve academic performance of children from poor families. In 2010,
an estimated $13.8 billion was budgeted for this program (after subtracting funding for Puerto Rico and U.S.
associated and dependent territories, and for Native Americans). With the vast majority of the children of illegal
aliens falling within the economic criteria of this program, and these children constituting approximately 9.7
percent of K-12 enrollment nationally, we estimate that about $1.33 billion of this funding is spent on children
of illegal aliens.
Even with a temporary work visa program, illegal immigrants’ children will make up the
largest portion of educational costs. JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Not all students benefitting from the MEP funding will be illegal aliens or the children of illegal aliens, but it is
reasonable to expect that most of them will be. Philip Martin, an agricultural economist, estimated in 2002 that
about 1.2 million crop workers were illegal aliens representing 58 percent of all U.S. crop workers.17 We
ascribe about three-fifths of the MEP expenditures to illegal aliens and the children of illegal aliens.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 181 of 201
December 2013
Con Counters: Economic gains exaggerated
Ending birthright citizenship would free up more money in the Pell Grant system. JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
At the same time, it should be noted that if the influx of new illegal aliens were reduced, it would have the
effect over time of assuring that a rising share of the Pell grants would become available for the children of US
citizens and of legal permanent residents. Further, if the U.S. citizenship law were changed by Congress and
upheld by the Supreme Court to exclude automatic citizenship for children of persons not legally present in the
United States, that also would have the effect of freeing up more of these scholarships for the children of U.S.
citizens and legal residents.
Illegal immigrants incur significant costs through emergency medical care. JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Recognizing that the EMTALA admission requirement constituted a major funding obligation on local medical
facilities, and in light of the fact that many medical facilities had begun to close their emergency rooms because
of the burden of uncompensated costs, Congress, in 2003, enacted Section 1011 in the Medicare Modernization
Act (PL 108-173). That legislation provided for federal reimbursement of emergency medical care extended to
illegal aliens. It authorized a $1 billion program — $250 million each year for 2005 through 2008 — to be
distributed on the basis of the federal government’s estimate of the size of the illegal alien population in 2000
with an additional emphasis on facilities in states on the border with Mexico. Although that compensation
ostensibly ended in 2008, funding was available and disbursed in 2009. The recently adopted America's
Affordable Health Care Act of 2009 did not provide for participation by illegal aliens. Therefore, having once
begun a compensation program to defray unreimbursed medical costs for illegal aliens, we assume that it is
likely that it will be continued more or less at the same level, if not increased.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 182 of 201
December 2013
Con Counters: Economic gains exaggerated
Incentivizing a largely low-paid labor force to stay discourages innovation, DAT
Krikorian, Mark. “Guestworker Programs: A Threat to American Agriculture.” Center
for Immigration Studies. June 2001. Web.
http://www.cis.org/GuestworkerPrograms-AmericanAgriculture
An example of the improved productivity possible even in very labor-intensive crops is seen in raisin grapes.
The production of raisins is one of the most labor-intensive activities in North America, with 40,000 to 50,000
workers harvesting the grapes in California's Central Valley during the three- to four-week season. Using
conventional methods, the grapes are cut with a knife, placed in a pan, then laid on a paper tray for drying, and
during the drying period, must be manually turned, then manually rolled and collected.
But starting in the late 1950s in Australia (where there is no large supply of foreign farm labor), farmers were
compelled by circumstances to develop a labor-saving method called "dried-on-the-vine" (DOV) production.
This involves growing the grape vines on trellises, then, when the grapes are ready, cutting the base of the vine
instead of cutting each bunch of grapes individually. The fruit then dries naturally on the vine, at which point a
tractor-mounted harvester gently knocks the raisins off into bins.
The benefits of this new method are significant: Labor demand at harvest time drops by up to 85 percent
and total labor demand is spread out over the whole year; new vineyards planted for DOV harvest
increase yield per acre by up to 200 percent; and the fruit is less susceptible to rain damage and is of
higher quality because of fewer problems with dirt, sand, and mold. One farmer who shifted to DOV
summarized the benefits: DOV "can reduce labor, reduce weather hazards, reduce environmental concerns of
dust and chemical use . . . DOV is so good it's scary."
Has this high-productivity, innovative method of production been widely adopted? No. Only a handful of
farmers are using it, most notably Lee Simpson of Simpson Vineyards near Madera, Calif. (who, not
coincidentally, entered the raisin business after a career in engineering, rather than inheriting a family farm).
This is because the widespread availability of foreign workers is a disincentive to raisin farmers, whose
average age is believed to be over 60, to make the long-term capital investment needed to retrofit existing
raisin farms for DOV production. The enactment of a new guestworker program would further retard the
adoption of this promising new technology.
In raisin production, a surfeit of labor has dampened innovation and productivity gains. An example of the
reverse phenomenon, a labor shortage promoting dramatic steps toward modernization, is Florida's sugar cane
harvest. In the 1930s, Eleanor Roosevelt decried the working conditions endured by sugar harvesters using a
machete, bending at the waist, dealing with heat, mosquitoes, and snakes — which had changed little since the
Middle Ages. These conditions continued through the 1980s, when the sugar companies imported 9,000 to
10,000 West Indian guestworkers a year through the small H-2A visa program. Then the industry was hit
by a persistent wave of lawsuits filed on behalf of farmworkers whose contracts had been violated by
foundationbriefs.com
Page 183 of 201
December 2013
Con Counters: Economic gains exaggerated
their employers. This proved so nettlesome that the employers calculated it would be more profitable to
mechanize the sugar harvest than to honor all the legally required terms of their contracts with the
farmworkers. By the 1992-93 season, 50 percent of Florida sugar cane was harvested by machine, and
today virtually all of it is, resulting in dramatic increases in productivity, plus higher wages and more
civilized working conditions for the remaining harvesters.
While this article’s sugar cane and raisin examples are with respect to guest worker programs, the same
problems and outcomes apply to a naturalization system for illegal immigrants.
Naturalization fails to fill the oncoming low-skilled labor shortage, DAT
Clemens, Michael. “More Unskilled Workers, Please.” Foreign Policy. 8 July 2013. Web.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/07/08/immigration_bill_unskilled_labor
?page=0,0
Who will staff the millions of new low-skilled jobs the U.S. economy will create in the next decade, jobs
American workers will not fill? There are the current undocumented workers in the country who may be
regularized under immigration reform -- but they're already in the United States, so the BLS's estimates
of new jobs already account for the jobs they fill. Perhaps some of these jobs will be filled by people who
come on family-reunification visas, but no one knows how many of them there will be, and it will almost
certainly be too few. Family-based immigrants have not been filling many of the low-skilled jobs currently
filled by unauthorized workers, and the Senate bill will reduce the number of family-based visas.
All this implies that even if the United States regularizes millions of immigrants now, it is likely to have another
unauthorized immigration crisis several years ahead. The last mass regularization, under President Ronald
Reagan in 1986, barely altered the stock of unauthorized immigrants in the medium term. Before the
regularization there were around 3 million unauthorized immigrants; just five years later there were once again
around 3 million. The main reason was that the reform was a political showpiece built around the politics of
"amnesty" and "security," rather than the needs of the U.S. economy. It was never designed to fill America's
economic needs for low-skilled labor, but instead was a rickety political compromise among farmers, labor and
Hispanic groups, and other interests. In the aftermath, employers had an awful choice: either turn to the black
market for labor or face the consequences of a low-skilled labor shortage -- stunted businesses, closed farms,
infants and grandparents without proper care. The latest efforts at reform might be the best that can be
hoped for from Capitol Hill. But they will similarly herald a new wave of unauthorized immigration
unless their low-skill work visa caps are made much more flexible, starting from the essential labor needs
of U.S. employers. And that's unlikely.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 184 of 201
December 2013
Con Counters: Economic gains exaggerated
Other studies significantly overstate the tax revenue generated by illegal aliens. JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
A 2004 study by the CIS put the estimated tax payments collected by the federal government from illegal aliens
at about $15.9 billion in 2002.65 The IRS estimated in 2006 that between 1996 and 2003 illegal aliens paid
almost $50 billion in taxes.66 That suggests an annual average of around $6.25 billion per year. Our analysis
suggests that both the CIS estimate and the IRS estimate significantly overstate tax collections from illegal alien
workers.
[…]
We assume that as many as three-fourths of illegal aliens in the formal economy may not file income tax returns
because of their illegal alien status and reluctance to use fake Social Security numbers to obtain refunds of the
tax withholding. That means that the tax withholding stays with the Treasury and that any additional taxes owed
are not collected. That is a very conservative assumption in light of claims by illegal alien support groups that a
much larger share of illegal workers are filing tax returns. We apply that same assumption with regard to the
outlier high earners even though some of them also may be in the underground economy and they are more
likely to be self-employed and not subject to income tax withholding. Our calculation indicates that the U.S.
Treasury gains about $1.6 billion from the tax withholding from these majority low-wage workers and a much
smaller number of higher-level earners in the above-ground economy.
Illegal immigrants take advantage of the tax credit system. JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Low-wage illegal alien workers subject to income tax withholding, i.e., those working with fake or stolen
identities or who have SSNs from a time before they lapsed into illegal alien status may file an income tax
return to obtain refunds of any taxes withheld in excess of what they owe. This is true even if no taxes were
withheld. The EITC for a family with two dependent children earning $31,200 is $2,963. The Treasury payment
for the family with one child would be $1,476. In each of these cases the illegal alien family is not paying
federal income taxes and, instead, if they file a tax return as required by law, they are able to receive the EITC
and that represents a net drain on federal tax revenues.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 185 of 201
December 2013
[…]
Con Counters: Economic gains exaggerated
Based on the estimate that 25 percent of illegal alien households in the above ground economy are filing income
tax returns (to obtain a refund of any taxes that have been withheld and to take advantage of the EITC
payment), that represents about 600,000 tax returns, i.e., about 2.8 percent of the EITC claims filed in 2008.
That number of tax returns applying for an EITC of $2,963 would be a drain on the U.S. Treasury of about
$1.78 billion.
The economic deficits currently cause by illegals would not be remedied by increased taxes.
JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The proponents of an amnesty for illegal aliens argue that giving legal status to illegal aliens would ‘bring them
out of the shadows’ and into the legal workforce where they would pay taxes. If that were to happen, the half of
illegal aliens currently in the underground economy as well as the three-fourths of those in the formal economy
who now “lack the confidence to file a tax return” would be more likely to file a tax return and claim the EITC
and the child tax credits. That would potentially represent an additional 4.7 million EITC claimants. Using the
same income and family size assumptions as above, that would represent an additional drain on the treasury of
more than $20.2 billion annually for the EITC and an additional $2.6 billion in child credits.
The wages of illegals would not rise with legalization. JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The proponents of amnesty assert that the newly legalized alien workers would increase their earnings, which, if
true, could reduce this drain on the treasury. but, studies of the 1986 legalized population found five years after
legalization that, although wages had risen, the gap between median earnings for the legalized workers and US
workers had not changed.77 furthermore, as noted above, even if typical earnings increased by 50 percent or
more, the EITC could still be claimed, although for a lesser amount.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 186 of 201
December 2013
Con Counters: Economic gains exaggerated
Even when legalized, illegal aliens are less likely to contribute back to the economy. JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
The previously cited CIS study estimated these tax collections to be about $2.05 billion in 2002.83 The size of
the illegal alien population will have increased since then but the same excise taxes apply. Using our larger
estimate of the illegal alien population, federal excise tax collections will now be nearly $2.5 billion annually.
However, this estimate may be overly generous because illegal aliens voluntarily reduce their spendable income
by sending remittances to family members in their homeland. As a result they are more inclined than the general
public to avoid expenditures that result in excise tax collection. For example, rather than driving to a job, they
are more likely to take a municipal bus that operates with a significant subsidy paid by the taxpayer. The illegal
alien thereby avoids some or all of the gasoline tax and is likely adding to the fiscal deficit at the local level.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 187 of 201
December 2013
Con Counters: Economic gains exaggerated
Illegal aliens are currently responsible for a massive net loss in government spending. JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
As detailed above, federal outlays resulting from illegal migration amount to about $29 billion per year. Those
costs are only partly offset by tax collections of about $9.5 billion from that same population. At the state level,
the outlays amount to about $84 billion annually and tax collection by state and local governments amount to
about $4 billion. Thus the combined federal/state net outlay for services and benefits provided to illegal aliens
amounts to nearly $100 billion annually.
Economic output by illegal aliens do not compensate for the costs associated with their
presence. JCD
Martin, Jack, and Eric A. Ruark. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United
States Taxpayers. Rep. Federation for American Immigration Reform, July 2010.
Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Apologists for illegal aliens argue that allowance should be made for the value of the goods and services they
produce as an offset to their fiscal costs. this is an economic focus rather than a fiscal focus. Besides, this
economic argument makes little sense because it assumes improbably that the jobs done by the illegal workers
would disappear if they were unavailable. That might be true for sweatshop and other marginal labor but not for
legitimate economic activity. Also, as the situation stands now, the company that is more threatened with being
forced out of business is one that is scrupulous in hiring legal workers and having to compete with a company
undercutting prices by hiring illegal workers.
Illegal immigrants significantly add to the poverty rate. JCD
Feere, Jon. "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global
Comparison."Backgrounders and Reports. Center for Immigration Studies, Aug.
2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2013
Despite taxpayers’ assistance, approximately 59 percent of illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children live in or
near poverty. In total, 21.5 million immigrants (legal and illegal) and their young children live in or near
poverty. In California, Arizona, Texas, and Colorado illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children account for
roughly a fifth of those in poverty.7 Ultimately, treating the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens as citizens has
the statistical effect of increasing the percentage of U.S. citizens living in poverty.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 188 of 201
December 2013
Con Counters: Economic gains exaggerated
Even low skilled legal immigrants lead to a net economic deficit, indicating legalization will
not solve this issue. JCD
Rector, Robert, Christine Kim, and Shanea Watkins. The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill
Households to the U.S. Taxpayer. Rep. The Heritage Foundation, 4 Apr. 2007. Web.
01 Nov. 2013.
In FY 2004, the average low skill immigrant household received $30,160 in direct benefits, means-tested
benefits, education, and population-based services from all levels of government. By contrast, low-skill
immigrant households paid only $10,573 in taxes in FY 2004. A household's net fiscal deficit equals the cost of
benefits and services received minus taxes paid. The average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $19,588
(expenditures of $30,160 minus $10,573 in taxes).
Economic Benefits of Immigrants Negligible
Hanson, Gordon. The Economics and Policy of Illegal Immigration in the United States.
Rep. National Bureau of Economic Research, Dec. 2009. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
Despite all this, illegal immigration’s overall impact on the US economy is small. Low-skilled native workers
who compete with unauthorized immigrants are the clearest losers. US employers, on the other hand, gain from
lower labor costs and the ability to use their land, capital, and technology more productively. The stakes are
highest for the unauthorized immigrants themselves, who see very substantial income gains after migrating. If
we exclude these immigrants from the calculus, however (as domestic policymakers are naturally inclined to
do), the small net gain that remains after subtracting US workers’ losses from US employers’ gains is tiny. And
if we account for the small fiscal burden that unauthorized immigrants impose, the overall economic benefit is
close enough to zero to be essentially a wash. (1)
Applying standard economic methods, the surplus from illegal immigration, or the net gain to US workers and
employers exclusive of any labor income paid to the unauthorized immigrants themselves, is approximately
0.03 percent of US GDP.19 The arriving labor does contribute to a significantly larger expansion in overall US
GDP, as unauthorized workers increase the total amount of output the US economy generates. But the vast
majority of this additional wealth goes to unauthorized immigrants themselves, leaving only a small gain in US
native income. This small income gain to US employers (net of the wages losses to US workers) results
primarily from the modest scale of illegal immigration in the overall workforce (7)
foundationbriefs.com
Page 189 of 201
December 2013
Con Counters: Economic gains exaggerated
Legalization will not lead to significantly more government revenue, DAT
“The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local
Governments.” Congressional Budget Office. December 2007. Web.
Data from the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) suggest that some
unauthorized immigrants use false or fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers (SSNs) to satisfy
paperwork requirements during the hiring process and that employers use those numbers to withhold federal,
state, and local income and payroll taxes for employees. Workers who do not qualify for SSNs can use
Individual Tax Identification Numbers issued by the IRS to file tax returns, make payments, and apply for
refunds. Although there are no reliable data on unauthorized immigrants’ rate of compliance with tax
laws, the IRS estimates that about 6 million unauthorized immigrants file individual income tax returns
each year. Other researchers estimate that between 50 percent and 75 percent of unauthorized
immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes.
Illegal status cannot be equated with a failure to provide non-requisite revenue (e.g. sales tax) to the
government.
Guest worker programs already in place that are supposed to boost economy don’t work.
LOR
Seminara, Dave. "Legalizing Illegal Immigrants a Bad Idea." Chicago Tribune. Chicago
Tribune, 08 Feb. 2013. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.
We already have guest worker programs that don't work. The Senate plan calls for more guest workers with
the hollow promise that employers will be able to petition for them only if they can demonstrate that Americans
are "unavailable or unwilling" to fill the positions. We already have the H-2A visa, a numerically unlimited
guest worker program for farm workers, the H-2B visa for unskilled workers, the H-1B visa for high-skilled
workers and a host of other visa opportunities for investors, entrepreneurs and even religious workers.
Employers know how to game the system to create a phony case that American workers are unavailable. The
new system will only intensify the "in-sourcing" trend where U.S. employers import cheaper guest workers for
jobs they can't outsource.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 190 of 201
December 2013
Con Counters: Process problems
Problems with the Process of Citizenship for
Undocumented Immigrants
1986 Provision Requiring Immigrants to Learn English was Unsuccessful AMS
Jon Feere. “Five Myths About Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants in Senate Bill.” Center for
Immigration Studies.May 15, 2013. http://cis.org/feere/5-myths-about-amnestyillegal-immigrants-senate-bill
The 1986 amnesty also required some applicants to “learn English,” but in practice, attendance at a
handful of classes was sufficient for the majority of them to meet this requirement. After the law’s
passage, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) weakened the language requirements
administratively, substantially reducing the number of people who had to meet the requirement.
The INS decided that illegal immigrants who were over 64 years old or under age 16 did not have to prove they
could speak English, nor did illegal immigrants over age 50 who claimed to have been in the country for 20
years. Those with at least a high school diploma were also exempted.
The INS also decided that completing 40 hours of an English/civics program met the amnesty’s
requirements. While it is unclear how the Obama administration would interpret the language
requirements in the current Senate immigration bill (which include exemptions similar to those found in
the 1986 amnesty), it is unlikely that any illegal immigrant will be denied amnesty for not knowing how to
properly conjugate a verb.
If pro teams argue that immigrants could be assimilated by using a language requirement, con teams can
respond by explaining how that requirement failed in 1986.
Government not Equipped to Handle Amnesty Process AMS
JonFeere.“Five Myths About Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants in Senate Bill.” Center for
Immigration Studies.May 15, 2013. http://cis.org/feere/5-myths-about-amnestyillegal-immigrants-senate-bill
History suggests that the government does not have the capacity to carefully vet those who apply for
amnesty. The 1986 amnesty resulted in the rubber stamping of hundreds of thousands of fraudulent
applications. It also gave legal status to an illegal immigrant who would become the ringleader of the 1993
World Trade Center attack; his new status allowed him to travel freely around the world and pick up terrorist
training. Certainly not all illegal immigrants are terrorists, but the government’s track record on keeping
problematic individuals out of the country is not trouble-free.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 191 of 201
December 2013
Con Counters: Process problems
Additionally, under the current Senate bill, crimes like identity theft and vandalism are not considered
serious enough to deny a person amnesty, despite the fact that such crimes create real victims. In fact,
two misdemeanors on an applicant’s rap sheet do not result in legal status being denied; and under the bill
multiple misdemeanors could be counted as “one” strike, provided they occur on the same day. And any
problematic history an illegal immigrant has in his home country is unlikely to be uncovered.
Illegal immigrants Would not be Required to Pay a Fine AMS
Jon Feere. “Five Myths About Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants in Senate Bill.” Center for
Immigration Studies.May 15, 2013. http://cis.org/feere/5-myths-about-amnestyillegal-immigrants-senate-bill
As to the fees, the bill does not outline what the fees would be – and there are waivers. The bill simply
notes that illegal immigrants aged 16 and older who want legal status will have to pay a fee “in an amount
determined by [DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano].” While it is unclear how much the fee would be, the bill says
it should be enough to cover processing the applications. But in the next section, the bill gives Ms. Napolitano
the power to limit the fee and to exempt “classes of individuals” altogether. With such broad authority granted
by Congress, it is unclear whether this fee will even apply to most amnesty applicants.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services already offers waivers for those who cannot afford certain fees.
In fact, the Obama administration created a form for such waivers in 2010, and similar waivers may
apply to any future amnesty.
To obtain a fee waiver for some existing immigration benefits, applicants simply must show that they are
currently using a welfare program. Our estimates, which are based on Census data, show that 71 percent of
illegal immigrant households with children make use of one form of welfare.
As for the fine – or "penalty" – the current version of the Senate immigration bill requires illegal immigrants to
pay $500 for the initial probationary legal status and another fine of $500 six years later. If a person wants to
switch from this provisional legal status to green card status (and eventual US citizenship), he or she will have
to pay a $1,000 fine many years down the road. But there are many exceptions.
For example, a person of any age who claims to have entered the US before age 16 and has a high school
degree or GED does not have to pay. Finally, people under 21 years of age are also exempted. Furthermore, it
is likely that some non-profits will assist applicants in paying the fines – some of which will be using taxpayerprovided funds to do so. The bill actually grants such groups $150 million to help illegal immigrants apply
for the amnesty. In reality, the fine may not be much of a punishment at all.
Although some have claimed that the bill will penalize illegal immigrants with a small fine, there are
many exceptions for this fine. In fact, overall the bill grants $150 million to assist with illegal immigrants’
application process. This is an unfair advantage for immigrants that have violated United States border
laws.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 192 of 201
December 2013
Con Counters: Process problems
Practical problems with proposed Senate plan for pathway. LOR
Seminara, Dave. "Legalizing Illegal Immigrants a Bad Idea." Chicago Tribune. Chicago
Tribune, 08 Feb. 2013. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.
A surge of document and identity fraud. Amnesty applicants will have to jump through a number of
bureaucratic hoops to secure green cards, and those who don't qualify will scramble to create a paper trail to
meet the requirements.
Half the problem won't be addressed. Up to half of all illegal immigrants in the U.S. are visa overstays. Most
abuse tourist visas, but the Senate plan won't fix the overstay problem. The framework calls for an entry-exit
system, but it doesn't specify how overstays will be located and removed. In 2012, about 75 percent of all
tourist visa applicants were approved, and in Mexico the figure was 90 percent. Even if the border is secured,
rampant abuse of temporary visas will continue as long as lax visa issuance is the norm.
Amnesty beneficiaries won't be "joining the back of the line." The plan refers to a "line" even though no
such thing exists. In most cases, migrants qualify to live here based on a family relationship or a job. The Senate
plan speciously claims that illegal immigrants won't receive their green cards until "every individual who is
already waiting in line for a green card ... has received their green card."
When an American citizen files a petition for a foreign sibling to join him in the U.S., for example, the average
wait time for that migrant to get a green card is 12 to 14 years. No serious plan is going to ask amnesty
beneficiaries to wait a decade or longer to get a green card.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 193 of 201
December 2013
Con Counters: Labor unions
Undocumented Workers Strengthen Organized Labor
Labor unions can gain ground by embracing immigrants of all classification, DAT
Briggs., Vernon M., Jr. “Illegal Immigration and the DIlemma of American Unions.”
History News Network. George Mason University. N.D. Web.
http://hnn.us/article/137301
The AFL-CIO Executive Committee in 2000 it proclaimed that it is now “on the side of immigrant workers.” It
announced that it favored repeal of the sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants as well as another
generous amnesty for illegal immigrants currently in the country.
The historic reversal in its stance on immigration was due to the fact that organized labor was keenly aware that
its membership rolls were falling. In response, major changes were made in the leadership of the AFL-CIO as
well as in that of many national unions in the 1990s. These new leaders pledged to reverse this trend. With
illegal immigrants flooding into the country and, largely for political reasons, the federal government
unwilling to take any meaningful steps to combat the phenomenon, labor could either stick to its
traditional position; or they could switch sides. They chose to become part of the “pro-immigrant”
political coalition and hope that these new immigrant workers (and their supporters) will reward these
efforts by fighting to become union members and for pro-labor causes. Unions, after all, do not hire
workers; employers do. If employers are going to hire available illegal immigrants (who they often prefer over
citizen workers) and the federal government refuses to keep them out of both the work force and the country,
they concluded that they had to become immigrant friendly.
It can be an easy logical conclusion to make for pro teams that the presence of a labor underclass in the
form of undocumented workers undermines the efforts of organized labor. This attitude, built on an
assumption of mutual exclusivity, doesn’t have to weigh down con teams.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 194 of 201
December 2013
Con Counters: Labor unions
The greatest potential for union expansion lies in foreign-born workers, DAT
Ludden, Jennifer. “Labor Unions Now Recruiting Immigrant Workers.” NPR. 4
November 2008. Web.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96191758
Undocumented workers in particular have long been considered "unorganizable," according to Ruth Milkman,
who heads UCLA's Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.
Milkman says that not only is it assumed these workers are here temporarily and therefore not interested in
investing in a union, but that they're also too worried that if their legal status were discovered, they'd be fired.
Milkman says these are real concerns. And stepped-up federal immigration raids have probably heightened
fears. But Milkman says recruiters have learned something else, too.
"As one immigrant worker I once interviewed told me, she said 'In [El Salvador], if you organize a union, they
kill you,' " she says. "Here, you lose a job that pays the minimum wage."
In fact, Milkman says, studies show foreign-born workers are more receptive to joining a union than the
native born.
And she's seen that eagerness grow since the spring of 2006. That's when immigrant workers flooded the streets
of major cities, pushing Congress to overhaul immigration laws. Milkman says the labor movement took note.
"Here they are in a situation where union density is going down, down, down every year. And you see literally
millions of people in the streets, demanding their rights, organizing collectively," Milkman says. "Anybody in
the labor movement who hadn't gotten it before that, about immigrant organizing, certainly did appreciate the
potential."
foundationbriefs.com
Page 195 of 201
Cases
foundationbriefs.com
Page 196 of 201
December 2013
Pro Contentions
Pro Case
Introduction:
We affirm Resolved: Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants
currently living in the United States. For clarity we will define the following terms. Path to citizenship is a
series of steps taken to prepare an illegal immigrant to meet the standard requirements for naturalization as
outlined by the US Citizens and Immigration Services.
Contention One: Illegal Immigration needs to be addressed
immediately
Sub-point A: Providing citizenship for illegals would solve problems they currently cause for society. From an
economic standpoint, the prevention of undocumented workers from attaining legal status benefits nobody.
According to Ali Noorani of the Huffing ton Post, “Our immigrant detention policies not only lock up the
financial contributions of immigrants, but also cost us $5 million per day.” Moreover, from an ethical
standpoint allowing this supposed underclass to exist without citizenship undermines workers right’s as a
whole. The Center for American Progress found nearly 8.3 million workers are in this position, subject to
exploitation. Granting this population citizenship status would significantly reduce these harms in the current
system. Sub-point B: This new legal status would yield new unique benefits. For example, the Center for
American Progress noted the higher earning power of newly legalized workers translates into an increase in net
personal income of $30 to $36 billion, which would generate $4.5 to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue.
As a result, the increase in personal income of this scale would generate consumer spending sufficient to
support 750,000 to 900,000 jobs —particularly in industries where large numbers of easily exploited, low-wage,
unauthorized immigrants currently work. The impact here is huge. Providing citizenship would help the total
economic output of the US increase dramatically. According to the Center for American Progress, the result of
legalization would be a cumulative increase of $1.5 trillion in gross domestic product over 10 years, through
increased consumer spending, higher tax receipts, and other related factors.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 197 of 201
December 2013
Pro Contentions
Contention Two: Citizenship is the best option to deal with the issue
Marshall Fitz of the Center for American Progress reports that the issue of illegal immigration is likely to be
dealt with in one of three ways. The first involves ignoring the issue and settling for the status quo, which we
have shown to be undesirable. The second is to provide citizenship and the last is to strengthen current
enforcement measures such as deportation and detention. Sub-point A: Deportation is completely infeasible.
First, trying to remove this massive population would cause a massive economic backlash, for the Center of
American Progress estimates that over five years this would take $200 billion not to mention an addition $85
billion to keep them out after the fact. Second, even if the money was somehow put together, as with other areas
of the deportation process, immigration courts are structurally flawed and severely ill equipped to serve the
current caseload. The sheer volume of cases that would have to be addressed would render mass deportation
logistically impossible. Sub-point B: Detainment is an undesirable solution. The Center for American Progress
writes, “Given the large number of detentions in jail spaces operated by various jurisdictions, ICE has had
difficulty managing the workload. There have been more than 100 documented deaths since October 2003, as
well as numerous cases of abuse. Alleged violators of civil codes in immigration law are frequently imprisoned
in facilities that were designed for offenders of more serious and violent crimes.” Clearly the people being
detained are being subjected to inhumane conditions. By magnifying the scope, with limited funding and even
more limited oversight, this problem will become much worse. In addition, the Center for American Progress
finds access to legal counsel is uneven at best, and information about problems within the detention system has
been suppressed. “While DHS has made a concerted effort to start correcting the issues, its overwhelming
caseload has prevented it from making rapid progress on reforms.” The impact here is clear. The other options
available to dealing with the issue of illegal immigration are clearly not desirable, rendering the path to
citizenship as the best and only feasible option.
Contention Three: Providing Citizenship would correct previous
injustices in the current immigration process
Sharita Gruberg of the Center for American Progress reports that ambiguity with a 1 year time limit in the
current asylum provisions of immigration law lead to roughly 20% of asylum claims being rejected and thus
putting nearly 80,000 in the illegal immigrant population when they would otherwise have been granted legal
status. Furthermore, they find this disproportionately affects LGBT asylees fleeing oppressive foreign
governments further endangering them unjustly. Thus, te path to legalization would help serve justice for these
asylees.
From an economic, practical, and ethical standpoint, it is clear we should provide citizenship for
undocumented immigrants. Thus, we urge a pro ballot.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 198 of 201
December 2013
Con Contentions
Con Case
Introduction:
With respect to immigration, the United States has a problem that currently manifests itself in at least
two different forms: 1) America’s existing legislation is absurdly complex and has led to the propagation of a
dysfunctional immigration system, and 2) There are currently (at least) 11 million illegal immigrants currently
residing in the country, which presents its own set of issues. The solution to the first problem has been
immigration reform. The solution to the second has thus far been a proposed path to citizenship, tucked within
immigration reform. But a path to citizenship, which we define today as a means by which every illegal
immigrant residing in the country can easily obtain citizenship in a short amount of time and without excessive
difficulty, is not the optimal solution. It is one that, despite seemingly being an easy solution, presents the
country with its own host of issues. It is for this reason that we negate the resolution.
Contention One: A path to citizenship is untenably costly
The nation, as a whole, is collectively tightening its belt. We look for money-saving solutions
everywhere. The economy is recovering, albeit slowly, and the government faces a shutdown due to budgetary
standoffs annually, at the least. Needless to say, this is not the time for the country to be economically
hemorrhaging, in any form. This is exactly what promises to occur, however, with the implementation of a path
to citizenship. The implicit impact of a path to citizenship is that every illegal immigrant currently residing in
the country will be a citizen at some point. This is unacceptable, financially. As noted by Gary Brugless of the
Brookings Institution, the social security-covered earnings of illegal immigrants can’t actually lead to increased
claims on their behalf. Given the incoming insolvency of social security and the increased draw resulting from
newly-naturalized former illegal aliens being able to draw from the fund, this would doom the system far earlier
than expected. This doesn’t even begin to cover the costs to the American people. We must remember in this
debate that naturalization is an active endorsement of illegal immigrants to remain in the country. When this
occurs, it will essentially be the equivalent of a mass influx of immigrants to the country, as illegal aliens are
essentially welcomed. And analyses by Borjas of the Quarterly Journal of Economics found that up to a nearly
9% wage decrease for American workers without a college education was correlated with large rises in
immigrant labor in the domestic market. For the United States to shoehorn a path to citizenship into
immigration reform would be a veritable slap to the face of American blue collar workers
foundationbriefs.com
Page 199 of 201
December 2013
Con Contentions
Contention Two: Naturalization brings uncertainty and ancillary
consequences
Part of the trouble with a path to citizenship is that with 11 million illegal immigrants suddenly hitting
the books after amnesty, there is the potential for massive consequences (e.g. for less educated American
workers, as previously noted). There are also more subtle paradigm shifts that may occur and will damage the
United States for years to come. One of those is an irrevocable contortion of the United States’ ideals. As put by
David S. Addington of the Heritage Foundation, “Amnesty comes in many forms, but in all its variations, it
discourages respect for the law, treats law-breaking aliens better than law-following aliens, and encourages
future unlawful immigration into the United States.” The United States operates on the premise that regardless
of where one is from, one has an opportunity to be naturalized and thrive in the country. Amnesty in any form
subverts this notion. Amnesty is based on preference being allotted based on the accident of geography. Natives
of eastern Europe, Africa, or any part of the world not adjoining the United States find it physically impossible
to enter the country en masse, illegally. This means essentially that the United States, in offering amnesty to
those that are here illegally, is operating on an overt premise that validates not just rule-breaking, but
geographic favoritism. Amnesty also promises to hinder innovative progress in industries that rely on immigrant
labor. Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, for instance, notes that in agricultural industries
such as raisin farming, an abundance of cheap foreign labor has precluded the use of more efficient and
advanced machinery to develop and be put into use. For the U.S. to amnesty the cheap labor here would be an
acknowledgment and tacit endorsement of such a practice, crippling the incentive for innovation even further.
The United States cannot afford to lose either ideological or technical footing on a global scale, and a path to
citizenship would be conducive to both such phenomena
Contention Three: A path to citizenship is an inferior and suboptimal
solution to the United States’ problems
The presence of a massive population of undocumented people within the United States’ borders is,
without question, something that needs to be address. The con acknowledges that amnesty is not without its
advantages. However, the fundamental reason for why it ought to be omitted from any pending reforms, aside
from its already-mentioned negatives making it a wash, is that embracing amnesty precludes the use of far
superior options. One such possibility is a rapidly enhanced guest worker, allowing the United States to
essentially treat undocumented workers as temporary labor and act accordingly. This has a gamut of
advantages. Kerry Howley of the Reason Foundation notes that the adoption of massive guest worker programs
typically kicks money back to host countries (in this case, Latin American ones). The United States already
spends billions across anti-drug programs and social aid programs which try to alleviate problems domestically
by fixing them in origin countries. The adoption of such a guest worker program would thus be an economic
gain for U.S. employers while fulfilling U.S. goals and ideals of regional stabilization. Nick Miroff of the
foundationbriefs.com
Page 200 of 201
December 2013
Con Contentions
Washington Post goes on to note that because U.S. farms already pay at least minimum wage, a guest worker
program of massive scale wouldn’t present additional cost as a result of status changes for those who are
otherwise here illegally. The United States could thus have affordable labor without resorting to amnesty
The United States can thus offer appropriately-paid jobs, encourage innovation, maintain its global
ideals, and keep the economic solvency of its social problems while appropriately addressing the issue of illegal
immigration and illegal immigrants. The United States requires a solution; in a path to citizenship, it will only
find a compounding of related problems. It is for this reason we urge a con ballot.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 201 of 201